this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2026
134 points (91.4% liked)
Linux
12781 readers
608 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)
Also, check out:
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It goes a long way to simplicity from both a user and dev to have only one package type to deal with and distribute.
This completely. Speaking as a person who's more tech skilled than 99% of non-programmers, i can tell you that installing apps is the main tech hurdle for Linux getting mainstream adoption.
There are non-tech hurdles too, but of the actual technology being easy to use then app installation is really the only aspect left that regular people can't do without a huge dive of tech learning that's beyond what most people can do.
Installing on mac: click the Mac download button and follow the prompts.
Installing on Windows: click the Windows download button and follow the prompts.
Installing on Linux: there's no Linux download button, there's a couple of buttons that say words you've never heard of before. They look kinda like buttons to download an app. You click one and try to open it, but it just shows an error, etc etc etc
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.
I'd agree with that sentiment, but at least for me, if we went with all flatpacks, i'd be losing the one ability that I like about appimages, which is as a one-time-use type of "installation". They're kind of like those windows EXEs that you could just run in place without needing to install. very useful for stuff like raspberrypi imager where I don't need to keep it around much
appimages also allow some sort of portable apps you can carry around. Very useful for dealing with no internet scenarios. I also use appimages for things iI use very rarely and don't want to bother to have them being updated regularly along with the system