Universal package managers have taken over Linux... Atleast, one of them has, and that ended up being Flatpak. In this video, we go over why Linux users love...
As a longtime Mac user, that’s not quite as easy. Some apps are only available through the Mac App Store. For applications you download there are several variants:
installers: double click and go through an install wizard with next buttons
zip files: double click to unpack, then put the app wherever you want (typically /Applications or ~/Applications)
disk images: double click to mount. Then drag and drop the app to /Applications
through macports or homebrew via command line
there are a couple of Apple system tools, that are often installed via command line like Rosetta and Xcode command line tools
Of course you can have a zip file, that contains a disk image, that then contains an installer.
For applications downloaded from the internet, you also get at least a warning when opening it. If it’s not notarized, you have to go to system settings to be able to run it. For many applications, you also need to go to settings and fiddle with sandbox settings to make them work.
New users are often challenged by all these options. There are many who end up running an app from a disk image for example.
You might also need to select the correct architecture because some applications don’t provide universal binaries for some reason.
While installation is an issue for Linux, the bigger issue is the low availability of quality commercial software. The immense fracturing between distributions creates tons of issues as well.
You CAN do those, but essentially 100% of apps that regular people are gonna want will be: click mac download -> open file -> follow prompts. That’s the point of a standard, which is not to necessarily eliminate alternatives, rather to make a single one be the default for almost 100% of standard situations.
As a longtime Mac user, that’s not quite as easy. Some apps are only available through the Mac App Store. For applications you download there are several variants:
Of course you can have a zip file, that contains a disk image, that then contains an installer.
For applications downloaded from the internet, you also get at least a warning when opening it. If it’s not notarized, you have to go to system settings to be able to run it. For many applications, you also need to go to settings and fiddle with sandbox settings to make them work.
New users are often challenged by all these options. There are many who end up running an app from a disk image for example.
You might also need to select the correct architecture because some applications don’t provide universal binaries for some reason.
While installation is an issue for Linux, the bigger issue is the low availability of quality commercial software. The immense fracturing between distributions creates tons of issues as well.
You CAN do those, but essentially 100% of apps that regular people are gonna want will be: click mac download -> open file -> follow prompts. That’s the point of a standard, which is not to necessarily eliminate alternatives, rather to make a single one be the default for almost 100% of standard situations.
Yes, for Linux it‘s like this typically (varies by distro):
Figuring out the best way to install the software often involves at least comparing two versions and deciding, which one you want.
macOS has many ways to install, but most software only choose one or two. And you usually get the same version regardless of install path.
For Linux you have several options to install and you don’t end up with the same version.