Compare Kubuntu and Linux Mint to see their differences.
Compare Kubuntu and Linux Mint to see their differences.
Indeed. It's difficult to estimate whether more or less vendors do, but it's not surprising that many do not. The problem with including a repository definition is that they need to actually have the repository in place and maintain it. This adds extra overhead, while packaging only is trivial. Though at that point it would arguably be better to just provide a tarball and not bother with a distro-specific package format. However, there is at least one case where including a repository is not necessary. An application could have a lightweight launcher that checks for the presence of an installation at a well known directory and, if it exists then it launches the application. If not, it proceeds to download the necessary files from a vendor URL and then launch the application. From that point on, the application itself is responsible for its own updates. Steam is a good example. The .deb package from Valve is mostly to ensure a minimal set of system libraries and packages are available and ask your package manager to install them, and includes a launcher to run or set up Steam, by default under "$HOME/.local/share/Steam". From that point on, Steam updates itself. This is a bit like having a zip-archived version of the application, while providing system-wide entry point (the launcher) for all users of the system. As Nayr438 mentioned, you can look inside the archive with any archive program such as Ark. Alternatively, if the package is currently installed you can run dpkg -L <package name> to list all files installed by the specified package. There are no dumb questions The short answer is Linux packaging is a mess, and there's no straightforward answer. There are pros and cons to both approaches. But first note that not all software packages are distributed in binary (compiled) form. FOSS software is often released as source code. This keeps it simple for the developers, while offloading the burden of compiling and packaging to the community and distro package maintainers. Proprietary software, naturally, doesn't take that approach. A centralised distro-specific package management system allows for dependencies to be shared and present i n standard locations. This has the advantage of space efficiency and more targeted updates when there's a bug or vulnerability. For example, installing a library such as OpenSSL and having packages that make use of it pull it in instead of bundling it means there's only one copy on the system used by multiple applications. It also means that if a vulnerability is discovered, then only updating OpenSSL with a patched version would effectively apply the patch to all other packages that depend on it. This can be crucial for servers and is in contrast to having multiple copies of OpenSSL with each application bundling its own copy, consuming more space, and having to wait for vendors of each application (or the package maintainers) to release an update with the patched version of OpenSSL. The space efficiency gained may not be a primary consideration, but is an added benefit. The downside, of course, is that you could now have a case where application A requires, say, Qt 6.1 while application B requires Qt 6.2 and breaks with 6.1. This means you may not be able to update to the latest version of application B as it's incompatible with Qt 6.1 which is currently on the system. So any updates to applications A and B would now need to be done in lock-step with Qt 6.2 to ensure all three are compatible. This can be a nightmare for distro package maintainers, and is an all too familiar source of problems in rolling distros such as Arch. Even in distros like Fedora that are not quite rolling but still keeping to the bleeding edge. In fact, only just yesterday an update to Qt broke KDE because the plasma-workspace package was not recompiled against the new version of Qt. This is also why it's a pain in the rear for software vendors to ship something that runs on all distros... You can't do that easily in with traditional packagin because you have no guarantees what library versions will be available on the various distros and how long for. So they either pick one or two popular distros to target / support, or simply ship their software with all dependencies included so they don't have to rely on the system packages. Then come Flatpak and Snap. With both of them, software vendors can bundle any required libraries and dependencies with their application. But also, with Flatpak they can take advantage of Flatpak runtimes, which can be shared between Flatpaks, to reduce the overall size of the package where possible. I believe Snap works in a similar way. There's also the benefit of sandboxing on top, and we have the benefits of portability and reuse, to a significant degree, though neither "perfect". It's a balanced trade-off. So now to the "why"... I think we're seeing a shift more towards the latter, particularly Flatpak as it's more open. For many end-user applications I don't see a reason why vendors, particularly those of proprietary software, shouldn't offer Flatpaks. Some immutable distros are an example of this, favouring Flatpaks for installing user apps. But I don't think "traditional" packaging is going to go away soon - there are still plenty of benefits to server setups, and even with container images there are still "base distro" images upon which they are built. It's a long topic and the above is certainly not exhaustive, but this is just simplified set of scenarios.
I haven't located the most recent qBittorrent release for version 5.1.4.deb.
For the newest version of qBittorent, you can utilize their PPA at https://launchpad.net/~qbittorrent-team/...ent-stable. They provide more than just direct downloads; you can also access them via the link by navigating to "View package details" → "Package Name" → "Builds." I’d just recommend adding and using the qBittorent Stable PPA. Spoiler.
To get the newest software, ensure you're on a compatible distribution like Arch or similar builds such as EndeavourOS. Ubuntu releases aren't designed for constant updates; they focus on stability over time, with security patches mainly through backports and hardware updates via its HWE Stack. Virtualbox doesn't support Ubuntu 25.10 directly. Stick to what's available in your distro repos or be patient. Adding more PPA and third-party packages increases potential issues for future upgrades.