Why windows wins.
Michael
gave up and went back to Windows. The main reason is the complicated
process of installing software. Why can't software be installed under
Linux by just double clicking the program's icon as it is under
Windows. Until it is Windows wins.
This is why Linux is not being taken up more widely, as I see it.
Developing this ease of installing programs should be given the highest
priority in the development of Linux at present. Why isn't it?
Until programs are installed as easily under Linux as they are under
Windows Linux will remain the specialists' OS and will not realise its
promise to become the people's OS. So come developers, don't give us
more applications until you've given us a simpler way of installing
them.
Gordon
> I've tried out an number of implimentations of Linux, but each time I
> gave up and went back to Windows. The main reason is the complicated
> process of installing software.
certainly not in Ubuntu. Open Synaptic, right-click on the package,
choose "Mark for Installation" and click on "Apply". Job done.
--
Registered Linux User no 240308
Ubuntu 5.04 and Open Office
Was Windows XP SP2 and Office 2003
gbplinuxATgmailDOTcom
Richard Rasker
> I've tried out an number of implimentations of Linux, but each time I
> gave up and went back to Windows. The main reason is the complicated
> process of installing software. Why can't software be installed under
> Linux by just double clicking the program's icon as it is under
> Windows. Until it is Windows wins.
Total, utter bullshit. Installing programs under Linux is in fact a lot
easier than under Windows. Just pick whatever you want from a (huge) list
of free software and click Install. No need to go to shops, hunt for cd's,
shell out small fortunes, and hope that you won't need extra drivers or
the latest ActiveX-crap. Just select and install, that's all.
But just for the record, could you tell the people here what distribution
you tried, and which software was so difficult to install?
> This is why Linux is not being taken up more widely, as I see it.
> Developing this ease of installing programs should be given the highest
> priority in the development of Linux at present. Why isn't it?
The reason Linux isn't picked up is because a certain company in Redmond
spends a few billion each year on spreading lie^H^H^H^Hmarketing,
brib^H^H^H^Hlobbying politicians high and low, and because resellers are
still strongly discouraged to advertise and sell anything but Windows,
lest the lose M$' special discounts for Good Boys.
Richard Rasker
--
Linetec Translation and Technology Services
masked....@gmail.com
Michael wrote:
> I've tried out an number of implimentations of Linux, but each time I
> gave up and went back to Windows. The main reason is the complicated
> process of installing software. Why can't software be installed under
> Linux by just double clicking the program's icon as it is under
> Windows. Until it is Windows wins.
ONly in the minds of inane twits like you. You see, some of us prefer
substance over style. As long as you don't stick with Windows and
leave the adults alone.
>
> This is why Linux is not being taken up more widely, as I see it.
> Developing this ease of installing programs should be given the highest
> priority in the development of Linux at present. Why isn't it?
Because we have better things to do. Like using my beowulf cluster to
run models for research, and quickly output the results to my SQL
server, without having paid the millions (with the cluster) it would
have cost to run this all on proprietary systems.
>
> Until programs are installed as easily under Linux as they are under
> Windows Linux will remain the specialists' OS and will not realise its
> promise to become the people's OS. So come developers, don't give us
> more applications until you've given us a simpler way of installing
> them.
Just because you're too dumb to figure out 'apt-get install' or
'emerge' or 'installpkg' or even Synaptic in ubuntu does not mean we
should waste our time helping you.
Linønut
Man, are you out of touch.
--
Code is community.
mlw
> I've tried out an number of implimentations of Linux,
No, you've used a couple GNU/Linux distributions.
> but each time I
> gave up and went back to Windows.
Like a dog to its vomit.
> The main reason is the complicated
> process of installing software. Why can't software be installed under
> Linux by just double clicking the program's icon as it is under
> Windows. Until it is Windows wins.
Well, I've been thinking about "installing" software lately. Windows is
insecure, bug ridden, and there is no protection against any old program
from being installed.
Installing a program is too easy on Windows. There is no good warning to
users that by installing this program you be corrupting your system or
fundimentally altering how it works.
Until Windows properly protects the user's computer, Linux will continue to
grow.
zekolas
> I've tried out an number of implimentations of Linux, but each time I
> gave up and went back to Windows. The main reason is the complicated
> process of installing software. Why can't software be installed under
> Linux by just double clicking the program's icon as it is under
> Windows. Until it is Windows wins.
what distro and what software are you installing? Most distos have some
sort of online installation tool where you browse through a list of
software, click on the software you want to install and then it installs
all the needed packages. Pretty easy.
For some reason a lot of people new to linux do not get this and try to
download and install the program from the source. They go out to
mozilla.org and download the source for firefox and then complain about
it being complicated to install.
Sandman
"Michael" <michael...@lineone.net> wrote:
> I've tried out an number of implimentations of Linux, but each time I
> gave up and went back to Windows. The main reason is the complicated
> process of installing software. Why can't software be installed under
> Linux by just double clicking the program's icon as it is under
> Windows. Until it is Windows wins.
Windows users need to double click icons to install software? We Mac users just
drag them to the application folder. :)
> This is why Linux is not being taken up more widely, as I see it.
> Developing this ease of installing programs should be given the highest
> priority in the development of Linux at present. Why isn't it?
I wonder why it isn't given a high priority in windows, and why *every*
*single* *program* need a huge "installation wizard" that asks about paths and
start menu locations instead of the user just dragging the app to where she or
he wants it.
> Until programs are installed as easily under Linux as they are under
> Windows Linux will remain the specialists' OS and will not realise its
> promise to become the people's OS.
Windows has become the dominant OS *in spite of* its lousy UI, not because of
it.
--
Sandman[.net]
GreyCloud
>
> I've tried out an number of implimentations of Linux, but each time I
> gave up and went back to Windows. The main reason is the complicated
> process of installing software. Why can't software be installed under
> Linux by just double clicking the program's icon as it is under
> Windows. Until it is Windows wins.
Well, it works that way with a click on OS X. And so far
the latest release of OS X is ahead of windows.
It has features that Vista is supposed to have, which isn't
for sale yet.
>
> This is why Linux is not being taken up more widely, as I see it.
> Developing this ease of installing programs should be given the highest
> priority in the development of Linux at present. Why isn't it?
>
Well, I see many that use the emerge -world and stay up to
date on software. Seems to work fine for them.
> Until programs are installed as easily under Linux as they are under
> Windows Linux will remain the specialists' OS and will not realise its
> promise to become the people's OS. So come developers, don't give us
> more applications until you've given us a simpler way of installing
> them.
I think they already have... try installing Solaris. Now
that isn't as easy as Linux is.
Beowulf TrollsHammer
> I've tried out an number of implimentations of Linux, but each time I
> gave up and went back to Windows. The main reason is the complicated
> process of installing software.
What are you talking about?
Apt
YaST
Urpmi
Emerge
Swaret
No, really. What the fuck are you talking about?
John Bailo
> I've tried out an number of implimentations of Linux, but each time I
> gave up and went back to Windows. The main reason is the complicated
> process of installing software. Why can't software be installed under
> Linux by just double clicking the program's icon as it is under
> Windows. Until it is Windows wins.
The new paradigm for "installing" software is JWS ( Java Web Start ).
Microsoft is just beginning to *ape* this in .NET ( Smart Client ).
As you know, installing Microsoft software has for years been cumbersome
and erratic. In fact, browse MSDN and look under "dll hell" and you
will see huge diatribes about how bad everything in Windows is under the
COM regieme.
My own experience creating an exe which calls a dll which calls a 2nd
dll under .NET proves the problems are far from fixed...dll hell still
exists.
The registry which controls all is a travesty. You can have an easy
"setup.exe" maybe, but actually getting many programs from 3rd parties
to run is a nightmare.
In fact, M$ really doesn't want anyone to build software for Windows
other than themselves as any application that is saleable draws revenue
from them and exposes their technology to exploitation.
So, it's easy to go around the Web like an idiot and grab all the Fool's
Gold you wish.
In Linux, the advantages are a RDBMS based package manager will accounts
for libraries and versioning.
And, of course, the critical advantage with a good distro is that you
can sit in the OS environment and acquire critical applications for
*free* -- such as Open Office.
Can you buy XP and then install M$ Office from XP? for free?
Have you ever tried installing Office with it's numerous hanging dll's
and licensing /schemes/ -- it's a nightmare!
Yet, OO installation is a charm.
No, I say to thee -- be gone, ye Troll.
billwg
<masked....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126110535....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Just because you're too dumb to figure out 'apt-get install' or
> 'emerge' or 'installpkg' or even Synaptic in ubuntu does not mean we
> should waste our time helping you.
>
advocating linux! LOL!!!
Renegade
> I've tried out an number of implimentations of Linux, but each time I
> gave up and went back to Windows. The main reason is the complicated
> process of installing software. Why can't software be installed under
> Linux by just double clicking the program's icon as it is under Windows.
> Until it is Windows wins.
What are you doing that makes installing software so complicated? Your
distro will have the association for its package manager, and clicking on
a .deb, .rpm, or whatever your distro uses should invoke the package
manager to install that package.
If you prefer command line, apt-get install <packagename> definitely isn't
complicated. Neither is opening synaptic, searching/selecting the package,
and clicking the install button. It doesn't get much simpler than that.
Are you trying to compile and install from source maybe? Doubtful, since
you are comparing Linux to Windows /and/ posting from google. (Hmmm...
I'll have to check my kill google posts filter... your post seems to have
slipped through somehow) Even so, then apt-build install <packagename>
will handle the dirty work of compiling for you.
> This is why Linux is not being taken up more widely, as I see it.
> Developing this ease of installing programs should be given the highest
> priority in the development of Linux at present. Why isn't it?
How much easier can it get? If typing 3 words to install a package is too
complicated for someone, then they already have much bigger problems than
installing software.
> Until programs are installed as easily under Linux as they are under
> Windows Linux will remain the specialists' OS and will not realise its
> promise to become the people's OS. So come developers, don't give us
> more applications until you've given us a simpler way of installing
> them.
That is a somewhat flawed comparison. One should not be able to install
software /quite/ as easily as can be done under Windows. Look at all the
self installing malware that is rampant in the Windows world due to the
ease of installation factor. With a properly designed and configured OS,
that problem would be nonexistant.
ray
If you properly install a major Linux distribution, software installation
is quite easy. For example, with Mandrake 10.1 - I open the 'install
software' menu, select the software I want to install, and push the
'install' button. That's should not be too difficult to fathom.
Mark Kent
Michael <michael...@lineone.net> espoused:
> I've tried out an number of implimentations of Linux, but each time I
> gave up and went back to Windows. The main reason is the complicated
> process of installing software. Why can't software be installed under
> Linux by just double clicking the program's icon as it is under
> Windows. Until it is Windows wins.
