Hacker News Reader

> Radarr is not in major package managers, and requires the CLI for install (https://wiki.servarr.com/radarr/installation#linux). In Windows, I double click an .exe. In Linux I have to follow a reasonably complicated and time consuming installation process, full of opportunities to misconfigure the install.

Why are directing this complaint against Linux and not Radarr? They could choose to package it for various Linux distributions if they do wish.

Or they could just provide an AppImage. It would be great if major distros added out-of-the box support for flatpaks and appimages. This would finally put an end to ISV saying that it is hard to package/distribute software for linux.

And by "out-of-the box support for flatpaks and appimages" I mean: run it inside a sandbox! If I didn't care about stability and security, I'd use windows.

There are many potential solutions, but the point is that Radarr is the one choosing not to make installation easier. It isn’t “Linux”.

I've looked into stuff like this and often it turns out the reason for a lack of [obvious solution] is:

1: Essential libraries fail

2: Documentation missing needed details

3: hostility to inquiry about problems from community

And on. The Linux community is so much better than it was when I first tried it, but the old guard (and new guard that likes gatekeeping) is still there causing a ruckus and getting in the way of people trying to advance Linux.

>Why are directing this complaint against Linux and not Radarr? They could choose to package it for various Linux distributions if they do wish.

You misunderstand my complaint. I am not blaming anyone. I am explaining why the user experience is bad. This is a common retort in the Linux community: "but they are to blame, not me!" As an end user, I don't care who is to blame. I just care that Linux is harder to use.

Well hopefully Radarr takes note and improves their users' experience when running on Linux. But in the end it's up to Radarr. Not all software is easily-installable on Windows. Not all software is easily-installable on Macos. Not all software is easy installable on various Linux distributions. I guess until Radarr decides to provide a better user experience for users of Linux, those users will either have to switch operating systems or deal with the difficulties themselves.

> For example, Radarr is an extremely popular tool for managing movies

Radarr definitely doesn't represent the status of Linux projects packaging; not providing any package is uncommon.

The vast majority of open source projects provide repositories, application packages, binaries (if one wants the latest-and-greatest version; the base repositories of the most common distros typically have almost anything under the sun).

As a matter of fact, Radarr's twin, Sonarr, provides repositories (https://sonarr.tv/#downloads-v3-linux), and snaps (e.g. https://snapcraft.io/install/sonarr/debian).

"The vast majority" of applications having packages doesn't satisfy my requirement: never ever, for any reason *ever*, having to use the CLI. The requirement is clear, unambiguous, and shared by the vast majority of PC users.

For the record, at least in my case, it's certainly not the "vast majority" of applications. The following applications don't have easy to install packages. Even when there is, as in the case of Calibre-Web, Transmission, and NZBGet, they often require CLI configuration and/or intervention.

* Readarr

* Openbooks

* PhotoPrism

* Prowlarr

* Jackett

* FlareSolverr

And these are just the applications I could spot in five minutes.

Pray tell, what kind of cli configuration/intervention would be required for transmission?

You should just be able to install transmission-gtk and be off.

By "vast majority" I mean that the standard repositories (which optionally includes extra repositories, like the Canonical Partner one) includes hundreds of thousands of programs, and GUIs are provided by the distro (e.g. the former Ubuntu Software Center).

I've checked several of the programs you've provided, and here's a report:

- Readarr: has docker image(s) in Docker Hub

- PhotoPrism: has docker image(s) in Docker Hub

- Prowlarr: has docker image(s) in Docker Hub

- Openbooks: has docker image(s) in Docker Hub

- Jackett: has native linux binary in the official Github releases

- FlareSolverr: has native linux binary in the official Github releases

- Transmission: it's commonly provided in the Linux distro repositories

Those who refuse to do such a minimal search and/or better look the Github releases page, they definitely deserve to stay on Windows, rather than spreading misinformation.

If a program doesn't to have a package for a given platform (no doubt about those cases), it's a developer's resources problem (and essentially, an O/S popularity one). It'd be ridiculous to say that having to manually install a certain program on Mac is inherent in Mac itself.

Radarr sounds like the type of software that no vendor would accept in their app store. Why would you expect it to be available through a Linux package manager?

