The state of the linux meme

>>58646803
sage

Linux was a mistake.

>downloading debs from the internet
What is thus, Windows?
>what are repos
>what is Chromium

File: 1482598401073.png (230KB, 400x800px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 400x800px

>>58646803
I agree! Fuck Linix!
macOS master race!

Are we being raided by r/windows?

>>58646803
>download .deb
>dpkg --install chrome_something.deb
There. It's done. Also you should have gotten testing instead of "stable" a.k.a. outdated.

>>58650383
All the 3 users? ayymazin'

>>58650464
>not dpkg -i

>>58646803
>lying about using linux in order to be taken seriously
pathetic desu

Linux... Linux never changes

>>58652059
it just doesn't werk

>>58651432

I'm honest. I'm pretty experienced on it actually. I know very well how to use apt on the console. I just find it ludicrous that a fucking live iso of more than 1GB can't have a 1 fucking GUI installer preinstalled for basic shit like that.

>>58654134

I should probably just go and report it so you motherfuckers can't say I don't do anything about it. "Open source and all".

>>58654134
Why are you attempting to install things using a live CD? Shouldn't you wait until the OS is installed on your hard drive before installing shit?

>>58654236

They actually do support it. And it's fun that they do it so you can test basic stuff (your browser and browser profile is basic stuff nowadays). They use RAM as a virtual drive I guess. If you get the official chrome .deb and install it with dpkg (or after you install a gui installer) then chrome runs fine.

Though it failed on Fedora linux. I guess they don't do virtual disks well.

On Ubuntu, you can just double click the deb file and the software center will install it. Why you would want to avoid the command line, I have no idea. Every person who uses a computer should be familiar with the command line.

>>58654467
> Every person who uses a computer should be familiar with the command line.

That's bullshit in this case. It's a live ISO, so I found it obviously wrong, I know how to do it with dpkg.

Ubuntu I guess it's better on that kind of thing but I don't trust it on overall design philosophy.

>>58654547
If you were really angry about it you wouldn't just "say" your angry about it. Come on now. If Ubuntu could get the graphical installer then Debian should be right behind it, Open a bug report and submit a feature request. The worst they could say is no. At that point I would get involved and be the change I would want it to be.

>>58649524
Mac os is pretty good aesthetically, I just don't want to buy overpriced garbage hardware.

Same goes for iPhones.

>>58654134
If you are such a linux professional and want a graphic installer then fucking install it. The reason it's not there is that many people, like me, don't really feel the need for such features to be there by default. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with using a graphic installer, I just don't feel the need for it on the rare occasion I install a binary not from the repos, and I'm sure many people feel like it. And you are really retarded for shaming all linux distros because of this, when in reality many distros come with this feature. And it is good that some of them don't when there is demand for all kinds of different distros.

>>58655253
>feel like it
feel like me too*

Disregarding the faggot op, how's wine 2.0?

>>58655304

Depends on what you are looking to run...

>>58655243
The best MBPs, like 2012-2015 are pretty cheap nowadays fanpai

>>58646803
this is why i dislike people who try to push linux as a consumer OS
it's not, and the people who use it are fine with this
the people who are not fine with this don't use it