In debian, I do $apt-get install mozilla-firefox and it works.
In Windows, I have to go to google to find a possible download site
for a possible package, attempt to download, hoping that I've got the
legitimate site and not some spyware/virus/trojan site, I then start a
download, by clicking on a link (no icon, as you wrongly say above),
which I think might start another one, and then I have to reboot the
machine, after being asked questions about whether something should be
a default or not. Then, maybe, it'll work.
If that's winning, then I'd rather be the loser, thanks. Use linux
for simple software installations.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Poorman's Rule:
When you pull a plastic garbage bag from its handy dispenser package,
you always get hold of the closed end and try to pull it open.
Paul Bramscher
> Michael babbled:
>
>
>>I've tried out an number of implimentations of Linux, but each time I
>>gave up and went back to Windows. The main reason is the complicated
>>process of installing software.
>
>
> What are you talking about?
>
> Apt
> YaST
> Urpmi
> Emerge
> Swaret
And Synaptic (my current favorite) and Kynaptic, standard equipment on
the Ubuntu distro.
Jim
Or under Knoppix/debian: apt-get on the console or use kpackage to do it
through a nice GUI.
--
Cheers, http://www.dotware.co.uk
Jim http://www.dotware-entertainment.co.uk
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, It is by the beans of
Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking
becomes a warning, it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Peter Köhlmann
No. They are busy fending of idiot twits like you
And telling other cretins they are full of it. Like this "Michael" guy
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
Let it get in YOUR way. The problem for your problem.
steve
> I've tried out an number of implimentations of Linux, but each time I gave
> up and went back to Windows. The main reason is the complicated process of
> installing software. Why can't software be installed under Linux by just
> double clicking the program's icon as it is under Windows. Until it is
> Windows wins.
If it not like that under windows, first you have to find the software,
probably register, download, scan for viri...then you can unzip, install,
reboot
With my linux I just
# emerge package-name
That is all.
So, according to your rules, linux wins
steve
> Michael wrote:
>> I've tried out an number of implimentations of Linux, but each time I
>> gave up and went back to Windows. The main reason is the complicated
>> process of installing software. Why can't software be installed under
>> Linux by just double clicking the program's icon as it is under Windows.
>> Until it is Windows wins.
>
> The new paradigm for "installing" software is JWS ( Java Web Start ).
> Microsoft is just beginning to *ape* this in .NET ( Smart Client ).
Tell that to tab - he is a java developer and complains about how hard it
is to deploy is app to linux.
Cyberwasteland
so many Windows computers are infected every day.
Regarding LInux not being taken up more widely - you need to talk to
some of your Netherlands neighbors.
Michael
Fedora Core 3 also, but once they were installed I couldn't get beyond
the start up screen asking me for a user name and password, even though
I gave my user name and password.
I tried to install various software packages - from within Linux - from
magazine cover discs. The packages were distributed as tarballs (or
some such name). The Linux magazine gave instructions on how to install
them through the consol window (is it?), but I got lost following the
instructions (about mounting and unmounting drives, opening and closing
files and whatever else) and went back to Windows.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking Linux. It's just that, well, Linux
seems to be knocking me. Ok so I'm stupid, but unless the OS works for
the stupid it has no real future. Make Linux idiot proof, like Windows
is. :)
steve
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 08:57:56 -0700, Michael wrote:
>
>> I've tried out an number of implimentations of Linux, but each time I
>> gave up and went back to Windows. The main reason is the complicated
>> process of installing software. Why can't software be installed under
>> Linux by just double clicking the program's icon as it is under Windows.
>> Until it is Windows wins.
>
>
> If it not like that under windows, first you have to find the software,
> probably register, download, scan for viri...then you can unzip, install,
> reboot
I forgot, you have to find where it was installed before you run it.
Desktop - along with another 1000 or so icons
Quick launch - if you are lucky.
Start menu - Now what was the name of the company the wrote it?
Jafar As-Sadiq Calley
> If you prefer command line, apt-get install <packagename> definitely isn't
> complicated. Neither is opening synaptic, searching/selecting the package,
> and clicking the install button. It doesn't get much simpler than that.
Agreed, there are many gui packaging options in linux these days. The
old line of software is hard to install is finished.
> Are you trying to compile and install from source maybe?
Even installing from source usually isnt to hard.
tar xzvf package.tar.gz
cd packagedir
./configure
make
make install
--
Jafar Calley
Producer - http://moonlife-records.com
--------------------------------------
See the latest Mars and Saturn images
http://fatcat.homelinux.org
William Poaster
wrote:
<snip>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking Linux. It's just that, well, Linux
> seems to be knocking me. Ok so I'm stupid, but unless the OS works for the
> stupid it has no real future. Make Linux idiot proof, like Windows is. :)
Windows is *for* idiots. Gates said he wanted a PC in every house (or
similar) & to do *that*, you have to dumb it down to the lowest common
denominator. If you say windows is idiot proof, how come so many are
affected with adware, spyware & viruses, as well as being zombified?
--
To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it;
to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it.
-- Scott Granneman --
Senior consultant for Bryan Consulting Inc. in St. Louis
William Poaster
wrote:
> I've tried out an number of implimentations of Linux, but each time I gave
> up and went back to Windows. The main reason is the complicated process of
> installing software.
Utter bullshit.
<snip drivel>
Riddic
> I've tried out an number of implimentations of Linux, but each time I
> gave up and went back to Windows. The main reason is the complicated
> process of installing software. Why can't software be installed under
> Linux by just double clicking the program's icon as it is under
> Windows. Until it is Windows wins.
>
> This is why Linux is not being taken up more widely, as I see it.
> Developing this ease of installing programs should be given the highest
> priority in the development of Linux at present. Why isn't it?
>
> Until programs are installed as easily under Linux as they are under
> Windows Linux will remain the specialists' OS and will not realise its
> promise to become the people's OS. So come developers, don't give us
> more applications until you've given us a simpler way of installing
> them.
I am just about sick and fucking tired of having opinions shoved down my
throat about why some THINK that Linux 'isn't ready for the desktop'.
- Why doesn't Windows give you any proper tools to extract infos from bigass
ascii-files? (as in webserver log files ... a few days ago I had to search
for sed/awk for Windows because M$ can't be arsed to pack something like
that with the OS).
- Why do Windows domain profiles self-destruct if there is a small
filesystem-error on one of the CLIENTS?
- Why do I have to pay money for an antivirus program or have to frantically
disable certain per-default-running-"services" just so it won't fall apart
on me after being directly connected to the internet for about 10 minutes?
- Limited simultaneous access, wtf?? (NT: 10, XP: 5, 2k: 10 ... or something
like that)
(collected material of my last 1.5 weeks of winderz tech support... and they
weren't even bad 1.5 weeks ...)
But hey, keep your precious click-on-setup crap-a-OS and be happy with it
you freakin' wimp, you apparently never had the need to actually "use" a
proper operating system.
John B
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Michael <michael...@lineone.net> espoused:
>
>>I've tried out an number of implimentations of Linux, but each time I
>>gave up and went back to Windows. The main reason is the complicated
>>process of installing software. Why can't software be installed under
>>Linux by just double clicking the program's icon as it is under
>>Windows. Until it is Windows wins.
>
>
> In debian, I do $apt-get install mozilla-firefox and it works.
>
I know in Mandrake 10.2 I can only find 1.0.2 and with 1.5 available
tomorrow IIRC I doubt Ill be able to get it through the package manager
very soon.
So I will have to dl it from mozilla, then install it manually.
Having said that, I am very new to linux so am not as familiar with it
and its installer ways yet as with windows, so it may yet prove to be a
better, easier way.
The package managers, with autoupdates certainly seem on the surface to
be a HUGE step forward over windows.
The problem would appear to be when you want a package that has either
not been packaged for your particular distribution or is not included in
your package manager sources.
The only reason I replied to you was because I think that you have at
least made an effort to address the question rather than just rubbishing
the OP.
> In Windows, I have to go to google to find a possible download site
> for a possible package, attempt to download, hoping that I've got the
> legitimate site and not some spyware/virus/trojan site, I then start a
> download, by clicking on a link (no icon, as you wrongly say above),
> which I think might start another one, and then I have to reboot the
> machine, after being asked questions about whether something should be
> a default or not. Then, maybe, it'll work.
>
Well, I personally have not had this problem in quite a while.
Cheers :)
JB
<snip>
Jim
/me applauds the splendiferous rant!
Jim
> Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> begin oe_protect.scr Michael <michael...@lineone.net> espoused:
>>
>>> I've tried out an number of implimentations of Linux, but each time I
>>> gave up and went back to Windows. The main reason is the complicated
>>> process of installing software. Why can't software be installed under
>>> Linux by just double clicking the program's icon as it is under
>>> Windows. Until it is Windows wins.
>>
>>
>>
>> In debian, I do $apt-get install mozilla-firefox and it works.
>
> Will it be the latest version of firefox?
>
in Knoppix/Debian, it'll be the bleeding-edge version unless you specify
the version.
> I know in Mandrake 10.2 I can only find 1.0.2 and with 1.5 available
> tomorrow IIRC I doubt Ill be able to get it through the package manager
> very soon.
>
Mandrake/iva may only use stable releases, which is why the versions are
lagging somewhat. As far as I know though, the updates are merely
security patches, nothing really functionality-wise. On saying that, you
can update Firefox through the app itself.
> So I will have to dl it from mozilla, then install it manually.
>
> Having said that, I am very new to linux so am not as familiar with it
> and its installer ways yet as with windows, so it may yet prove to be a
> better, easier way.
>
and what could be easier than the unified package manager? For Debian
it's apt-get on the console or go GUI and use something like kpackage
(the KDE package manager) which I love to death, Alien for non-deb apt
packages like rpm's and the like...
> The package managers, with autoupdates certainly seem on the surface to
> be a HUGE step forward over windows.
>
See above. The major advantage is that you can perform ALL maintenance
with a single command line: "apt-get update". Job done. Go for lunch.
> The problem would appear to be when you want a package that has either
> not been packaged for your particular distribution or is not included in
> your package manager sources.
>
That's rpm for Debian, through Alien, right. That's down to whether the
package itself has its own updater. For example, Firefox.
> The only reason I replied to you was because I think that you have at
> least made an effort to address the question rather than just rubbishing
> the OP.
>
>
>> In Windows, I have to go to google to find a possible download site
>> for a possible package, attempt to download, hoping that I've got the
>> legitimate site and not some spyware/virus/trojan site, I then start a
>> download, by clicking on a link (no icon, as you wrongly say above),
>> which I think might start another one, and then I have to reboot the
>> machine, after being asked questions about whether something should be
>> a default or not. Then, maybe, it'll work.
