Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2013 Archives by date, by thread · List index

On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 14:59:05 -0400
"Virgil Arrington" <> wrote:

Kracked_P_P---webmaster wrote:

This is painfully apparent in the various program managers and
repositories. At first, I thought it was really cool to use, say, an
Ubuntu software manager to simply search for and click on a program
to install. It *really* does work slick... until I realized that I've
just installed a program that's more than one or two generations old.
It's worth noting that this may be especially true for LO (I don't
know either way), and some other software that releases often, but it's
not true for all software in repositories.

To get the latest version (even the latest stable version) means
downloading multiple files, and running all those "Sudo" commands.
This depends on the software and how they package it. Again, it may be
especially true for LO, but not for all software.

On both Windows and linux, one can build from source to get the
bleeding edge, and that is an involved process for both OSen.

Barring that, on Windows one relies on using the latest packaged
install file (which usually is *not* the absolute latest code), and on
linux one relies on either the latest developer's package, or the latest
repository package. The difference is that on Windows the latest
installer is usually built by the developers themselves, and therefore
is mostly current, whereas the repository package for linux is built by
a third party, and therefore lags behind (to varying degrees). *If* the
developers themselves have built a package for your distro, then it is
sometimes current, and sometimes lags behind the Windows one because
they are not as interested in linux (usually due to lack of demand),
and it can be just as easy to install as the Windows installer, or more
difficult, depending on how the developers chose to build the package.

There is nothing inherent in linux that makes it harder (barring the
sheer number of distros; see below), it depends purely on how much
effort the developers are willing to go to for any particular linux

One big difference is the number of linux distros, which makes it
harder to release software that will meet every linux user's needs. On
windows, mostly the different versions all work the same (*mostly*),
and one installer will suffice, but on linux that isn't the case, which
is why packaging is sometimes left up to repository maintainers, and
then the current-ness (is that even a word?) of the software depends on
how interested in the software those maintainers are. While this is
true even for software that has no windows version, this basically
boils down to "Windows is more popular, so people put more effort into
making stuff easier".

I've even had quite the opposite case with some software that was
released primarily for linux, and I've had to get my Windows install
from a third party. In that case the windows install lagged quite a bit
behind the linux one.

Just saying, the harder time installing on linux may be true of LO, but
is surely not the case for all software. It largely depends on the
amount of effort the developers are willing to put in for your
preferred distro/OS.


To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.