Software Mgr is Great. So sad applications are mostly years and years out of date. What can be done to help?

[blkstph]

Hi all, At this point I've tried out, or tried to try out, most of the top Linux distributions -- and I keep coming back to Mint, because of
(1) Ease of installation
(2) Stability of the system
(3) Application availability.

I'm writing today to bring up the double edged sword of Mint's "Software Manager".

It is cool that so many applications can be found there, along with ratings and reviews. That is a huge kudos for the "Software Manager" application itself.

On the other hand, almost everything in Software Manager I am looking for is massively - like years, and years, and years - out of date. Some specifics? Well, recently I have looked at Lazarus-ide (1.8.2 vs 2,2.2 and Scala (2.11.12 vs 3.1.3). Pharo isn't there at all. Now, I STILL find Mint has huge access to updates, via apt and homebrew, due to its wise decision to follow Ubuntu. But it would be so cool if more could be done via, and maintained via, Software Manager

I'm not intending this primarily as a complaint; I figure the dev staff has its hands full and is doing the best it can with limited resources.

But it is a shame, imo, because Software Manager -- complete with reviews and ratings -- is one of Linux Mint's BEST, RATHER UNIQUE applications!

Instead I'm writing to find out if there is any organized effort to update the database and make Linux Mint's strong application support even stronger? I'm not a programmer, so I am not the person who could personally take on the project to update everything. But I am wondering if there is such a person in the community, whether the Mint team has any thoughts on the issue, and what I might be able to contribute w/out programming skills? Or, perhaps, some sort of gamification / award or recognition, could be brought to those who do DO go out of their way to bring applications up to date and, perhaps, give the rating system more life and more recognition?

Thanks to the team for all the work they do on the core system! Again, I am trying to make things better. I try not to waste time criticizing unless I see GREAT, untapped potential -- and would like to better support that potential. In this case, I believe Mint could gain a massive boost by what I'm thinking (perhaps mistakenly) might be a relatively small organized effort to bring applications more up to date.

I'd appreciate comments and suggestions.

[mikeflan]

But I am wondering if there is such a person in the community, whether the Mint team has any thoughts on the issue, and what I might be able to contribute w/out programming skills?

Your constructive comments are welcome. Thanks for posting them. Unfortunately I cannot answer hardly any of your questions, despite being with LM for some 2.75 years now. I have many of the same questions.

In addition I wonder why some programs in SM never give me an install button. They just spin. I believe I had one of these spinners recently, but opened Synaptic and was able to install the program. That was a pleasant surprise.

I am not nearly as concerned as you are about the older software. I find I often prefer the older software and sometimes get into trouble if it updates.

[Portreve]

On the other hand, almost everything in Software Manager I am looking for is massively - like years, and years, and years - out of date. Some specifics? Well, recently I have looked at Lazarus-ide (1.8.2 vs 2,2.2 and Scala (2.11.12 vs 3.1.3). Pharo isn't there at all. Now, I STILL find Mint has huge access to updates, via apt and homebrew, due to its wise decision to follow Ubuntu. But it would be so cool if more could be done via, and maintained via, Software Manager

Generally, things are sourced out of Canonical's own Ubuntu repos. So, if you want to (to use an expression) "point the finger of blame" at someone, well...

With relatively few exceptions (issues with earlier versions of Gimp 2.10.x, as an example) on the whole I'm pretty happy with what's available. Stability is important to me.

[Moem]

This may be of interest:
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=31954

[vanadium]

Mint is based on the Ubuntu Long Term Release versions, which are aimed to provide stability and a user experience that remains stable for a couple of years ("no sudden surprises"). The software included with this distribution therefore will only receive bug fixes and security updates (except for the browser). Soon, a new version based on Ubuntu 22.04 will be released. It will contain up to date software. However, for the next two years, it will still be the same versions.

This is inherent on choosing Mint as your distribution. If you want it differently, you will need to choose a different distribution.

Nowadays, the advent of containerized software distribution, i.e., flatpak, snap or AppImage makes it easy and safe to install newest versions of software on many linux distributions. Mint supports flatpak out of the box. For example, if you want the latest LibreOffice, remove the default version and install the flatpak version instead.