>>
> Well, I personally have not had this problem in quite a while.
>
> Cheers :)
>
> JB
>
> <snip>
I have, and very recently.
Had a client box with a particularly nasty worm latching on to the
system files. Went for the targetted-removal route because neither
Panda, Vexira nor AVG could get rid of it. Found the apparent removal
tool site, downloaded the file. Ran the .exe. Next thing I know, the
desktop fills with popups, and the wallpaper is replaced by a menacing
demand for cash to "get rid of viruses now! Your system is infected!"
Needless to say, rather than scrap with the bloody thing for the next
six hours trying to remove the scumware, I called the client and asked
him how far back his backups went. Two days, right before the original
problem sprang up. OK. Not a problem, I reimaged his machine (which took
all of oh, twenty minutes), and advised him to stay off of WinMX.
chrisv
> begin trojan.vbs It was on Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:16:24 -0700, that Michael
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking Linux. It's just that, well, Linux
>> seems to be knocking me. Ok so I'm stupid, but unless the OS works for the
>> stupid it has no real future. Make Linux idiot proof, like Windows is. :)
>
> Windows is *for* idiots. Gates said he wanted a PC in every house (or
> similar) & to do *that*, you have to dumb it down to the lowest common
> denominator. If you say windows is idiot proof, how come so many are
> affected with adware, spyware & viruses, as well as being zombified?
A very good point, to which I'm sure you will receive no answer.
George T Ellison III
> I've tried out an number of implimentations of Linux, but each time I
> gave up and went back to Windows. The main reason is the complicated
> process of installing software. Why can't software be installed under
> Linux by just double clicking the program's icon as it is under
> Windows. Until it is Windows wins.
>
> Developing this ease of installing programs should be given the highest
> priority in the development of Linux at present. Why isn't it?
>
> Until programs are installed as easily under Linux as they are under
> Windows Linux will remain the specialists' OS and will not realise its
> promise to become the people's OS. So come developers, don't give us
> more applications until you've given us a simpler way of installing
> them.
>
make
make install
How hard is that again?
chrisv
> I am just about sick and fucking tired of having opinions shoved down my
> throat about why some THINK that Linux 'isn't ready for the desktop'.
Then you're in the wrong place, partner. This is troll central.
Jim
> begin trojan.vbs It was on Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:16:24 -0700, that Michael
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking Linux. It's just that, well, Linux
>>seems to be knocking me. Ok so I'm stupid, but unless the OS works for the
>>stupid it has no real future. Make Linux idiot proof, like Windows is. :)
>
>
> Windows is *for* idiots. Gates said he wanted a PC in every house (or
> similar) & to do *that*, you have to dumb it down to the lowest common
> denominator. If you say windows is idiot proof, how come so many are
> affected with adware, spyware & viruses, as well as being zombified?
>
That's not a challenge to the claim of being idiot proof. It doesn't
need an idiot to fsck up a Windows box, all you need to do is visit
googkle (may not be up anymore, but it was a particularly nasty
typosquatting site which dumped trojans all over unsuspecting machines),
and hell, even I've done it (see my post of 3 minutes ago) without
meaning to - and I'm a pro!!
ray
For someone raised on a GUI, issuing commands from the cli can indeed be
intimidating, no matter how trivial. The point is that the major distros
HAVE GUI based software installers that are no more difficult to use than
MS.
George T Ellison III
installers are nice, but it's even nicer to know you're not shit out of
luck when the pretty uber-chrome installer fucks up.
TheLetterK
> I've tried out an number of implimentations of Linux, but each time I
> gave up and went back to Windows. The main reason is the complicated
> process of installing software. Why can't software be installed under
> Linux by just double clicking the program's icon as it is under
> Windows. Until it is Windows wins.
me a decent package manager and Synaptic any day.
TheLetterK
> I tried SUSE 9.1 and Xandros Desktop 3.0. I tried Mandrake 10.1 and
> Fedora Core 3 also, but once they were installed I couldn't get beyond
> the start up screen asking me for a user name and password, even though
> I gave my user name and password.
>
> I tried to install various software packages - from within Linux - from
> magazine cover discs.
> The packages were distributed as tarballs (or
> some such name). The Linux magazine gave instructions on how to install
> them through the consol window (is it?), but I got lost following the
> instructions (about mounting and unmounting drives, opening and closing
> files and whatever else) and went back to Windows.
Really, how hard is it to type:
./configure
make
make install
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking Linux. It's just that, well, Linux
> seems to be knocking me. Ok so I'm stupid, but unless the OS works for
> the stupid it has no real future. Make Linux idiot proof, like Windows
> is. :)
It is idiot proof.
TheLetterK
> In article <1126108676.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Michael" <michael...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I've tried out an number of implimentations of Linux, but each time I
>>gave up and went back to Windows. The main reason is the complicated
>>process of installing software. Why can't software be installed under
>>Linux by just double clicking the program's icon as it is under
>>Windows. Until it is Windows wins.
>
>
> drag them to the application folder. :)
>
>
>>This is why Linux is not being taken up more widely, as I see it.
>>Developing this ease of installing programs should be given the highest
>>priority in the development of Linux at present. Why isn't it?
>
>
> *single* *program* need a huge "installation wizard" that asks about paths and
> start menu locations instead of the user just dragging the app to where she or
> he wants it.
Which is even more difficult than what Debian users do. Why on earth
would I manually hunt down a package?
>
>
>>Until programs are installed as easily under Linux as they are under
>>Windows Linux will remain the specialists' OS and will not realise its
>>promise to become the people's OS.
>
>
> Windows has become the dominant OS *in spite of* its lousy UI, not because of
> it.
>
Larry Qualig
"TheLetterK" <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote in message
news:ptNTe.1203$9O....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Michael wrote:
>> I've tried out an number of implimentations of Linux, but each time I
>> gave up and went back to Windows. The main reason is the complicated
>> process of installing software. Why can't software be installed under
>> Linux by just double clicking the program's icon as it is under
>> Windows. Until it is Windows wins.
> Because the Windows method of installing software sucks out loud? Give me
> a decent package manager and Synaptic any day.
What do you believe the difference is between synaptic and the Windows
method? I've used both and on the surface they seem more similar than
different. They both install an application.
TheLetterK
the install file? Synaptic handles updates? Synaptic is a two-click
procedure instead of a 10 click procedure (for one app)? Synaptic allows
me to quickly search through thousands of packages for what I
want--Windows makes me use google.
John B
> John B wrote:
<snip>
>>> In debian, I do $apt-get install mozilla-firefox and it works.
>>
>>
>> Will it be the latest version of firefox?
>>
>
> in Knoppix/Debian, it'll be the bleeding-edge version unless you specify
> the version.
>
>> I know in Mandrake 10.2 I can only find 1.0.2 and with 1.5 available
>> tomorrow IIRC I doubt Ill be able to get it through the package
>> manager very soon.
>>
>
> Mandrake/iva may only use stable releases, which is why the versions are
> lagging somewhat. As far as I know though, the updates are merely
> security patches, nothing really functionality-wise. On saying that, you
> can update Firefox through the app itself.
>
Cool :)
It just seemed from my limited experience with mandriva/ake that things
are lagging somewhat on the update front.
>> So I will have to dl it from mozilla, then install it manually.
>>
>> Having said that, I am very new to linux so am not as familiar with it
>> and its installer ways yet as with windows, so it may yet prove to be
>> a better, easier way.
>>
>
> and what could be easier than the unified package manager? For Debian
> it's apt-get on the console or go GUI and use something like kpackage
> (the KDE package manager) which I love to death, Alien for non-deb apt
> packages like rpm's and the like...
Nothing could be easier. I have on my todo list to set it up to update
automagically and mail me the logs when I finally choose a distro to go
with.
>
>> The package managers, with autoupdates certainly seem on the surface
>> to be a HUGE step forward over windows.
>>
>
> See above. The major advantage is that you can perform ALL maintenance
> with a single command line: "apt-get update". Job done. Go for lunch.
>
>> The problem would appear to be when you want a package that has either
>> not been packaged for your particular distribution or is not included
>> in your package manager sources.
>>
>
> That's rpm for Debian, through Alien, right. That's down to whether the
> package itself has its own updater. For example, Firefox.
>
Hmm, will have to have another look at debian and this alien you speak of :)
<snip>
>
> Had a client box with a particularly nasty worm latching on to the
> system files. Went for the targetted-removal route because neither
> Panda, Vexira nor AVG could get rid of it. Found the apparent removal
> tool site, downloaded the file. Ran the .exe. Next thing I know, the
> desktop fills with popups, and the wallpaper is replaced by a menacing
> demand for cash to "get rid of viruses now! Your system is infected!"
> Needless to say, rather than scrap with the bloody thing for the next
> six hours trying to remove the scumware, I called the client and asked
> him how far back his backups went. Two days, right before the original
> problem sprang up. OK. Not a problem, I reimaged his machine (which took
> all of oh, twenty minutes), and advised him to stay off of WinMX.
>
>
I think thats about par for the course with ms and
spyware/malware/virii/trojans.
I havent had an install screw up my system in quite a while, the last
rebuild I had to do was because I un-installed M$ anti-spyware on my
work pc which then would do absolutely nothing except boot.
No explorer, taskbar etc...
Whoo Hooo :(
At least your image worked properly, the one I had for my pc
bluescreened after reimaging :(
Worked fine on three other "identical" machines and was imaged from my
machine in the first place.
Thanks for the time to reply :)
JB
Sandman
TheLetterK <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
>> I wonder why it isn't given a high priority in windows, and why
>> *every* *single* *program* need a huge "installation wizard" that
>> asks about paths and start menu locations instead of the user just
>> dragging the app to where she or he wants it.
>
> Which is even more difficult than what Debian users do. Why on earth
> would I manually hunt down a package?
I'm sorry, I don't buy into the notion that developer needs to submit their
apps to a central source for the users to be able to easily install them.
I rather have the developers package them easily and make installation easy. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Mark Kent
Jim <ja...@the-computer-shop.co.uk> espoused:
> John B wrote:
>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>> begin oe_protect.scr Michael <michael...@lineone.net> espoused:
>>>
>>>> I've tried out an number of implimentations of Linux, but each time I
>>>> gave up and went back to Windows. The main reason is the complicated
>>>> process of installing software. Why can't software be installed under
>>>> Linux by just double clicking the program's icon as it is under
>>>> Windows. Until it is Windows wins.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In debian, I do $apt-get install mozilla-firefox and it works.
>>
>> Will it be the latest version of firefox?
