• Successful_Try543@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    @unknown1234_5@kbin.earth

    I’d say it’s more about that Linux packages aren’t (distributed as) compiled binary installers (appimages are executables, but no installers), like msi or exe installers for Windows, but (as) essentially plain archives.

    • Ephera@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 days ago

      MSI files are actually comparable to Linux packages, from what I understand, in that the program that does the installing (and which gets root/admin permissions for that) comes with the OS itself.

      And AppImage files are fun. They contain a filesystem of their own. This filesystem need to get mounted and the contained executable needs to be started in such a way that it thinks the mounted filesystem is the root filesystem.
      So, AppImage does need somewhat of a runtime environment and isn’t just a plain executable. But for this particular comparison, they’re still most comparable to self-contained executables, in that they do not need root permissions, because they don’t need to install themselves.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Installer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AppImage#Design

      • Successful_Try543@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        MSI files are actually comparable to Linux packages, from what I understand, in that the program that does the installing (and which gets root/admin permissions for that) comes with the OS itself.

        Neat. I’ve always wondered why e.g. 7zip is distributed as both, MSI and exe installer. Now that makes somewhat sense to me.