Still, the use of third party PPA's prepared for the Ubuntu version on which Mint is based can be added to install updated software. Care, however, is needed, because in principle, a PPA that is badly set up or maintained could break your system. Prefer to use a containerized format.

[Cosmo.]

You need to distinguish between the application = software manager and the resource = repositories.

The application contains nothing at all. Software manager does display the resource and lets you install or uninstall the needed packages.

So what is not as up-to-date as you want it are the repositories. And this situation is the consequence of the LTS (Long Term Support) principle. If stability is not your primary goal, than Mint is possibly not the right distribution for you. If you want stability you must accept, that this brings some limitations.

[Hoser Rob]

As mentioned, Mint is Ubuntu based and so uses Ubuntu repos for app software.

Mint is a long term support distro. Beginner friendly and enterprise oriented distros are all LTS, for good reason. Linux has very little backwards conopatibility and lacks stable APIs. So in Linux there's an inherent conflict between having new software and having a stable system.

There are some distros that are rolling releases like Arch in which you do get the newest releases but they lack the stability of LTS distros. They're also used largely by pros, who know how to fix the frequent breakage caused by their updates. These pros don't have the patience to hold newbie hands so those distros are completely unsuitable for beginners.

I don't really care if everything is the newest release except for browsers, and you do get the latest security updates for those. My daily driver laptop is running MX 21, which is Debian Stable based. That has even older software than Ubuntu or Mint and it doesn't matter to me at all. In fact I think some of the older versions are better.

BTW Mint Software Manager is great fior beginners but hardly unique. The Ubuntu Software Centre is pretty much the same.

[MikeNovember]

[...]
On the other hand, almost everything in Software Manager I am looking for is massively - like years, and years, and years - out of date. Some specifics? Well, recently I have looked at Lazarus-ide (1.8.2 vs 2,2.2 and Scala (2.11.12 vs 3.1.3). Pharo isn't there at all. Now, I STILL find Mint has huge access to updates, via apt and homebrew, due to its wise decision to follow Ubuntu. But it would be so cool if more could be done via, and maintained via, Software Manager
[...]

Hi,

You have got plenty of explanations about the fact software is old / obsolete: Mint is built upon Ubuntu LTS, and LTS means "software not updated".

You have two solutions:
- Use a rolling distribution, like ArchLinux, with fresh software instead of Mint / Ubuntu.

- Keep Linux Mint and:
* use PPAs (be careful, some might break compatibility),
* use AppImages (software packaged wit all their dependencies),
* download debs or archives from software website (examples: LibreOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird, Chrome, FreeFileSync...),
* use extra package managers (Gnu Guix),
* use snaps or flatpaks; this is a way to deliver fresh apps that will run in a sandbox (with increased internet security).

I use flatpaks, you can read a tutorial here viewtopic.php?f=42&t=368501

Regards,

MN

[MurphCID]

I use flatpaks or manually (in the case of Libre Office) install from the website.

[rickNS]

It was not hard to tell from the thread title that it was posted by a new comer...yep 2 posts.

As shown in the link Moem posted the question has been asked over, and over since (and before) 2009.

almost everything in Software Manager I am looking for is massively - like years, and years, and years - out of date.

I quite detest this gross exaggeration. You gave no examples. LO for one is version 6.4 in Mint 20, which was exactly current when Mint 20 was released.

Just what difference does it make, what date is on a software package as long as it does what you want reliably anyway ?

"What can be done to help?" Answer, Nothing, no help needed.

[cliffcoggin]

Instead I'm writing to find out if there is any organized effort to update the database and make Linux Mint's strong application support even stronger?

No there is not. Old software (with a couple of exceptions,) is a deliberate policy to ensure it is reliable and stable, which are two of the qualities you praised Mint for.

What in particular about newer software is it you are looking for?

[thom_A]

It's the last thing I would complain about. Why? Everything there is free, libre, gratis. I would complain about hardware problems, installation puzzles, etc., but not about software outside of Linux Mint.

I would guess a vast majority of these apps were never upgraded by their authors in the first place. Even then I'm already thankful that Mint folks are able to add them to their list in a graphical and very well-organized fashion.

At least I know such apps exist at all. It's for me to decipher how I could install the newer versions by using google searches, then follow instructions how to install them, of course with security awareness in mind. Or I may even search for alternatives.