>>
>
> in Knoppix/Debian, it'll be the bleeding-edge version unless you specify
> the version.
>
Quite. Debian will give you the choice of installing that latest unstable
version, or the latest *secure* stable version.
Security fixed versions will be automatically selected in preference to
insecure versions, which is clearly highly important.
The package management features of Debian GNU/Linux is astoundingly good.
Another thing to consider is that you can remove packages in linux,
which is practically impossible in Microsoft Windows.
Use linux for professional package management.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
It doesn't matter whether you win or lose -- until you lose.
Mark Kent
> Fedora Core 3 also, but once they were installed I couldn't get beyond
> the start up screen asking me for a user name and password, even though
> I gave my user name and password.
Who did you give them to?
>
> I tried to install various software packages - from within Linux - from
> magazine cover discs. The packages were distributed as tarballs (or
> some such name).
As none of those distributions use tarballs as their packaging method,
I don't believe you.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 08:57:56 -0700, Michael wrote:
> I've tried out an number of implimentations of Linux, but each time I
> gave up and went back to Windows. The main reason is the complicated
> process of installing software.
If selecting from a nice - searchable - GUI, selecting the packages to
install and clicking "install" is too complicated for you, you damn well
*belong* with Windows.
Freeride
> As none of those distributions use tarballs as their packaging method,
> I don't believe you.
Wow at least someone in this thread is starting to get a clue, that this is
nothing more than a weak attempt at a troll.
Sinister Midget
> I've tried out an number of implimentations of Linux, but each time I
> gave up and went back to Windows. The main reason is the complicated
> Linux by just double clicking the program's icon as it is under
> Windows. Until it is Windows wins.
If that's what it takes to win, Winders can /always/ win!
Viruses are easy to install, for example. Linux can't do that.
Keyloggers are easy to install. Linux can't do it the same way, not by
simply klicking something, or even by a third party, the way Winders
can do it.
Hijackers would be a dickens to install under linux, unlike the ease
with which they can be done with Winders.
Those fun trojans don't stand much of a chance for a successful install
under linux. Not in any meaningful way.
Even rootkits are harder under linux, though they're more prevalent
than the other things I mentioned.
Thank God linux can't run some of the more popular Winders programs,
like MyDoom, CodeRed, Kelvir, Nimda and so on. That's not only because
they only /run/ on Winders. but it's also because anything like them
would be so difficult to install system-wide on linux.
But software installation under linux is pretty easy these days.
Provided the person doing the installing has enough smarts to figure
out what needs to be run to do it. It can't take /too/ much effort. I
figured it out in several Debian-based distros, in a couple of RPM
using distros, how to do it with tarballs, how to get what I need with
Midnight Commander and Alien, etc.
--
Microsoft is not the answer. Microsoft is the question.
The answer is NO!
Sinister Midget
> Fedora Core 3 also, but once they were installed I couldn't get beyond
> the start up screen asking me for a user name and password, even though
> I gave my user name and password.
Evidently you didn't give the /same/ username and password you gave
when you installed.
> I tried to install various software packages - from within Linux - from
> magazine cover discs. The packages were distributed as tarballs (or
> some such name). The Linux magazine gave instructions on how to install
> them through the consol window (is it?), but I got lost following the
> instructions (about mounting and unmounting drives, opening and closing
> files and whatever else) and went back to Windows.
How did you ever get to the point of installing anything? Did they
start putting an "Install Software Here" box or button on the login
screen?
Maybe you did just like on Winders: Go to login, klick 'Cancel' and
bypass that super-duper 'security' mechanism.
Admittedly, that hasn't worked for a long time in Winders and I never
knew of it working on linux. But I can't figure out how you got in to
install stuff if you were still at the login screen.
You really /should/ stick with Winders!
--
Don't throw your PC out of the window. Throw Windows out of your PC.
(Except in Michael's case.)
Sinister Midget
> begin trojan.vbs It was on Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:16:24 -0700, that Michael
> wrote:
>
><snip>
>> Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking Linux. It's just that, well, Linux
>> seems to be knocking me. Ok so I'm stupid, but unless the OS works for the
>> stupid it has no real future. Make Linux idiot proof, like Windows is. :)
>
> Windows is *for* idiots. Gates said he wanted a PC in every house (or
> similar) & to do *that*, you have to dumb it down to the lowest common
> denominator. If you say windows is idiot proof, how come so many are
> affected with adware, spyware & viruses, as well as being zombified?
No no no! Windows isn't "idiot proof". Windows is "proof of idiots".
--
Microsoft is to operating systems and security as McDonalds is to
gourmet cooking.
Sinister Midget
Evidently a lot harder than:
go find it
download it
scan for viruses
unzip it
install it
reboot
scan for viruses
search for icon (unless you're lucky)
answer popup about making it the default
run it for awhile, maybe several times
finally answer 'Yes' to the popup about being default
answering 'No' to the popup from IE on the couple of sites that need it
Any questions about the superiority of Winders?
--
A Windows utility is a virus with seniority.
Sinister Midget
> In article <SxNTe.1230$9O....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
> TheLetterK <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
>
>>> I wonder why it isn't given a high priority in windows, and why
>>> *every* *single* *program* need a huge "installation wizard" that
>>> asks about paths and start menu locations instead of the user just
>>> dragging the app to where she or he wants it.
>>
>> Which is even more difficult than what Debian users do. Why on earth
>> would I manually hunt down a package?
>
> I'm sorry, I don't buy into the notion that developer needs to submit their
> apps to a central source for the users to be able to easily install them.
Most of them aren't "submitted" to anyone for packaging. Most of the
packagers "choose" what they want to include.
> I rather have the developers package them easily and make installation easy. :)
Not everything on Mac is as easy as drag'n'drop. Many things come with
installers packaged in .dmg files (downloads), often with instructions
that tell you to klick the icon to start the installer. Most CDs also
have installers of one sort or another.
--
To mess up a linux box, you need to work _at_ it.
To mess up a Windows box, you need to work _on_ it.
William Poaster
Midget wrote:
> On 2005-09-07, William Poaster <will...@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx> posted
> something concerning:
>> begin trojan.vbs It was on Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:16:24 -0700, that
>> Michael wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>> Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking Linux. It's just that, well, Linux
>>> seems to be knocking me. Ok so I'm stupid, but unless the OS works for
>>> the stupid it has no real future. Make Linux idiot proof, like Windows
>>> is. :)
>>
>> Windows is *for* idiots. Gates said he wanted a PC in every house (or
>> similar) & to do *that*, you have to dumb it down to the lowest common
>> denominator. If you say windows is idiot proof, how come so many are
>> affected with adware, spyware & viruses, as well as being zombified?
>
> No no no! Windows isn't "idiot proof". Windows is "proof of idiots".
Ah yes, of course. "Windows, to keep idiots away from linux". ;-)
--
To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it;
to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it.
-- Scott Granneman --
Senior consultant for Bryan Consulting Inc. in St. Louis
William Poaster
Midget wrote:
<snip>
> Thank God linux can't run some of the more popular Winders programs, like
> MyDoom, CodeRed, Kelvir, Nimda and so on. That's not only because they
> only /run/ on Winders. but it's also because anything like them would be
> so difficult to install system-wide on linux.
I know, we're missing out on all the "fun". They won't even under WINE!
> But software installation under linux is pretty easy these days. Provided
> the person doing the installing has enough smarts to figure out what needs
> to be run to do it. It can't take /too/ much effort. I figured it out in
> several Debian-based distros, in a couple of RPM using distros, how to do
> it with tarballs, how to get what I need with Midnight Commander and
> Alien, etc.
:-)
Linønut
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking Linux. It's just that, well, Linux
> seems to be knocking me. Ok so I'm stupid, but unless the OS works for
> the stupid it has no real future. Make Linux idiot proof, like Windows
> is. :)
Windows is definitely NOT idiot proof. Even people experienced in
Windows can fall into traps.
--
Code is community.
Sinister Midget
> begin trojan.vbs It was on Thu, 08 Sep 2005 09:54:03 +0000, that Sinister
> Midget wrote:
>
><snip>
>> Thank God linux can't run some of the more popular Winders programs, like
>> MyDoom, CodeRed, Kelvir, Nimda and so on. That's not only because they
>> only /run/ on Winders. but it's also because anything like them would be
>> so difficult to install system-wide on linux.
>
> I know, we're missing out on all the "fun". They won't even under WINE!
I don't miss out on much of it, though.
The worm we had a couple of weeks ago is a good example.
We have a Trend Micro scanner installed on all of the machines except
one. That's one I restored just a few days before all of the fun stuff
ensued. They put it on the machines over a year ago. Now they say they
don't have the authority to log into the machines because they don't
own them. (Funny how it was OK when they wanted to set up spying on us
as a service since, after all, it's connected to their network.) The
Smart(tm) MCSEs(tm) put it on, but now deny it. In any case, the worm
hit and took the network down.
In the Improved(tm) Sophistimicated(tm) Winders(tm) Fixit(tm)
Program(tm), every machine needed a personal visit from a human to be
patched and scanned before it could be put back on the network. There
are so many and so few people to do it, they dropped off a CD of
everything needed and asked me to go over our machines. The procedure,
they said, was simple:
1. Go to the machine.
1a. If it's eX-Pee, make sure it has SP2 first.
1a(1). Patch it if not up to SP2. Don't forget to
reboot when completed.
1a(2). Proceed to step 2 if it's already patched.
1b. If it's Winders 2K, patch it with the enclosed patch marked
for 2K and proceed to step 3.
2. (eX-Pee ONLY) Patch with the eX-Pee patch.
3. Reboot
4. Run the enclosed scanner.
5. If it found something, run it again.
(Right about here, the Smart(tm) MCSE(tm) sees the Trend Micro
scanner.)
6. Run this other scanner, too.
7. If either of them found anything, run them again.
(SIDENOTE: A direct quote from the Smart(tm) MCSE(tm): "You shouldn't
have to run either of them more than a couple of times. I think I found
one that I had to run them 3 times, but that's it. Certainly no more
than 5 times of running them should do it." I asked him to please leave
while we were still under 10. He looked puzzled.)
8. "You should be OK."
Now, back to the Trend Micro scanner that they put on over a year ago.
It's never been updated. I think their original plan was to push
definition updates. But they forgot about it (as we'll see later).
So, I scan all of the machines. I even scanned the one that had the
worm a few days earlier, before anybody ever heard of it, and had
already been restored completely except for the software that they put
on a year ago and now claim they don't have the authority to put back
because they don't own the machines. I did /not/ scan the machine that
had the worm a few days earlier that they took away and said had a
hardware problem and we'd never see it again, but that's because I
couldn't since they took it away for a "hardware problem" that,
coincidentally, had the exact same symptoms that the worm was supposed
to show on W2K machines. This /was/ a W2K machine, too.
