This is getting into semantics. Personally I would not consider downloading a zip file from a GitHub releases page in a web browser to be using a “package manager”. But someone could try and make that argument.

None of this has formal definitions which makes it difficult to discuss.

Your rant on Snap/Flatpak was great.

The core gripe is that I want running computer programs on Linux to be easy and reliable. It is not. MacOS and Windows are far more reliable, and they don’t require (imho) package managers to do it.

> The core gripe is that I want running computer programs on Linux to be easy and reliable. It is not.

No argument here.

What's interesting, though, is that package managers on Linux are the attempted solution to that problem. Without them, hand-managing dependencies and dependency discovery via the "download a zipfile from GitHub" approach just falls apart: said zipfile often wants to link against other libraries when it launches.

Windows (and runtimes like Golang) take a batteries-included approach by vendoring many/most dependency artifacts with binary distributions. MacOS app bundles do a bit of that, and also have a really consistent story about what system-level dependencies are available (which is only a feasible approach for MacOS because there's a single maintainer and distributor of the system).

But even on those platforms, things break down a lot! There are all sorts of problems for various Windows apps that need to be solved by "acquire so-and-so.dll and copy it into this app's install folder, or else its vendored version of that dll will break on your system". Homebrew on MacOS exists (and has highly variable complexity levels re: installation/dependency discovery) precisely because the amount of labor required to participate in the nice app bundle/MacOS native-app ecosystem is too great for many developers.

That said, there's not really a punchline here. It's complicated, I guess?

> Your rant on Snap/Flatpak was great.

Thank you!