Most of us only need a few of these apps. So I would suggest you make this thread more specific. Like which specific apps are you talking about?

I use Gimp every once in a while, for example. And I only use certain features that have been there since time immemorial. So I pretty much don't care what version of Gimp is available. And if I want the newer version, I'll head over to the Gimp website and follow their instructions on how to install it.

Same thing with other apps...

I would also add that all software programs go through phases from first release to many stages of bug fixes till it becomes stable. Meaning, the newest version may have the latest features (which you probably don't need at the moment, anyways), but may not be the most stable.

[AndyMH]

I install lazarus direct from lazarus - download the debs. Think it was LM18, the installation of lazarus from software manager was buggy, probably fixed now. I also install virtualbox direct from oracle. There are a couple of others, but for the rest, happy with 'out of date' packages, they work and if you don't need the latest features...

[Portreve]

As far as distros go, Arch can be kind of rough (as I understand it) for those who aren't fairly hard-core Linux users. It's the kind of distro I might play around with, but my daily driver needs to be stable, and I want it to also be elegant and clean. Perhaps a better choice for a more general audience would either Fedora. I'd love to say "and also openSUSE" but there's definitely things about it which would make it more of a challenge than Fedora (or Ubuntu, etc.)

[Hoser Rob]

As far as distros go, Arch can be kind of rough (as I understand it) for those who aren't fairly hard-core Linux users. It's the kind of distro I might play around with, but my daily driver needs to be stable...

Me too, my daily driver is now Debian Stable based. I'd only install something like Arch on a spare computer.

If you're going to try Arch you need serious CLI OS recovery skills, and the users on their support forum aren't going to help you with this.

[Portreve]

If you're going to try Arch you need serious CLI OS recovery skills, and the users on their support forum aren't going to help you with this.

One has to understand the mindset of any given community. In a way, it's a bit like the online equivalent of different cultures in the physical world. What one would experience in, let's say, the five Burroughs of New York is worlds away from what you'd experience in Savannah, Georgia.

This "understanding" is lost on the average person in the world today because they look at computers and computer technology mostly through the lens of a consumer, where "customer friendly" is an expected tenet, though the community which surrounds a given Linux distro isn't a company. And if a given community tends more towards the "RTFM!" end of the spectrum, suddenly people are afraid "Oh, that's going to put people off on switching to Linux". Whether that is true or not overlooks then point of these different communities.

[t42]

mintinstall ie Software Manager may be to some extent helpful for new users especially its comment section. Regretfully, comments never gathered momentum to be really useful. Mint SM counterparts such as gnome-software are even worse. And Software Manager is screening new users from state of art Linux package management tools of Debian domain - apt-get, apt, aptitude and Synaptic. Maybe "customer friendly" trend takes its heavy tall indeed.

[Portreve]

mintinstall ie Software Manager may be to some extent helpful for new users especially its comment section. Regretfully, comments never gathered momentum to be really useful. Mint SM counterparts such as gnome-software are even worse. And Software Manager is screening new users from state of art Linux package management tools of Debian domain - apt-get, apt, aptitude and Synaptic. Maybe "customer friendly" trend takes its heavy tall indeed.

Also, you can't simply enter comments and a rating based merely on the fact of installing a program. It's kind of awkward and kludgy to get to where you can do that, so it's no surprise that most users don't bother.

[Hoser Rob]

... the community which surrounds a given Linux distro isn't a company...

The thing about open source software in general is that it's written by computer programmers who want something for themselves to use. That's the beauty of it for me, the software tends to be really high quality. The flip side to this, of course, is that it can be a bit geeky. And more difficult to use for non tech types. Truth is, open source devs devs don't care at all about users. I have to snicker when I read posts by beginners wanting to know where to find the dev site of some program, expecting fully they'll drop what they're doing and do unpaid labor for them, Get over it.

[iliketrains]

Truth is, open source devs devs don't care at all about users.

There's all types, looking at github some reply to issues and requests, others don't. It's clear some prefer writing code to writing sentences.

2 observations on Software Manager:
1) The descriptions can be out-of-date. I've received software newer than expected. One example: Pinta flatpak description was wrong for a while.
2) The numbering (versioning?) of Ubuntu packages can be different than the numbering seen on the developers site. There are probably good reasons for this but it's a bit confusing. Not strictly a SM thing.