None of the machines showed any signs of the worm when scanning them
(except the 2 already mentioned) except one. It had 190 copies of the
worm on it. But the bad news is, their premiere scanner wasn't the one
that found it. What found it was the year-old copy of the Trend Micro
scanner that had never been updated.
The next day I came to work and was told 4 machines were still showing
signs of infection. They wanted me to rescan 3 of them and they were
doing the fourth remotely. (I started to point out that I'd already
scanned them the "less than 5 times" that the Smart(tm) person had told
me the day before, but I thought better of it.) So I rescanned them and
found nothing.
I told the person that asked me to scan things again that nothing was
found. I also pointed out that their top-of-the-line scanner found
nothing, at all, ever, but that the out-of-date scanner found 190
copies on one machine. She asked me what the hell this Trend Micro
thing was. I told her it was something they put one more than a year
ago. She said they didn't have such a thing. I told her that was funny
because it didn't come standard on those machines and only showed up
when they came out and put some office stuff on the machines. In any
case, their bestest of all the best was falling down while the older
definitions of another scanner seemed to be doing the job.
Later she said they were beginning to think they had something else
wrong, so don't worry about the machines any more.
That's just 2 days of fun. Recently. I got to scan several machines
several times, got expert advice form a Smart(tm) MSCE(tm), lost a
machine that had a "hardware problem" that just coincidentally had the
exact same symptoms of a worm that hit a couple of days later and found
out that the Smart(tm) MCSEs(tm) don't even know where the only virus
scanner that worked came from despite them being the only ones that
could have put it there. Plus, the real bonus of the whole thing, I go
to rub elbows and converse directly /with/ some very proficient
Smart(tm) MCSEs(tm)!
Our machines were only down for 3 days total. A couple were only 2
days.
This is proof that Winders has much lower TCO than linux, and that all
of those Highly(tm) Paid(tm) Smart(tm) MCSEs(tm) are deserving of their
pay.
(Good sigmonster!)
--
A Microsoft Certified System Engineer is to information technology
as a McDonalds Certified Food Specialist is to the culinary arts.
lqu...@uku.co.uk
I meant it more in the context of "installing the app" and not
necessarily "locating the app." I was working on the assumption that
the user already knows/has the app they want to install.
The "automatic updates" is a good point. Some apps (Acrobat, Flash,
etc) do have automatic updates but most don't. But even with the ones
that do, there is no one central place to do it from.
The number of mouse clicks is irrelevant. There are very few apps that
require more than 3 or 4. Several installers do support a switch like
'-s' from the command line for a 'silent' install. This basically is a
zero-click install where you simply get all the defaults. Of course the
more complicated the app and the more options then the more choices
there will be. Installing a text editor is going to be easier than
installing a DBMS.
Richard Rasker
> I tried SUSE 9.1 and Xandros Desktop 3.0. I tried Mandrake 10.1 and
> Fedora Core 3 also, but once they were installed I couldn't get beyond
> the start up screen asking me for a user name and password, even though
> I gave my user name and password.
OK, that is Not Good(tm). Evidently, the install was not completed
correctly for one reason or another. Most often, this is caused by a lack
of sufficient memory or disk space - a minimum of 256M and 3G respectively
for a reasonably complete desktop install with KDE. Unfortunately, Linux
is no longer mean 'n lean, unless you specifically set your system up with
a light Window manager and not too many graphical apps.
During the install, the system first asks for a root password (admin).
This password is associated with the user name "root". Then, most
distributions ask (or better: force) you to set up a normal user account,
with a user name and a password of your choice. This is the account which
you'll use for all normal tasks, and which gives you read/execute access
to most software on the system, but write access only to the associated
home directory. You only need the root password for system administration
tasks, such as installing new software.
As mentioned, installing new software is a matter of starting some type of
package manager (which one depends on the distribution and your
preferences), select whatever package(s) you want from the list and click
Install. That's all. The only software which is easier to install are the
viruses under Windows.
> I tried to install various software packages - from within Linux - from
> magazine cover discs. The packages were distributed as tarballs (or
> some such name). The Linux magazine gave instructions on how to install
> them through the consol window (is it?), but I got lost following the
> instructions (about mounting and unmounting drives, opening and closing
> files and whatever else) and went back to Windows.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking Linux. It's just that, well, Linux
> seems to be knocking me. Ok so I'm stupid, but unless the OS works for
> the stupid it has no real future. Make Linux idiot proof, like Windows
> is. :)
It is, you just got fed the wrong distributions, and perhaps your hardware
doesn't meet the minimum specs in terms of memory and/or disk space. For
all the rest, installing for instance Mandriva (formerly known as
Mandrake) is a breeze. About a year ago, I made an interesting comparison
between installing Windows and Mandrake. It turns out that there is no
real difference in complexity anymore:
http://www.linetec.nl/linux/winlininstall_0_en.html
I hope you'll try again, and don't hesitate to ask for help if things
don't work out right away - and as you can see in my article, installing
Windows can also be a bit of a pain.
Richard Rasker
--
Linetec Translation and Technology Services
Tattoo Vampire
> I've tried out an number of implimentations of Linux, but each time I
> gave up and went back to Windows. The main reason is the complicated
> process of installing software. Why can't software be installed under
> Linux by just double clicking the program's icon as it is under
> Windows. Until it is Windows wins.
Uh-huh. Please explain how Synaptic is complicated.
--
The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected.
-- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 22:44:05 -0400, Larry Qualig wrote:
>> Because the Windows method of installing software sucks out loud? Give me
>> a decent package manager and Synaptic any day.
>
>
> What do you believe the difference is between synaptic and the Windows
> method? I've used both and on the surface they seem more similar than
> different. They both install an application.
They do?
Install XP. Now go to the ad/remove applet. Where, in that list, do you
see your office suite, ready to be clicked and installed? Where's your
development tools? Graphics and video editing apps? Development tools?
Where's the Borland C++ IDE? Where's Corel Draw? Where's Adobe
Illustrator?
For the several hundred or several thousand applications it lists, ready
to be installed, where's the option to list just the updates to installed
applications?
I load Synaptic, after a fresh OS install, I see hundreds, even thousands
of apps, all ready to be installed. Or upgraded. In Windows, the only
interface I get is to apps that have already been installed (or partially
so, for deployed apps) but for other apps? Hell, Windows doesn't even
have the equivalent of a repository, so if you want apps, you can't just
bring up a nice, unified interface and search, select and install, you
have to hunt, package-by-package, across the net, or the local stores.
Everything becomes a one-off instead of part of a managed whole. It's
more work for less result.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 07:22:54 -0700, lqualig wrote:
> I meant it more in the context of "installing the app" and not
> necessarily "locating the app." I was working on the assumption that
> the user already knows/has the app they want to install.
Do you recall, not too many years ago, there was a whole spate of VB-based
applications coming out? They all required some dll - vbrun32 or some
such. Problem was, modems were slow, the file was (comparatively) large,
and there were hundreds of apps that needed it.
There's a couple of solutions to this sort of problem. First, bundle it
with every application. This sucks up more and more and more time as you
download it over and over and over, as part of each application's install.
Second, don't bundle it, but tell the user they need it. This leads to
programs that don't run, because the user forgot to get the package (or
doesn't know where to get it, etc.)
There may be other ways, of course, but the generic Linux answer to this
is simple: the necessary package is, like the application package, in the
repository. The install package for the app lists the other as a
dependency, and the package manager will automatically retrieve and
install it - if it's not already installed.
Net result? You only download it once, not once for every app. You don't
have to remember that you need it, the computer does it for you. Your app
doesn't break, because it has the dependencies it needs.
Windows, without a packaging system or a repository system, can't do that.
Users still have to either download the same thing over and over (simple
example: updates/installations of the MSI installer core, often bundled
in the setup package) and still have to manage all their software manually.
The Ghost In The Machine
<notam...@nerdshack.com>
wrote
on Wed, 07 Sep 2005 22:12:04 -0400
<i6NTe.20688$8q.2474@lakeread01>:
> ray wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:02:55 -0400, George T Ellison III wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Michael wrote:
>>>
>>>>I've tried out an number of implimentations of Linux, but each time I
>>>>gave up and went back to Windows. The main reason is the complicated
>>>>process of installing software. Why can't software be installed under
>>>>Linux by just double clicking the program's icon as it is under
>>>>Windows. Until it is Windows wins.
>>>>
>>>>Developing this ease of installing programs should be given the highest
>>>>priority in the development of Linux at present. Why isn't it?
>>>>
>>>>Until programs are installed as easily under Linux as they are under
>>>>Windows Linux will remain the specialists' OS and will not realise its
>>>>promise to become the people's OS. So come developers, don't give us
>>>>more applications until you've given us a simpler way of installing
>>>>them.
>>>>
>>>
>>>./configure
>>>make
>>>make install
>>>
>>>How hard is that again?
>>
>>
>> intimidating, no matter how trivial. The point is that the major distros
>> HAVE GUI based software installers that are no more difficult to use than
>> MS.
>>
> I was raised on a GUI, and I figured it out in about 20 mins. GUI
> installers are nice, but it's even nicer to know you're not shit out of
> luck when the pretty uber-chrome installer fucks up.
It's also not that hard to type in the command 'apt-get'
(or in my case 'emerge'), once instructed; the magic word
for Linux is 'man'. :-) Admittedly, it could be better;
'man kdeinit' brings up nothing ('man gnome-session'
works). It helps to be a touch-typist but even a
two-fingered sort manages well enough, methinks --
certainly keyboards are nearly ubiquitous nowadays.
If one doesn't like typing in 'man blah', there's other
alternatives ('tkman' comes to mind), or one can search
on the Web for manpages.
But this GUI/CLI dichotomy is IMO rather silly; the main
problem is ensuring everyone knows what needs doing.
I don't know if anyone's computer-illiterate nowadays but
I do wonder if it's obvious to anyone who's never seen
Windows before (but is otherwise generally knowledgeable)
what the recycle icon can do, or even to click and drag
the mouse to select things. (The same could be said for
Nautilus, of course.)
Ultimately someone may do some research in actual
*thinking*: how the brain perceives things on the screen,
what counts as "intuitive", etc. That is my hope;
after all, the "save" icon (usually, it's a floppy or
a floppy-with-pencil) doesn't seem all that intuitive
to me unless one has some historical context (I still
have 5 1/4" floppies lying about) or is told. Yet lots
of applications still use it for a "save" metaphor;
Gimp uses both floppy (save) and floppy-with-pencil
(save as); so does OpenOffice. Epiphany has "save as"
with floppy-with-pencil. Eclipse has a floppy with
three dots. Kxmleditor uses a floppy-with-pencil metaphor
(it's a different icon from Gnome's but just as readily
recognizable). The only loner is xedit, who has "save"
and "quit" text buttons -- and if someone bothers one could
rewrite /etc/X11/app-defaults/Xedit to use icons, instead.
