• azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
      9·
      1 month ago

      Running Linux on closed source hardware. Classic.

      I bet you aren’t even using your own open RISC-V based SBC, with fully open-source peripherals. Is your computer monitor even running an open-source firmware or are you just a FOSS poser?

      • morrowind@lemmy.ml
        3·
        1 month ago

        Using computers with closed source biology. Classic.

        I bet you haven’t even engineered your own DNA-II, fully-sequenced, libre-licensed microbiome with open source biochemical pathways. Are your eyes even running an open-source neural firmware, or are you just a FOSS poser?

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
          1·
          1 month ago

          Using computers with closed source biology. Classic.

          Hey now, biology is pretty definitively open source. Every generation produces small patches of varying quality (mutations) and for most organisms the source is freely distributed to create new builds (reproduction). I mean if no one is downloading your genetic repo that’s largely a you problem (natural selection) not a biology problem.

        • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
          0·
          1 month ago

          Using biology on closed source chemistry. Classic. I bet you didn’t even roll your own proton mass or bother configuring your own valence shells. Are you even running your own coulomb law policies, or are you just a FOSS poser?

          • rosco385@lemm.eeEnglish
            1·
            1 month ago

            I don’t have a witty reply, but these kinds of threads were the best part of reddit. So glad to have shitposters like you all here on Lemmy.

      • herrvogel@lemmy.world
        2·
        1 month ago

        No. You either go full Stallman and inject Gentoo directly into your aorta, or you might as well be deep throating Satya Nutella while bouncing on Tim Apple’s lap. Filthy casual.

      • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        1·
        1 month ago

        Agreed, OSS purity is silly. I am running an open source client (Thunder) to this open source service on my Pixel 9 running GraphineOS, the low level firmware is still absolutely proprietary.

        • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          1 month ago

          Actually, to be clear, I don’t think FOSS purity is bad. I just mean that denigrating what others are doing because they’re using something non-free while they’re making steps in the right direction is dumb and counterproductive.

          To my mind, FOSS is the only way forward for a healthy, functioning society, and the fact that so much of our digital landscape is being gradually replaced with it is to me evidence of that. I think the end goal should always be pure FOSS, but that doesn’t (necessarily) mean immediately jumping to all FOSS; it just means taking steps to cut out proprietary software wherever you reasonably can.

  • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
    81·
    1 month ago

    Hot take: I hate when software just extracts an executable.
    Fucking install it so that it’s registered with the software updater and uninstaller. Don’t make me remember that I have to go hunting in the folder to delete this one app.

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      8·
      1 month ago

      Assuming you are on Windows, the proper install method is to run

      winget install -e --id BlenderFoundation.Blender

      • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
        24·
        1 month ago

        Cool, that doesn’t help because I don’t actually want blender.

        I’m commenting on how much I hate when software is provided as just a portable executable.

        I know that a lot of the time they’re also provided as flatpaks or debs or in snap or windows app store, or Apple app store, etc.
        But I’m talking about doing the thing that is being described in the image: unpacking a portable executable.

    • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
      5·
      1 month ago

      Kind of a moot point since most windows programs don’t have a centralized hub for updates either, even when “properly installed” in program files.

      • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
        21·
        1 month ago

        Not really moot, no.

        A portable executable can have neither of those things. It also won’t show up in the start menu app list.

        With an installer, it’ll at least show up in the uninstaller, with an install size that I can see when I’m looking to uninstall things, and it’ll at least show up in the app list.

        But they could also package it through the app store where you get all that plus centralized update management.
        But I’d be happy with just having it show up in the app list and uninstaller.

        • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
          2·
          1 month ago

          It absolutely can, I have several portable apps with self updating ability built in, when I use them it prompts me if I want to update or not, I personally appreciate that in certain cases.

          I do dislike when they throw config files all over the place, so cleanup becomes very messy if I need to remove something.

          Again tho, natively on windows there isn’t a great way to do that anyway, the windows store sucks and not many will use the package managers via cmd either.

          • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
            11·
            1 month ago

            I’m gonna be a bit rude here because you’re not reading what I wrote.

