Appimages are the solution I’m aware of, but are scarce.
You must log in or register to comment.
I guess OP has never installed anything from an rpm or deb file.
/me inserts installation media
Will give this a try, given that .exe and other programs work flawlessly on all windows machines, I wonder if it the same with flatpak. (Installing/runninf software from a USB or micro-sd)
Well, you might find some old or obscure distributions, which don’t have Flatpak support. AppImage support would be even more widely available. Well, and self-contained executables or self-contained archives have always been an option, too. This meme is mostly just a fever dream. The only connection to reality it has, is that many applications for Linux don’t make use of these technologies, so it actually often is much harder to install something without internet access (or a local mirror of the repository).
TheQuantumPhysicist
It’s even much worse than that. Even if you, as a developer, create a completely static executable file, there’s no guarantee that glibc will have backwards compatibility. There was a story a while ago about a game that broke because the devs of glibc insisted on removing some hash function from the ABI. Leave alone differences between distros. Linux truly sucks in that regard.
Windows still can run 32-bit execs from 20+ years ago just fine. I built executable files for a project 10 years ago, and they still use it since Windows 7. No complaints whatsoever.
As a developer myself, I use Linux for software development. It’s great for that purpose. The package managers are great to find whatever dependency you need quickly. It’s great for servers too, to have authenticated software. But for home use, the desktop environments suck, and Linux sucks.
Even if you, as a developer, create a completely static executable file, there’s no guarantee that glibc will have backwards compatibility.
Creates a “completely static” binary. Still links dynamically to glibc instead of using musl or some other libc. Blames Linux.