Would it be worth it? :-)
(These are apps I happen to have handy on this system.)
And yet -- there are some new computers which don't even
offer 3 1/2" floppy drives as an option anymore.
One wonders.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Linønut
> This is proof that Winders has much lower TCO than linux, and that all
> of those Highly(tm) Paid(tm) Smart(tm) MCSEs(tm) are deserving of their
> pay.
Say! I went to the bathroom today and I found a WHOLE ROLL of MCSE
certificates.
They're two-ply, and very soft and absorbent.
--
Code is community.
lqu...@uku.co.uk
I believe the key phrase is: "Do you recall, not too many years ago,
there was a whole spate of VB-based applications coming out? They all
required some dll - vbrun32 or some such."
As in "not too many years ago" but that was in the past.
There used to be other files that fell into the same category...
mfc42.dll, comctl32.dll, msvcrt.dll, etc. The current versions of
Windows don't have this issue. How it's currently done may still not be
100% perfect but these "required" files are now included and updated
with the OS. Applications are no longer allowed to include their own
versions of these files. Attempting to replace/overwrite these files by
an installer will fail.
It's the old "DLL Hell" thing which began going away a few years ago.
It doesn't help old apps/installers that were written long ago and it
won't change homebrew software developers who still think they need to
ship these files but nearly all recent software doesn't deal with this
anymore.
The Ghost In The Machine
<sini...@noidshack.com>
wrote
on Thu, 08 Sep 2005 09:54:03 GMT
<slrndi02c7....@laptop.harry.net>:
> On 2005-09-07, Michael <michael...@lineone.net> posted something concerning:
>> I've tried out an number of implimentations of Linux, but each time I
>> gave up and went back to Windows. The main reason is the complicated
>> process of installing software. Why can't software be installed under
>> Linux by just double clicking the program's icon as it is under
>> Windows. Until it is Windows wins.
>
> If that's what it takes to win, Winders can /always/ win!
>
> Viruses are easy to install, for example. Linux can't do that.
>
> Keyloggers are easy to install. Linux can't do it the same way, not by
> simply klicking something, or even by a third party, the way Winders
> can do it.
>
> Hijackers would be a dickens to install under linux, unlike the ease
> with which they can be done with Winders.
>
> Those fun trojans don't stand much of a chance for a successful install
> under linux. Not in any meaningful way.
>
> Even rootkits are harder under linux, though they're more prevalent
> than the other things I mentioned.
>
> Thank God linux can't run some of the more popular Winders programs,
> like MyDoom, CodeRed, Kelvir, Nimda and so on. That's not only because
> they only /run/ on Winders. but it's also because anything like them
> would be so difficult to install system-wide on linux.
>
> But software installation under linux is pretty easy these days.
> Provided the person doing the installing has enough smarts to figure
> out what needs to be run to do it.
And has sufficient access. It would be interesting to see if one
could install Gnome without system privileges, for example -- I
for one could see that being of limited use in certain contexts.
Ideally, Linux and Gnome wouldn't have a problem with that (though
it's far from clear how well privileged parts of Gnome would work,
absent something like UML, VmWare, bochs, or QEMU already on
the system and Gnome being in the emulated machine).
Of course, viruses, keyloggers, etc. needn't apply... :-)
> It can't take /too/ much effort. I
> figured it out in several Debian-based distros, in a couple of RPM
> using distros, how to do it with tarballs, how to get what I need with
> Midnight Commander and Alien, etc.
>
download
tar xf ...
read the instructions
su/sudo
./configure
make
make install
if nothing else works. :-) I'll admit emerge has spoiled me,
though. :-) (Not that apt-get was that bad, and at some point
I probably would have worked out how to do package builds
from Debian.)
Sinister Midget
I once had a person explain to me how to wipe with just one sheet. That
would make those certificates last a whole lot longer in the distressed
gulf coast region.
--
Windows? WINDOWS?!? Hahahahahahehehe.....
Nigel Feltham
> ray wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 08:57:56 -0700, Michael wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I've tried out an number of implimentations of Linux, but each time I
>>>gave up and went back to Windows. The main reason is the complicated
>>>process of installing software. Why can't software be installed under
>>>Linux by just double clicking the program's icon as it is under
>>>Windows. Until it is Windows wins.
>>>
>>>This is why Linux is not being taken up more widely, as I see it.
>>>Developing this ease of installing programs should be given the highest
>>>priority in the development of Linux at present. Why isn't it?
>>>
>>>Until programs are installed as easily under Linux as they are under
>>>Windows Linux will remain the specialists' OS and will not realise its
>>>promise to become the people's OS. So come developers, don't give us
>>>more applications until you've given us a simpler way of installing
>>>them.
>>
>>
>> If you properly install a major Linux distribution, software installation
>> is quite easy. For example, with Mandrake 10.1 - I open the 'install
>> software' menu, select the software I want to install, and push the
>> 'install' button. That's should not be too difficult to fathom.
>>
>
> Or under Knoppix/debian: apt-get on the console or use kpackage to do it
> through a nice GUI.
I've never understand how the wintrolls think obtaining and installing
windows software one package at a time with several mouse clicks (and in
many cases entry of a 20+ digit serial number) per package is easier than
the Linux approach of selecting all required software from a list and then
pressing 1 button to install the lot.
Ray Ingles
lqu...@uku.co.uk wrote:
> There used to be other files that fell into the same category...
> mfc42.dll, comctl32.dll, msvcrt.dll, etc. The current versions of
> Windows don't have this issue. How it's currently done may still not be
> 100% perfect but these "required" files are now included and updated
> with the OS. Applications are no longer allowed to include their own
> versions of these files. Attempting to replace/overwrite these files by
> an installer will fail.
include their own version and keep it with the application itself so
it can find that version. As you say, "not 100% perfect".
> It's the old "DLL Hell" thing which began going away a few years ago.
Microsoft is trying with things like .NET and even "Fusion", but
it's, well, a bit complicated:
http://www.grimes.demon.co.uk/workshops/fusionWS.htm
At least they are finally addressing this. Somehow I doubt they'll
hit on an optimal solution, though.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Here, Iraq, take our Constitution. We're not using it anyway.
-- Robin Willams
lqu...@uku.co.uk
I don't believe that it's necessarily 'easier' in Windows. But I don't
believe that it's materially that much more difficult either.
Major applications have serial numbers. Install Oracle or DB2 on Linux
and you'll also need to enter a serial number.
Several mouse clicks???? Perhaps I could use a little more excercise
but 3 or 4 mouse clicks isn't that big of a deal.
lqu...@uku.co.uk
Ray Ingles wrote:
> In article <1126198706....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> lqu...@uku.co.uk wrote:
> > There used to be other files that fell into the same category...
> > mfc42.dll, comctl32.dll, msvcrt.dll, etc. The current versions of
> > Windows don't have this issue. How it's currently done may still not be
> > 100% perfect but these "required" files are now included and updated
> > with the OS. Applications are no longer allowed to include their own
> > versions of these files. Attempting to replace/overwrite these files by
> > an installer will fail.
>
> So they have to code to the lowest common denominator, or else
> include their own version and keep it with the application itself so
> it can find that version. As you say, "not 100% perfect".
I develop software for a living and "coding for the lowest common
denominator" (DLL) isn't something that we've ever given any notable
amount of thought to. Special coding for certain versions of the OS is
something we think about all the time but not DLL versions. If there
happens to be a particular minimum version of a DLL that we require
(say a new feature was added or a particular bug was fixed) then we
include that info in the manifest file. When the application is run the
OS will ensure the required version is available before starting the
app.
Unfortunately manifests aren't supported on older versions of the OS
(that OS version thing again) so on those platforms the installer needs
to check for any minimum requirements we may have.
But still not 100% perfect.
> > It's the old "DLL Hell" thing which began going away a few years ago.
>
> Microsoft is trying with things like .NET and even "Fusion", but
> it's, well, a bit complicated:
>
> http://www.grimes.demon.co.uk/workshops/fusionWS.htm
>
> At least they are finally addressing this. Somehow I doubt they'll
> hit on an optimal solution, though.
As you said... at least they are trying. This problem won't go away
overnight but steps are being taken in the right direction.
Sandman
Sinister Midget <sini...@noidshack.com> wrote:
> >>> I wonder why it isn't given a high priority in windows, and why
> >>> *every* *single* *program* need a huge "installation wizard" that
> >>> asks about paths and start menu locations instead of the user just
> >>> dragging the app to where she or he wants it.
> >>
> >> Which is even more difficult than what Debian users do. Why on earth
> >> would I manually hunt down a package?
> >
> > I'm sorry, I don't buy into the notion that developer needs to submit their
> > apps to a central source for the users to be able to easily install them.
>
> Most of them aren't "submitted" to anyone for packaging. Most of the
> packagers "choose" what they want to include.
Yeah, but the point remains - the packages need to be in this central
repository for the installation to be easy.
> > I rather have the developers package them easily and make installation
> > easy. :)
>
> Not everything on Mac is as easy as drag'n'drop. Many things come with
> installers packaged in .dmg files (downloads), often with instructions
> that tell you to klick the icon to start the installer. Most CDs also
> have installers of one sort or another.
Correct. Well, some come in .pkg installers. .dmg is just a image format that
decompresses to a disk image which could contain anything and doesn't imply a
installation procedure.
But the real feature with OSX installation is the application bundle, where the
entire application is represented - to the user - as a single icon which can
indeed be dragged and dropped.
Some application (most from earlier MacOS) still use installers, yes.
--
Sandman[.net]
Ray Ingles
lqu...@uku.co.uk wrote:
>> So they have to code to the lowest common denominator, or else
>> include their own version and keep it with the application itself so
>> it can find that version. As you say, "not 100% perfect".
>
> I develop software for a living and "coding for the lowest common
> denominator" (DLL) isn't something that we've ever given any notable
> amount of thought to.
I think MS has finally gotten the hint that mucking with core DLLs in
incompatible ways is a Bad Thing. :->
But they still have problems:
http://blogs.msdn.com/mgrier/archive/2004/04/15/113663.aspx
> As you said... at least they are trying. This problem won't go away
> overnight but steps are being taken in the right direction.
Too bad they didn't go with an existing, tried-and-true scheme from
the start. :->
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not
entitled to your own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan
chrisv
>I develop software for a living
I hope your logic is not as bad as what you've displayed in here...
eros.t...@hotmail.com
sour!