            I did not say that such apps cannot be updated, I said that they’re not updated through a central update manager. So I don’t give a flying fuck if you implemented your own custom app updater in your app because that’s clearly and explicitly not what I’m talking about.

            I also don’t give a fuck about throwing config files all over the place, since a) the uninstall script takes care of that and b) this doesn’t have to be specific to windows. Having an installer doesn’t mean that configs must be thrown everywhere. Afaict apt-get isn’t throwing files everywhere.

            Again I don’t really give a fuck about windows, but saying it hat it’s not possible because people don’t use the tool that makes it possible is fucking inane bullshit. Idk why you think the windows store “sucks” and I don’t really give a fuck, it works fine as a user, even if I don’t personally use it.

            • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
              1·
              1 month ago

              Lmao alright bud, there’s really no reason to get so worked up about this.

              I did read what you wrote, just gave alternate aspects of the conversation from my viewpoint, that’s generally how discussions work.

              I find it a bit funny you say the windows store is fine yet haven’t/don’t use it, not sure how you can talk about it’s functionality from a point of ignorance so strongly.

              I understand your viewpoint and even agreed, simply also stating I appreciate portable applications, some things they can implement that mitigate the need for a centralized update location, and some of the downsides I’ve come across while using them (that do play into your point, that a centralized way of managing them is cleaner if implented properly)

    • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
      3·
      1 month ago
      1. You don’t need an uninstaller if deleting the folder suffices
      2. You don’t want some software to update.
      • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
        1·
        1 month ago

        I know I don’t NEED an uninstaller. I want to use the uninstaller I already have for all my other apps.

        Let me have a consistent user experience.
        Automatically figure out the right spot for the app resources and set the appropriate file permissions.
        Show up in the list of installed applications, so I can sort them by size, if I’m running out of space.
        Don’t make me jump through hoops or know the magical directory I need to put it in, in order to have it show up in the start menu or app drawer.

    • vithigar@lemmy.ca
      2·
      1 month ago

      Some people prefer it.

      I maintain a small piece of Windows software and originally just provided an installer, but I received enough requests for it that now when I publish releases I provide both an installer and a zipped portable build.

    • pHr34kY@lemmy.world
      1·
      1 month ago

      AppImage is absolute chaos. Like, there’s an entire application floating on my desktop and it doesn’t have an icon, doesn’t appear in my list of apps, doesn’t update and has its own copy of libraries that are on my system, but aren’t managed or updated.

      It’s even better when I can’t find a program that I thought I had installed. I go on the internet, find the site, and realise it’s appimage. I download the file just to find I already had it, and it was in my downloads directory.

      Just package your program properly FFS.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      1·
      1 month ago

      If it’s good software for a larger program it will execute an install program that does register it. Other stuff should go in a specific folder so you can review what’s there.

    • SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org
      2·
      1 month ago

      Exactly! And every proprietary software is by definition perfect cause it is subject to the forces of the open market. Subway eat fresh and freeze, scumbag!

    • melfie@lemmings.worldEnglish
      1·
      21 days ago

      It’s a jack of all trades for sure, but it also has features paid software doesn’t, like its 2d animation system with Grease Pencil. There are also paid extensions on BlenderMarket and the like that make it more competitive with more specialized features in other software. Extensions are GPL licensed, so I’m happy to pay for them as opposed to the rest of the toxic CG ecosystem where everything is subscription-only.

      Edit:

      I wish all paid software were GPL. It’s nice buying something and being able to look at and change the code, write code that calls their code, or even snag a bit of it for to use in your own thing.

  • MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    0·
    1 month ago

    On a somewhat related note, why do so many open source projects give me a zip file with a single exe inside it instead of just the exe directly?

        • AeonFelis@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          1 month ago

          This is true for the code part, but executables can also contain data does compress well and maybe not be compressed inside the EXE (e.g. - to avoid the need to decompress it on every run)

            • AeonFelis@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              1 month ago

              I’ve been on Linux for so long, I already forgot about having to download a zip file with an installer that installs a downloader that downloads and installs the actual application.