As for the convoluted installation process under Linux, that is on the developer. They can provide packages directly, create a distribution agnostic application, or provide an installer. All of these approaches are in common use under Linux. None of them require the use of the command line. It is also worth noting that the second option is similar to how Mac applications are distributed while the third option is how Windows applications are distributed. The fact that Radarr's developers decided to do something else, something that required the command line, says more about them than it does about Linux.

With respect to user-hostile US approaches, please don't get me started. Windows itself is far from perfect in this respect.

>Radarr sounds like the type of software that no vendor would accept in their app store. Why would you expect it to be available through a Linux package manager?

I don't. I expect it and many other applications to remain difficult to install, so I expect most users to remain on PC. I am not levelling blame on anyone or anything. I am simply explaining how the user experience is hostile in Linux.

I am going to make a claim that may sound a bit odd to you since it does not reflect your experiences: installing, updating, and removing software is much more user friendly under Linux.

Almost every Linux program I use is available through a package manager. Installing, updating, and removing the software can be done through a graphical package manager that resembles the Windows Store. In an apples-to-apples comparison, I would claim the graphical package manager is more user friendly since it is focuses upon managing software rather than marketing software, but I can appreciate that opinions will differ.

In the case of Linux, most software is available through the package manager. In the case of Windows, a significant portion of software has to be obtained separately. The typical case involves finding the vendor website, downloading the software, then running a multi-step installer. If the software doesn't seek out and install its own updates, the process of updating software is the same. Removal of the software is usually similar to using a package manager under Linux, but there are cases where dependencies must be sought out and removed manually (e.g. Visual Studio). Modern Linux package managers handle dependency removal automatically.

Then there are the still relatively common outliers. Many Windows programs are distributed as zipped files that must be installed manually. Usually this is a case of extracting the files, yet you have to read the instructions to be sure. There are also going to be the uncommon outliers, with installation processes that resemble that of Radarr. (It happens, though I have only seen it with development tools.)

In my experience, the software management frustrations under Linux come from a limited number of outliers. Ironically, those outliers all use installers that resemble their Windows counterparts.

So... what I say... if you want to use Linux, go ahead. But, know WHAT and WHY you are doing this. If you simply say "it's not Windows" -- not good enough. Yes, Linux is not Windows. It is ALSO not a Mac OS/X. So, why are you attempting, "many times" to adopt Linux? I honestly have no idea what "Radarr" is, or why on earth I would want it. If I did care, I would have a reason to use Windows. As it is, I don't. My use case is a good and reliable Posix platform, with good tooling. That is provided by Linux -- indeed, I use Fedora. Been that way for over 25 years. I need Java, but not .NET. My use cases... not yours.

I don't care about "package managers" Usenet is web for me (google groups), CLI is not an issue; indeed I prefer it, given my history. I find Windows UX/UI to be extremely difficult. I suggest that you do NOT consider Linux to be a competitor to Windows. It really isn't. Windows had been forced to run Linux. In full compatibility. This is supported by Microsoft -- unlike Wine is is somewhat there. If I needed Windows, I would run Windows, and use WSL.

The odd thing here is that Windows "blinked first". The existence of WSL means Linux has won. If I sent you a Linux binary, I would tell you to install WSL and then just run it. I can also send you JVM stuff to run. .NET? Haven't needed to bother with it.

Have I tried many times to adopt Windows? Frankly, no. If it doesn't work with Fedora, I generally just don't care, and move on.

FredW

Just to add a slight counter to this, for some people Linux not being windows is enough. Many people don't remember this, but Microsoft showed us all what they are in the 90s.

Is servarr in the windows store? If not, it might as well not exist.

Just because users have been trained to download .exe's from random, unvetted websites that does not make it any less insane. See android, see iOS (and by now also windows) who all agree how insane that is.

You call easy installation of applications insane. I call convoluted and technically difficult installation insane. I represent the vast majority of PC users, and I don't think you'll ever convince us that a 10 step CLI process to install an application is a good thing.

> Banana monkey dishwasher.

I said windows store is easy, app store is easy, repos are easy. I don't know how you got "10 step CLI process to install" from that and if you just make up random nonsense this "conversation" is worthless.

Most non-packaged apps are just `./configure && make install` sometimes `cmake . && make install` It's hardly one step much less 10. If you know so little about some random software you found that you can't compile it I'm not sure installing it is a good idea.

