this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2025
825 points (99.2% liked)

memes

12813 readers
3182 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 38 points 19 hours ago (7 children)

Hot take: I hate when software just extracts an executable.
Fucking install it so that it's registered with the software updater and uninstaller. Don't make me remember that I have to go hunting in the folder to delete this one app.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 16 minutes ago

If it's good software for a larger program it will execute an install program that does register it. Other stuff should go in a specific folder so you can review what's there.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Assuming you are on Windows, the proper install method is to run

winget install -e --id BlenderFoundation.Blender

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca -1 points 41 minutes ago

Cool, that doesn't help because I don't actually want blender.

I'm commenting on how much I hate when software is provided as just a portable executable.

I know that a lot of the time they're also provided as flatpaks or debs or in snap or windows app store, or Apple app store, etc.
But I'm talking about doing the thing that is being described in the image: unpacking a portable executable.

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Kind of a moot point since most windows programs don't have a centralized hub for updates either, even when "properly installed" in program files.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Not really moot, no.

A portable executable can have neither of those things. It also won't show up in the start menu app list.

With an installer, it'll at least show up in the uninstaller, with an install size that I can see when I'm looking to uninstall things, and it'll at least show up in the app list.

But they could also package it through the app store where you get all that plus centralized update management.
But I'd be happy with just having it show up in the app list and uninstaller.

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 2 points 42 minutes ago (1 children)

It absolutely can, I have several portable apps with self updating ability built in, when I use them it prompts me if I want to update or not, I personally appreciate that in certain cases.

I do dislike when they throw config files all over the place, so cleanup becomes very messy if I need to remove something.

Again tho, natively on windows there isn't a great way to do that anyway, the windows store sucks and not many will use the package managers via cmd either.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 0 points 33 minutes ago

I'm gonna be a bit rude here because you're not reading what I wrote.

I did not say that such apps cannot be updated, I said that they're not updated through a central update manager. So I don't give a flying fuck if you implemented your own custom app updater in your app because that's clearly and explicitly not what I'm talking about.

I also don't give a fuck about throwing config files all over the place, since a) the uninstall script takes care of that and b) this doesn't have to be specific to windows. Having an installer doesn't mean that configs must be thrown everywhere. Afaict apt-get isn't throwing files everywhere.

Again I don't really give a fuck about windows, but saying it hat it's not possible because people don't use the tool that makes it possible is fucking inane bullshit. Idk why you think the windows store "sucks" and I don't really give a fuck, it works fine as a user, even if I don't personally use it.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 14 points 7 hours ago (1 children)
  1. You don't need an uninstaller if deleting the folder suffices
  2. You don't want some software to update.
[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 hour ago

I know I don't NEED an uninstaller. I want to use the uninstaller I already have for all my other apps.

Let me have a consistent user experience.
Automatically figure out the right spot for the app resources and set the appropriate file permissions.
Show up in the list of installed applications, so I can sort them by size, if I'm running out of space.
Don't make me jump through hoops or know the magical directory I need to put it in, in order to have it show up in the start menu or app drawer.

[–] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

AppImage is absolute chaos. Like, there's an entire application floating on my desktop and it doesn't have an icon, doesn't appear in my list of apps, doesn't update and has its own copy of libraries that are on my system, but aren't managed or updated.

It's even better when I can't find a program that I thought I had installed. I go on the internet, find the site, and realise it's appimage. I download the file just to find I already had it, and it was in my downloads directory.

Just package your program properly FFS.

[–] vithigar@lemmy.ca 21 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Some people prefer it.

I maintain a small piece of Windows software and originally just provided an installer, but I received enough requests for it that now when I publish releases I provide both an installer and a zipped portable build.

[–] elfin8er@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

This is the way!

[–] kopasz7@sh.itjust.works 15 points 17 hours ago

Having no package manager be like: