Jumuta@sh.itjust.workstoSelfhosted@lemmy.world•What are the things that makes a selfhostable app/project good?English
2·
2 days agoincluding examples for everything in the docs is the best way to explain imo
including examples for everything in the docs is the best way to explain imo
there’s different ways to install things because they each have their use cases in which they’re better than others (or used to have use cases)
binary package managers (e.g. apt): fast and lightweight because it only downloads/installs the necessary binaries
flatpak: can be installed on any distro, but takes up more storage space because they’re installed in a sandbox and all the dependencies are also installed with it, for every application
snap: same thing as flatpak but a bit worse, but some applications are only packaged for snap because canonical paid a lot of big companies to package for snap (rhey didn’t incentivise against flatpak, they just didn’t fund flatpak)
appimage: the ‘windows exe’ kinda thing and has all the dependencies bundled so distro agnostic, but you have to manage the appimage files yourself unless you get a manager for it and you can’t update them centrally like you can do with other stuff
source code repos (e.g. aur): have to compile every new version yourself on your machine, so is slow to update, but often offers things not in the binary package manager
.sh files for installation: idk why these are used, they’re just annoying. a lot of proprietary software from corpos use them (probably so they can verify dependencies themselves and not trust the system)
binariy files (e.g. .deb): same thing as with appimage except they’re not distro agnostic
tar.gz: is just a compressed file format like zip