TheLetterK
>
>
>>>I wonder why it isn't given a high priority in windows, and why
>>>*every* *single* *program* need a huge "installation wizard" that
>>>asks about paths and start menu locations instead of the user just
>>>dragging the app to where she or he wants it.
>>
>>Which is even more difficult than what Debian users do. Why on earth
>>would I manually hunt down a package?
>
>
> I'm sorry, I don't buy into the notion that developer needs to submit their
> apps to a central source for the users to be able to easily install them.
>
files on their own.
TheLetterK
> In article <slrndi03t8....@laptop.harry.net>,
> Sinister Midget <sini...@noidshack.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>I wonder why it isn't given a high priority in windows, and why
>>>>>*every* *single* *program* need a huge "installation wizard" that
>>>>>asks about paths and start menu locations instead of the user just
>>>>>dragging the app to where she or he wants it.
>>>>
>>>>Which is even more difficult than what Debian users do. Why on earth
>>>>would I manually hunt down a package?
>>>
>>>I'm sorry, I don't buy into the notion that developer needs to submit their
>>>apps to a central source for the users to be able to easily install them.
>>
>>Most of them aren't "submitted" to anyone for packaging. Most of the
>>packagers "choose" what they want to include.
>
>
> Yeah, but the point remains - the packages need to be in this central
> repository for the installation to be easy.
simple with checkinstall.
Though I do think it's the responsibility of the developer to ensure his
appliction is accessable to the largest number of people--it's easier
for him to submit a package or two than it is for everyone else manually
get it from his server. And, as mentioned, most package managers have
maintainers that add packages of their own accord.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On 8 Sep 2005 10:42:06 -0700,
assuming of course, that you ignore some of the steps in MS-Windows,
like actually *finding* and downloading or obtaining the software in the
first place, and then ignore things like keeping the software up to
date.
With Debian systems, I install and update all my software via the same
toolset. I don't have to hunt around for updates on various websites,
or go out and manually download them, or wonder if appfoo updates will
walk all over appbar. (the chances of that are much greater if appfoo,
and OSfoo are from the same company, and appbar competes with appfoo in
some way.)
> Major applications have serial numbers. Install Oracle or DB2 on Linux
> and you'll also need to enter a serial number.
How is postgres not a major application? how is apache not a major
application?
>
> Several mouse clicks???? Perhaps I could use a little more excercise
> but 3 or 4 mouse clicks isn't that big of a deal.
>
remember that the next time you complain about something in Linux taking
a couple more mouse clicks than in MS-Windows.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDIIT5d90bcYOAWPYRAg8uAJ4rN1FRvHiWCNEhvDZXjpY/MEZG6wCffZy9
NUHMzhKpvZI6ReYssNmk4Ds=
=tjXo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Noise proves nothing. Often a hen who has merely laid an egg cackles
as if she laid an asteroid.
-- Mark Twain
lqu...@uku.co.uk
As stated before. I'm probably not the typical user because I don't
install software all that often. My system has everything I need on it
so I don't feel the need to gratuitiously install new software every
day or week.
> With Debian systems, I install and update all my software via the same
> toolset. I don't have to hunt around for updates on various websites,
> or go out and manually download them...
I would consider that to be a real benefit.
> > Major applications have serial numbers. Install Oracle or DB2 on Linux
> > and you'll also need to enter a serial number.
>
> How is postgres not a major application? how is apache not a major
> application?
I never said they were not major applications. If I decide to install
apache or postgres on Windows I do not need to enter a serial number.
Seems that entering "serial numbers" is application specific and not OS
specific.
> > Several mouse clicks???? Perhaps I could use a little more excercise
> > but 3 or 4 mouse clicks isn't that big of a deal.
> >
>
> remember that the next time you complain about something in Linux taking
> a couple more mouse clicks than in MS-Windows.
This is a usability issue isn't it. If doing a one-time task
(installing postgres for example) takes 3 or 4 extra clicks then it
isn't a big deal. Unless of course you plan on installing postgres
dozens of times each day. In this situation the few extra clicks is of
no concern.
On the other hand if each time you wanted to navigate to a different
web-site (i.e. - you click on a hyperlink) a dialog box were to appear
asking for confirmation, it would be a very bad thing. Sure it's only
one (1) extra click but it's done several dozen times a day so that one
extra click would become significant.
I don't consider installing new software to be a daily or even weekly
occurance. Out of curiousity, do you actually install new software
every single day? I might install something new a couple of times a
year which may be a bit extreme. I'm just curious how often people
install new apps.
Sinister Midget
> In article <slrndi03t8....@laptop.harry.net>,
> Sinister Midget <sini...@noidshack.com> wrote:
>
>> >>> I wonder why it isn't given a high priority in windows, and why
>> >>> *every* *single* *program* need a huge "installation wizard" that
>> >>> asks about paths and start menu locations instead of the user just
>> >>> dragging the app to where she or he wants it.
>> >>
>> >> Which is even more difficult than what Debian users do. Why on earth
>> >> would I manually hunt down a package?
>> >
>> > I'm sorry, I don't buy into the notion that developer needs to submit their
>> > apps to a central source for the users to be able to easily install them.
>>
>> Most of them aren't "submitted" to anyone for packaging. Most of the
>> packagers "choose" what they want to include.
>
> Yeah, but the point remains - the packages need to be in this central
> repository for the installation to be easy.
Huh?
I go download a file for Mac. I have to install the file. I might be
able to get away with drag'n'drop, or I might have to use an installer
(and give an admin password).
I download a file for linux. I have to install it. It may be a binary
that I put where I want it. Or it may be put on the system via an
installer. I have a third method wherein I can compile it. A fourth
method that I can extract what I need via Midnight Commander. A fifth
mthod wherin I can use Alien to change it to be compatible with my
package manager.
None of those options require a developer to submit anything to anybody
except for making notices that a particular version is available. That
would be required no matter what platform is used. And it doesn't
require the developer notifying the people packaging the distro of
anything whatsoever, which seems to be the case you're trying to make.
The notice can be made on the developer's page, via email to a mailing
list, on usenet, in a central place such as Sourceforge or Freshmeat
(which doesn't even store most of the files), or even no notice to
anyone, making people go to the author's page and check to see what
files are in the download section.
It might require the distro packager to set it all up for that distro.
But that isn't what you were talking about.
You mentioned a central repository that a developer has to submit his
products to. That exists in some cases. But it doesn't exist in most.
Even where it exists, it's rarely mandatory that an entire project be
sent there. Additions to something, like the kernel, might require it.
But that's a piece of a puzzle, not the whole picture.
>> > I rather have the developers package them easily and make installation
>> > easy. :)
>>
>> Not everything on Mac is as easy as drag'n'drop. Many things come with
>> installers packaged in .dmg files (downloads), often with instructions
>> that tell you to klick the icon to start the installer. Most CDs also
>> have installers of one sort or another.
>
> Correct. Well, some come in .pkg installers. .dmg is just a image format that
> decompresses to a disk image which could contain anything and doesn't imply a
> installation procedure.
>
> But the real feature with OSX installation is the application bundle, where the
> entire application is represented - to the user - as a single icon which can
> indeed be dragged and dropped.
That would be peachy if everything was done that way. Everything is
/not/ done that way.
How is that easier than, say, Aptitude, which will offer all of the
suggested, related packages, plus dependencies, and ask if you'd also
like those installed? Or Synaptic, which will check all of the
dependencies and ask if you'd like those fixed up or have the whole
affair aborted?
Other than there being an icon to look at, I see no real difference.
Maybe it's an aversion to the commandline or something. But it's the
same thing functionally.
> Some application (most from earlier MacOS) still use installers, yes.
I've downloaded a number of things under OS X that had installers. Not
a majority of them. But more than a small amount.
In that regard, it's not really any different than downloading a binary
of anything on linux, putting it somewhere and running it from there.
I've done that a number of times, too. Not the majority. But more than
a small amount.
--
Linux: because it's _my_ damn computer!
Linønut
> Sour grapes? You are not MCSE right? You didn't pass the tests, you're
> sour!
I'm not interested in even trying for an MCSE. I would have to see that
it is of some material use, over and above being some nice asswipe,
before I would consider it.
Sounds like you got suckered, though.
My employer did force me to get the CSDP certification from the IEEE. I
don't see that as being useful, either, and the certificate is too stiff
to make good asswipe.
But it shore looks purdy!
Bones
[snip]
> I tried to install various software packages - from within Linux - from
> magazine cover discs. The packages were distributed as tarballs (or
> some such name). The Linux magazine gave instructions on how to install
> them through the consol window (is it?), but I got lost following the
> instructions (about mounting and unmounting drives, opening and closing
> files and whatever else) and went back to Windows.
You don't have to mount or unmount drives to install packages, nor do you
have to "open and close" files. If you're talking about CDs, every KDE
install I've seen had a CD icon on the desktop that mounts the drive when
it's clicked. And it's named "CD-ROM Device", not "D:", "E:", "XYZ:", or
some other confusing label that is inconsistent between PCs.
The only package management system I know of that is exclusively
command-line is Slackware's. It's as simple as this:
installpkg <name of package>
-or-
removepkg <name of package>
Let's say the package name is "openoffice-1.4-noarch-i386.tgz". You don't
even have to bother typing all that:
installpkg o*.tgz
Compare that with Windows. First the user had to find the setup file,
wherever it is located, and double-click on it. This is especially a problem
for downloaded files, where IE's default is to save in the location last
saved to. You can imagine how many support calls I've answered where the
question is, "where is my file?" I don't know, where did you put it? Then he
has to review all kinds of information he has no clue about, such as where
to install it, which filetypes to associate, whether or not to install for
all users, and whether or not to create icons. Whoops, he accidentally
erased the target location box, now the root of the C: drive is full of
files that don't belong there.
Windows' installation interfaces are apart from the uninstallation
interfaces. Some Windows applications don't even have an uninstaller. Many
uninstallers leave behind all kinds of junk, especially in the registry,
which gradually gets bloated. Good luck with manual removal, with items
laying around in several hives of the registry, the Windows system folders,
the Program Files folders and/or the user's personal settings folders. There
are at least a half-dozen types of installers from different vendors. There
are INFs, ZIP archives, executables, and MSI packages.
In any Linux distro with a GUI package manager, the utility that installs
packages also uninstalls them. The user can also use the same utility to
search for new packages, or determine which is installed. The same interface
can be used to upgrade packages. It's all there, and consistent.