If you use an Arch-based distro, it's available in the Arch User Repository (AUR) [1]. With Aura [2], installation is as simple as:

    aura -A radarr

Yes, you need to use the CLI to run that, but it's trivial to do so and a real package management system brings many advantages over exe installers. The AUR, inspired by BSD's Ports, is one of the major advantages of Arch. It's very rare to find a package that isn't supported.

[1] - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/radarr

[2] - https://github.com/fosskers/aura

Manjaro comes with a GUI for Pacman and after enabling AUR (and clicking the "yes I know this will probably break my machine" button) it simply shows up in the list of installable software.

That said, Radarr, being written in dotnet, should be able to package a single executable you can just click, and that process should be even easier with the upcoming dotnet release.

This is true, although the Windows model of .exe installers , which require admin permissions, isn't even the one to follow. The macOS, and especially the App Store model is far more user friendly.

The non-esoteric distros and GNOME[1] recognize it and ship with a software manager akin to an app store. Those install snaps or flatpaks with one click. That's how you'd install Steam and all of its dependencies like Proton.

The problem is that some software authors, like Radarr's, don't believe in the model.

https://help.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/41.0/figures/softw...

> The problem is that some software authors, like Radarr's, don't believe in the model.

And I don't really blame them. People love to pimp Flatpak and Snap, but nobody ever likes to talk about the issues that portals cause, the horrible rendering issues it lugs along, the lack of molecularity constantly breaking things on xorg/Wayland, the DBUS issues, the extremely esoteric configuration options, the auto-updating (!!!) and so on and so forth.

Apple makes this work because they have hundreds of billions of dollars they can divert to R&D. Linux gets the short end of the stick because it's a game of chicken-and-egg: none of the developers want to work on Flatpak because none of the packagers want to provide packages for it because Flatpak has hundreds of outstanding bugs and an entire community of people like me who remember being promised bigger and better things on Linux, only to have them fall through the ground not even halfway into development.

Simplicity is key. Flatpak, Snap, and all of it's ilk are not simple, which is why it's no surprise that their development is lethargic and adoption is, kindly put, sluggish.

> The macOS, and especially the App Store model is far more user friendly.

MacOS and App Store models are the worst, most user hostile way to install anything. I like the .exe model best, it offers most flexibility and freedom to the user.

You consider dragging an .app to /Applications worse than a multi-step .exe installer?

I am fully onboard with the macOS model.

You highlight why this will forever remain a problem: letting developers choose to provide a user-hostile install method means that some of them will. The solution here is mandating a simple install method, but I don't think enough distros would get on board with that. Most Linux developers like things just the way they are.

> In Linux I have to follow a reasonably complicated and time consuming installation process,

You don't /have/ to, you choose to. Docker provides a way easier path for all the *arr's.

Not to mention removal is equally easy - with windows can you be SURE all the registry stuff is gone?

Docker still requires the CLI. Well, unless I install Portainer. Which also requires the CLI.

> Docker still requires the CLI.

Right, and? Not seeing how that is 'reasonably complicated'.

Linux isn't necessarily for you and that's fine. The Linux community doesn't actually need to change any of this to succeed where it succeeds and that is among CLI-friendly power users and developers.

As to your specific issue, I just use the container image of Radar on my server, which is what most selfhosters should be using, since it's non-polluting to your local system.

Completely fair. My comment was in context of the article and comments. Many Linux users seem interested in growing Linux market share, or declaring that "this is the year of Linux." It will never be the year of Linux while basic tasks continue to complicated multi-step CLI adventures.

> Bottom line: make it so users never ever, for any reason ever, need to use the CLI.

The more I think about, the more I'm convinced that it's an unconscious choices made by developers to keep away non power users.

Or maybe they don't want to waste their time for users who can't even be bothered to type a few keys?

GUI is a great concept, but at some point, for more advanced operations, terminal simply makes more sense.

Nah, non-Electron GUI dev is a mess and I don't want to add 100mb to my app. CLIs are easy to write.

>The more I think about, the more I'm convinced that it's an unconscious choices made by developers to keep away non power users.

Honestly, I speak with many devs. It's a conscious choice. Gatekeeping in the Linux community is off the charts.

Bottom line: You are ranting about a piracy app.

There's no technical limitation for Radarr to provide a package file that can be downloaded.

Indeed. Some developers just choose not to provide easy installation methods. This doesn't change the issue: a bad UX for me. It doesn't matter who is to blame.

Any reason not to watch commercial streaming services on Linux, or physical media?

I do, but there are shows and movies unavailable in my region.