The fact you called it DOS feels like you are just rage-bait trolling… lol

You got downvoted by the Linux fanboys, but it’s not wrong. Linux has a big issue with approachability… And one of the biggest reasons is that average Windows users think you need to be some sort of 1337 hackerman to even boot it, because it still relies on the terminal.

For those who know it, it’s easier. But for those who don’t, it feels like needing to learn hieroglyphs just to boot your programs.

That is part of the deal with Debian. You get stable software… but you only get stable software. If you want bleeding edge software, you’ll have to install it manually to /usr/local, build from source and hope that you have the dependencies, or containerize it with Distrobox.

If you go to a butcher, don’t complain about the lack of vegan options.

Time to install flatpaks. It’s the future of userspace programs on Linux anyway, you’ll get newest versions there the quickest.

That’s literally what I wrote on a satirical post about moving to Windows! https://lemmy.world/comment/14612934 Except I was being sarcastic and you’re being serious.

As others have pointed out you can do this, but there are at least two major advantages to the way Linux distributions use package managers:

1. Shared libraries - on Windows most binaries will have their own code libraries rolled into them, which means that every program which uses that library has installed a copy of it on your hard drive, which is highly inefficient and wastes a lot of hard drive space, and means that when a new version of the library is released you still have to wait for each program developer to implement it in a new version of their binary. On Linux, applications installed via the package manager can share a single copy of common dependencies like code libraries, and that library can be updated separately from the applications that use it.

2. Easy updating - on Windows you would have to download new versions of each program individually and install them when a new version is released. If you don’t do this regularly in today’s internet-dependent world, you expose your system to a lot of vulnerabilities. With a Linux package manager you can simply issue the update command (e.g. sudo apt upgrade) and the package manager will download all the new versions of the applications and install them for you.

Software Installation is all but centralized on Linux. Sure, there is your store or package manager, but both Apple and Windows do have that, too. But you can always add any source you want to that store (flatpak is great), find an AppImage, some doubious install script, find your own packages and manually install them (like .deb), use Steam or sometimes, like with Blender, download, decompress and run it.

The difference between a package manager and an app store is that the package manager allows you to pick your own sources. You can even run your own repository if you wanted to.

You can also just download any binary file you find online and run it. Or use any install.sh script you happen to find anywhere.

Package managers are simply a convenient offer to manage packages with their dynamically linked libraries and keep them up to date (important for security). But it’s still just an offer.

You can still do that on Linux. Just download it and run. You can even compile it from source if that’s your thing.

However, because there is a much greater variety of Linux distros and dependencies compared to Windows or MacOS versions, it’s better to either have a Flatpak, AppImage, or package from your distro’s repo. That way you’re ensured that it will work without too much fiddling around.

Do you know about AppImages? Seems like those meet the need you’re complaining about.

You still have to set the executable flag for them, but you can do that through the graphic user interface. No need to open a terminal.