    • rtxn@lemmy.world
      8·
      1 month ago

      It’s literally how Blender is distributed. Get archive, extract wherever, run blender.

      • Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org
        43·
        1 month ago

        I don’t really like the way software installation is centralized on Linux. It feels like, Windows being the proprietary system, they don’t really care about how you get things to run. Linux the other hand cares about it a lot. Either you have to write your own software or interact with their ‘trusted sources’.

        I would prefer if it was easier to simply run an executable file on my personal Linux machine.

        • zogrewaste_@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          3·
          1 month ago

          Do you know about AppImages? Seems like those meet the need you’re complaining about.

          You still have to set the executable flag for them, but you can do that through the graphic user interface. No need to open a terminal.

        • folekaule@lemmy.world
          3·
          1 month ago

          You can still do that on Linux. Just download it and run. You can even compile it from source if that’s your thing.

          However, because there is a much greater variety of Linux distros and dependencies compared to Windows or MacOS versions, it’s better to either have a Flatpak, AppImage, or package from your distro’s repo. That way you’re ensured that it will work without too much fiddling around.

        • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
          3·
          1 month ago

          You can also just download any binary file you find online and run it. Or use any install.sh script you happen to find anywhere.

          Package managers are simply a convenient offer to manage packages with their dynamically linked libraries and keep them up to date (important for security). But it’s still just an offer.

        • CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de
          1·
          1 month ago

          Software Installation is all but centralized on Linux. Sure, there is your store or package manager, but both Apple and Windows do have that, too. But you can always add any source you want to that store (flatpak is great), find an AppImage, some doubious install script, find your own packages and manually install them (like .deb), use Steam or sometimes, like with Blender, download, decompress and run it.

        • NaibofTabr@infosec.pubEnglish
          0·
          1 month ago

          As others have pointed out you can do this, but there are at least two major advantages to the way Linux distributions use package managers:

          1. Shared libraries - on Windows most binaries will have their own code libraries rolled into them, which means that every program which uses that library has installed a copy of it on your hard drive, which is highly inefficient and wastes a lot of hard drive space, and means that when a new version of the library is released you still have to wait for each program developer to implement it in a new version of their binary. On Linux, applications installed via the package manager can share a single copy of common dependencies like code libraries, and that library can be updated separately from the applications that use it.

          2. Easy updating - on Windows you would have to download new versions of each program individually and install them when a new version is released. If you don’t do this regularly in today’s internet-dependent world, you expose your system to a lot of vulnerabilities. With a Linux package manager you can simply issue the update command (e.g. sudo apt upgrade) and the package manager will download all the new versions of the applications and install them for you.

        • sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works
          0·
          1 month ago

          The difference between a package manager and an app store is that the package manager allows you to pick your own sources. You can even run your own repository if you wanted to.

      • DannyBoy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        0·
        1 month ago

        Yeah but then I get an ancient version because I use Debian.

        I think the last time I used Blender I installed it through Steam.

        • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
          0·
          1 month ago

          You got downvoted by the Linux fanboys, but it’s not wrong. Linux has a big issue with approachability… And one of the biggest reasons is that average Windows users think you need to be some sort of 1337 hackerman to even boot it, because it still relies on the terminal.

          For those who know it, it’s easier. But for those who don’t, it feels like needing to learn hieroglyphs just to boot your programs. If Linux truly wants to become the default OS, it needs to be approachable to the average user. And the average user doesn’t even know how to access their email if the Chrome desktop icon moves.

          • Matriks404@lemmy.world
            1·
            1 month ago

            You don’t really need to use any command-line interface or commands if you are running beginner-friendly Linux distro (Linux Mint, Zorin OS, etc.). Well, maybe except when things go very bad, but that’s very rare if you use your system like average user.

  • Shipairtime@lemmy.world
    0·
    1 month ago

    I just got blender after having last looked at it ten years ago. It looks so much better! I had an easy time finding stuff. If you tried it in the past and are afraid of how ugly it was it is worth another shot. Also look up the doughnut tutorial.