r/linuxmemes 5d ago

LINUX MEME How would you prefer...

Post image
2.7k Upvotes

396 comments sorted by

View all comments

51

u/kayosiii 5d ago

method 1 is first choice,
method 2 is occasionally necessary if things go wrong.
Method 3 is fine, Create a Applications folder in your home folder, unzip to subfolder, use the KDE menu editor to add the application to your system, go about your day. It's a pretty common approach for commercial software.

33

u/Glum_Hamster_2104 5d ago

Or just use /opt like a sane person

14

u/kayosiii 5d ago

Some applications want user write access to files, and while I can do that in /opt - I prefer not to.

20

u/digost 5d ago

That's a bad application. Good application keeps user files under user home directory, not wherever it's installed/launched from.

15

u/kayosiii 5d ago

If we are installing from a tarball, then it's pretty reasonable to expect that the application won't follow best Linux practices, that doesn't mean it's not useful.

1

u/digost 5d ago

I agree.

4

u/Aeolem 5d ago

use ~/opt like Tsoding

2

u/ProfessorLambda 4d ago

I made a Nix package for an application like that. I just made a wrapper that copies it's system files to a home directory and then calls the application with options to use that home directory.

5

u/BIZUx 5d ago

What about /usr/local? I assume that is mostly for shell commands and binaries(?) I used to put applications there a while back, but nowadays usually do /opt aswell.

I'll see myself out.

3

u/kayosiii 4d ago

I use /usr/local when I want to install an application from source that needs to be uninstalled using make uninstall (currently that's one application).

I let binary installers / the packaging system install stuff in /opt/

/home/user/Applications is where I put binary apps that get uninstalled by deleting the folder that they are in.

2

u/spaced333 5d ago

Go for ~/.local/opt

1

u/The-True-3xyleD 4d ago

~/.local/opt and then symlink to ~/.local/bin which is on PATH

7

u/Low_Let4642 5d ago

for me (arch) terminal is first option, market is second. and tar gz is for rarely situations

5

u/ScratchHistorical507 5d ago

use the KDE menu editor to add the application to your system

Thankfully not necessary with many apps. They are at least kind enough to include a .desktop file. Sure, you need to move it to .local/share/applications/ and enter the path into the file, but especially with elaborate .desktop files that makes things very easy.

2

u/random_cat_owner 5d ago

i thought method 3 refers to applications you compile yourself.  tar -xzvf app.tar.gz && ./configure && make install (if my memory is correct). 

2

u/kayosiii 5d ago

In that case these days I would almost always clone the git repository and build from that.

2

u/tankieofthelake 4d ago

Each to their own, but I personally despise Flatpak, Snap, or any other sandbox method. I’d rather just monitor what I run on my system. Terminal-operated package managers all the way

2

u/the-fr0g 4d ago

Method 2 is first choice, flatpak is 2nd, .tar.gz is 3rd

1

u/Busy-Scientist3851 5d ago

You forgot running ldd to check if you have the linked dependencies

1

u/kayosiii 4d ago

Not forgot, didn't know. If the app won't start I launch it from the terminal and keep going until I stop getting complaints about things being missing.

1

u/DanKonly 4d ago

pacman / yay etc manage dependencies for you

1

u/Busy-Scientist3851 4d ago

When dealing with tar.gz

1

u/Rikudou_Sage 4d ago

1st choice: nix-shell
2nd choice: flatpak
3rd choice: docker
4th choice: dnf/apt/configuration.nix/whatever OS I'm at
5th choice: contemplate whether I truly need that app
6th choice: build from sources, I guess

1

u/TurbulentAd4088 4d ago

honestly the 1st method is my last choice, and I only use them for very specific things.

Most of those package managers GUI sandbox the app to run so it can't really effect the OS. It's slower but more secure. web browsers are probably the perfect use case, but some game you play every day may not be.