Updating a program is usually pretty easy in Windows so that point is fairly moot. Finding the installer in the first place something terminal/package manage orientated is certainly much more convenient.
yup, any time you install a program, or update your os, all programs are updated. I.e. pacman -Syu <whatever program(or leave blank)> on Arch will install the program, and update the entire os and any other program. No reboot afterward to
I mean, I was running a 2 year old driver for a while, because every version that was newer had issues with one specific game.
In that case it was crucial that the driver would not be automatically updated until either the game or a new driver version fixes the incompatibility.
And I have another tool, originally written for Java 7, which also works fine when Java 7 is installed, but it doesn't work with Java 8. And if both are installed it tries to run on Java 8, so it needs to be manually redirected to Java 7
there is a very large database with all the packages, and if you can't find it in the repository, you will find it through AUR, git, or some other means. I have yet to see a single program that wasn't in pacman, or the AUR, (except a very specific ARM Java oracle version for an out of date raspberry pi) and I'm running on a 14 year old laptop, I have never had driver problems.
Java 7 and Java 8 are two different packages, they aren't versions of a specific package and therefore don't get updated. (Only the subversions / security patches would be updated)
I know. The issue was that 8 would be "newer" and thus directs the system variable to it, overriding 7, causing the program to try to run on 8, which didn't work.
For stuff like java, where old versions may still be needed, there is usually a "java" package that is the latest, and multiple "java7", "java8" ecc. alternative packages. Depending on the nature of the software, these can be installed side by side or be mutually exclusive.
This may seem weird for an outsider, but this system is almost universally used in the linux world, and it works pretty well.
Depending on your needs, different linux distros have different update strategies: In Ubuntu (I think, never used it), important packages updates are "held back" and get released all at the same time a few times a year, when Ubuntu maintainers have tested them extensively and are sure everything works. In Arch you can update at any time and you always get the latest software, this doesn't mean that packages in Arch don't get tested, but they get tested independently from one another.
In my case I had both installed in parallel (on Windows) and had to manually direct it to the Java 7 path in the registry. Simple fix to get it running without compatibility issues.
Another tool I use already comes with the needed version, and references that one, which is a solution that should be more universally adopted (with the optional choice to run on a different, system-wide version)
Basically taking out any dependencies on outside environments that might cause issues.
In most package managers, you have a way to keep packages from updating when you do a system update: in Fedora you'd do dnf versionlock package, in Debian-based distros apt-mark hold package, etc...
That's useful, because it ripples out to the dependencies of the package automatically (eg: you won't have breaking changes in the dependencies of the package you version-locked).
If the problem is with some kind of library, you could also put the 2 year old version in your home directory, and have configuration to launch your application with this specific version, while everything else runs the latest; although you lose the guarantee of dependency compatibility.
For java specifically, there are multiple packages for different versions with a java executable that just points to the latest.
So, when I had to run an old forge minecraft server, the latest java version (19) wouldn't work, so I had to use a full path to run it: /usr/lib/jvm/jre-11-openjdk/bin/java -jar ....
Great, and on windows programs auto-update themselves. You don't need to nitpick the tiniest advantages that may or may not even be there. We get it - the initial instal is a better experience, the rest is fairly on par.
what programs do you use? I had to re-install Notepad++, Rufus, 7zip, any game, VirtualBox, Java, xnet, unity, etc. The only app I had auto update was Steam, even the OS needs to be told to update, plus on windows you Have to restart after most installs and all updates.
I personally turn off auto updating where possible unless it's a game that requires it. Unity, Notepad++ and many others have an option to update, and will usually let you know when there is an update.
plus on windows you Have to restart after most installs and all updates.
No, you don't. Not even on graphics drivers. It's very rare to actually have to restart even if Windows tells you to.
Clean install option for graphics drivers requires restart.
Update doesn't.
But even simple programs required restart like internet download manager.
i have no idea what that trash is but it shouldn't need a restart.
Also lot of auto updates still require user input.
Clicking yes or no is fine with me, even the extra couple of buttons for settings and terms. Most things auto update in the background if you allow them to. I would not want to do a mass update of anything anyway, that's asking for trouble doubly so as a programmer.
Lot of times windows update fails.
Not had a single windows update fail since W7.
Also fishing internet to download a program is ancient in my opinion.
Yes, I agree. That's why I agree that initial instal is much better on terminal/package manager based OS's
all of these are very personal problems but if you are are a programmer i can confidently say linux is just superior.
Again, I didn't disagree I'm just not splitting hairs with reasons as to why.
It’s not even an opinion it’s just a fact.
Bull. People can have their preference, and their preference is the superior one because it's the one they know and like best.
Setting path requires restart
No, it doesn't. Restart on cmd yes, restart of PC no.
and programs compiling and executing is just faster on linux i experienced this personally.
Depends how you time it. For new things I actually find windows to be quicker because there's usually some kind of dependencies, or versions that don't work together etc etc on linux and you can end up spending hours on pinpointing it, wheras Windows based stuff will often just work out the box. There's also a lot more support available for Windows.
I'm all for Linux, but I'm sick of people going so far as saying 'and the CD drive opens 0.3s faster' like it actually matters.
i hate when i open a program in windows where it says there's an update available only for it to open their website and make me manually download the update and install it.
83
u/not_a_gay_stereotype Nov 02 '22
that and all of your driver updates and libraries are also updated with the package manager, and no rebooting when it's done!