(Although I don't really like the idea of Flatpak applications being distributed as files becoming popular, because I'd rather developers submit their apps to Flathub or somewhere similar so that they're still usable via remote management tools.) What is fundamentally difficult about this?īasically sounds okay to me and I don't see why it couldn't be done. > Keep runtimes in "installations" and let applications exists as single-directory self-contained units wherever the user wants them. Something like Flatpak can address the problems with AppBundles in a way that clones like AppImage can't. pkg installers only do a few extra things around the edges.) (Casks get to be neater and faster because the AppBundle design almost works, so most. Homebrew Casks are neater than something like Chocolatey, but they're essentially the same kind of wrapper around custom install tools which come from publishers and can basically do whatever they want. I thought about including a section about the case on macOS (similar to the one in this comment), but I didn't do so because you mentioned Windows and not macOS in your original comment here.To get decent software management on macOS, you end up having to build automation on top of the AppBundle system, and what is required for every package can be totally custom. You mentioned that Windows is the desktop operating system you're currently using, so it seems Windows' application management norms must be acceptable to you. > It's weird that when you criticize something in Linux Desktop, for some reason its proponents always go all whataboutism on Windows.
To get decent software management on macOS, you end up having to build automation on top of the AppBundle system, and what is required for every package can be totally custom.
0 kommentar(er)
