Linux
Welcome to c/linux!
Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!
Rules:
-
Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.
-
Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.
-
Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.
-
No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.
-
No NSFW adult content
-
Follow general lemmy guidelines.
view the rest of the comments
The lack of a universal application installation method which 98% of developers use. Windows has .exe and it makes it so much easier for developers to release one application which is dead simple for users to install. No instruction manual with different methods per distro. Just double click. This results in less support for Linux in general. Fewer games and applications an drivers with fewer features.
Poor backwards compatibility. Yes it results in bloat, but it also makes it much cheaper to develop for and maintain applications, and this results in more developers for Windows. More hardware and driver support. More applications. More games.
It is no mystery to me why developers don't focus more on Linux support. It's more expensive. They tell us this. What is so frustrating is that Linux fans are so quick to blame developers instead of focusing inwards and making Linux a more supportive platform for said developers.
That's not true. .exe isn't an installation method, it's just a binary, the better equivalent would be .msi. Also you also have to consider (some) dependencies on Windows, e.g. you can't assume the required vcredist is available on the target.
Not super sure about this. I was able to run an over 10 year old binary only game when I last tried (UT 2k4 in 2016 or so) and it worked after providing a single missing library. Yes, it did require manual intervention, but I think the situation is much better on Windows where compatibility also isn't granted anymore.
10 year old binaries are only an achievement on Macs.
I have been able to run Lotus Organizer on Windows 11, 20-30 years old and only runs on a FAT formatted partition of maximum 4GB.
I think one could argue this but it's immaterial. My point remains the same. The lack of a universal installation method makes deployment expensive on Linux, and confusing for users.
I can run a 1998 copy of StarCraft designed for Windows 98 on Windows 11. It's true there are degrees of backwards compatibility here, but Windows is king. They invest a lot of dev time into ensuring applications remain operational for decades. Their API deprecation policies are legendary.
If you're fine with an executable just writing stuff to your system, then .sh is Linux' universal installer format.
I agree, Microsoft has invested a lot into backwards compatibility and some nifty tricks to deal with DLL hell which was a huge issue in the past and as a result, provide the best backwards compatibility, as long as you stay on x86-64. Nowadays, each .exe basically sees its own sets of dlls in the filesystem. I agree it's best there. My point was rather that it's not as bad on Linux as people make it out to be if the application was packaged correctly. Going forward, I think stuff like Valve's Linux Runtime can provide compatibility.
I would be, but it's not enforced. Few developers use it. Any method needs to have almost total universal adoption. Then libraries get built around that standard instead of the other way around.
That's fair. It's getting better. Linus Torvalds agrees with you. Valve might have to save us from this fragmentation.