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking Linux. It's just that, well, Linux
> seems to be knocking me. Ok so I'm stupid, but unless the OS works for
> the stupid it has no real future. Make Linux idiot proof, like Windows
> is. :)
Ever try to majorly mess up a Linux box as a normal user account? It's next
to impossible. Windows is fragile in comparison. It can be made as close to
idiot-proof as a Linux install, but it doesn't come from the OEM that way.
About the closest I've seen an operating system approach perfection is
MacOS. Applications that do not require installation on a Mac are great.
Drag the program folder onto the hard disk, open it, double-click on the
program name and you're in business. Unfortunately, upgrading and patching
isn't that easy.
--
Bob Hauck
> In article <SxNTe.1230$9O....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
> TheLetterK <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
>>
>> would I manually hunt down a package?
>
> I'm sorry, I don't buy into the notion that developer needs to submit their
> apps to a central source for the users to be able to easily install them.
Apt allows the user to specify multiple repositories quite easily. Once
that is done, the user does not even need to know which repository any
given app is in. You're independent-minded developer could, I suppose,
offer an install script that adds a line to the apt config file.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| A proud member of the reality-based community.
-| http://www.haucks.org/
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 09:58:26 -0700, lqualig wrote:
>
> I believe the key phrase is: "Do you recall, not too many years ago,
> there was a whole spate of VB-based applications coming out? They all
> required some dll - vbrun32 or some such."
Yes. Nowadays, it's the updated MSI core, which seems to ship with
virtually every Windows-based install package in existence.
Same problem, same solution, and it's still just as stupid.
Jesse F. Hughes
> Let's say the package name is "openoffice-1.4-noarch-i386.tgz". You don't
> even have to bother typing all that:
>
> installpkg o*.tgz
See how hard it is? "*" requires the shift key.
What next? Emacs-style chord keys?
You bloody sadist.
(Okay, okay, you could probably achieve the same effect by the TAB
key, but that one's suspect, too.)
--
"All intelligent men are cowards. The Chinese are the world's worst
fighters because they are an intelligent race[...] An average Chinese
child knows what the European gray-haired statesmen do not know, that
by fighting one gets killed or maimed." -- Lin Yutang
chrisv
Yeah, I always hated that. That's one thing I liked about QuickBASIC
- it has an option to compile as a stand-alone .exe.
Mark Kent
chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> espoused:
I thought that QBasic still had a runtime library which was required?
ahhh - it's a long time, though, I could well be very wrong.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
'Scuse me, while I kiss the sky!
-- Robert James Marshall (Jimi) Hendrix
lqu...@uku.co.uk
Mark Kent wrote:
>
> I thought that QBasic still had a runtime library which was required?
> ahhh - it's a long time, though, I could well be very wrong.
>
The runtime library is "brun45" and it is or isn't needed. You can
compile to either use the library (small executabe + library needed) or
compile not to use the runtime library (large executable + no library
needed).
It's similar to an MFC app. You can either compile to use the "static"
(linked into your app) version of the MFC library or the dynamically
linked version of the MFC.
chrisv
>begin oe_protect.scr
>chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> espoused:
>> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 09:58:26 -0700, lqualig wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I believe the key phrase is: "Do you recall, not too many years ago,
>>>> there was a whole spate of VB-based applications coming out? They all
>>>> required some dll - vbrun32 or some such."
>>>
>>>Yes. Nowadays, it's the updated MSI core, which seems to ship with
>>>virtually every Windows-based install package in existence.
>>>
>>>Same problem, same solution, and it's still just as stupid.
>>
>> Yeah, I always hated that. That's one thing I liked about QuickBASIC
>> - it has an option to compile as a stand-alone .exe.
>
>I thought that QBasic still had a runtime library which was required?
>ahhh - it's a long time, though, I could well be very wrong.
I don't know about QBasic, which was an interpreter, IIRC.
However, M$ QuickBasic was/is a compiler, and indeed can compile
stand-alone .exe's.
Sandman
TheLetterK <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
>>> Which is even more difficult than what Debian users do. Why on earth
>>> would I manually hunt down a package?
>>
>> I'm sorry, I don't buy into the notion that developer needs to submit
>> their apps to a central source for the users to be able to easily
>> install them.
>>
>> I rather have the developers package them easily and make
>> installation easy. :)
>
> You could build your own repository if you wanted
Would that be easier?
> or distribute the
> deb files on their own.
Eh? Are you talking about me, the user, or the developer here?
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Bob Hauck <postm...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> >> Which is even more difficult than what Debian users do. Why on earth
> >> would I manually hunt down a package?
> >
> > I'm sorry, I don't buy into the notion that developer needs to submit their
> > apps to a central source for the users to be able to easily install them.
>
> Apt allows the user to specify multiple repositories quite easily. Once
> that is done, the user does not even need to know which repository any
> given app is in. You're independent-minded developer could, I suppose,
> offer an install script that adds a line to the apt config file.
Ok, that doesn't sound easier. Maintaining repository lists just so I can
download a specific developers application kind of defeats the thing that *is*
easy with apt.
Don't get me wrong - I really *LOVE* apt-get. I think it's the best
app-installation routine there is for Linux. But in order for the ease of use
to be intact, the distro owner need to maintain the repositories. As soon as
the user need to do things like maintain repositories or run install scripts or
somewuch, the Mac way wins.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
<thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
>>>> I'm sorry, I don't buy into the notion that developer needs to
>>>> submit their apps to a central source for the users to be able to
>>>> easily install them.
>>>
>>> Most of them aren't "submitted" to anyone for packaging. Most of the
>>> packagers "choose" what they want to include.
>>
>> Yeah, but the point remains - the packages need to be in this central
>> repository for the installation to be easy.
>
> No, no they don't. I roll my own amd64 or PPC packages quite often.
> Very simple with checkinstall.
My debian installation doesn't come with "checkinstall", and it isn't in the
debian tesing repository. I don't know what this tool iss and what it does, but
the fact that Debian doesn't ship with doesn't really make it valid step when
trying to describe something as easy.
> Though I do think it's the responsibility of the developer to ensure
> his appliction is accessable to the largest number of people--it's
> easier for him to submit a package or two than it is for everyone else
> manually get it from his server.
Yes, for LInux this is most certainly true. For Macs, it's not a necessary
step. With bundle installation, there is no need to adhere to a central
repository for the developer.
--
Sandman[.net]
Bob Hauck
> In article <slrndi1n3b.j...@robin.haucks.org>,
> Bob Hauck <postm...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
>>>> Which is even more difficult than what Debian users do. Why on earth
>>>> would I manually hunt down a package?
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, I don't buy into the notion that developer needs to
>>> submit their apps to a central source for the users to be able to
>>> easily install them.
>>
>> Apt allows the user to specify multiple repositories quite easily. Once
>> that is done, the user does not even need to know which repository any
>> given app is in. You're independent-minded developer could, I suppose,
>> offer an install script that adds a line to the apt config file.
>
> Ok, that doesn't sound easier. Maintaining repository lists just so I
> can download a specific developers application kind of defeats the
> thing that *is* easy with apt.
Keeping track of a few lines in a text file is "hard" now? I guess the
educational system has really broken down if users can't manage to cut
and paste a line.
But even if things are that bad, a developer could still easily put up
an "installer" that simply adds the appropriate line to the file and
then runs apt-get. I think I mentioned this directly above.
Would that be easy enough? The user is at a bit of a disadvantage since
he has to locate the app in the first place rather than having it be
presented in the master list, but given that it would be hard to make it
much easier.
> Don't get me wrong - I really *LOVE* apt-get.
Given your earlier inability to locate checkinstall in the Debian
repository (and it is there, even in stable), I really do wonder about
the veracity of that statement.
> As soon as the user need to do things like maintain repositories or
> run install scripts or somewuch, the Mac way wins.
Well, I don't know any end-users who maintain repositories, but perhaps
I haven't looked hard enough. They do maintain lists of repositories,
but that's a lot easier to manage.
Running install scripts seems to not be all that hard since even Windows
users manage it. What do you think setup.exe is?
You're not the first one to suggest this. There was a distro a few
years back that tried to do a thing sort of like the Mac. All apps
lived in their own directories under /opt or something. Installation
was by copying a directory into the proper place. But it was
incompatible with the rest of the world and sort of fell off the radar.
I think that gives an indication of how much interest there is in your
"make it like a Mac" project. The Mac way may be easier but apparently
it is not enough easier to compensate for the resulting compatibility
problems. Or maybe Apple already has the market cornered and most
people who value Mac-like ease of use over other things already have a
Mac. But you're welcome to try it if you want. The source is out
there.
Bob Hauck
> My debian installation doesn't come with "checkinstall", and it isn't
> in the debian tesing repository.
It is not installed by default, but it is certainly in the repository,
even in stable.
<http://packages.debian.org/stable/admin/checkinstall>
Sandman
Bob Hauck <postm...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> > Ok, that doesn't sound easier. Maintaining repository lists just so I
> > can download a specific developers application kind of defeats the
> > thing that *is* easy with apt.
>
> Keeping track of a few lines in a text file is "hard" now?
Not in the "I wouldn't know how to do it" sense, but in the "I shouldn't have
to do it" sense.
It's an extra step. It's like having your toilet on the top floor and you're at
the bottom floor. Your neighboor has it on both floors. In comparison, it's
harder for you to go to the bathroom.
> I guess the educational system has really broken down if users can't
> manage to cut and paste a line.
If the user need to cut and paste text lines from one app (web browser?) to
another (package manager) in order to install an application, that would be
considered as not as easy to use as a scenario where a user wouldn't have to do
those steps.
> But even if things are that bad, a developer could still easily put up
> an "installer" that simply adds the appropriate line to the file and
> then runs apt-get. I think I mentioned this directly above.
Right, but that same installer could just as easily just install the app on its
own. We're talking about what makes apt better than an installer. Apt is pure
*gold*. I love it. BUt it does require all apps to reside within the repository
for it to *be* gold. As soon as you're downloading seperate installers, you've
defeated what was so good about apt.
> Would that be easy enough? The user is at a bit of a disadvantage since
> he has to locate the app in the first place rather than having it be
> presented in the master list, but given that it would be hard to make it
> much easier.
I'm not saying apt is bad. You should note that I love apt. I'm saying that
under certain circumstances, the thing that is good about apt is lost.
> > Don't get me wrong - I really *LOVE* apt-get.
>
> Given your earlier inability to locate checkinstall in the Debian
> repository (and it is there, even in stable), I really do wonder about
> the veracity of that statement.
It's true, nonetheless.
root ~> apt-get update
Hit http://security.debian.org testing/updates/main Packages
Get:1 http://security.debian.org testing/updates/main Release [111B]
Hit http://ftp.sunet.se testing/main Packages
Hit http://ftp.sunet.se testing/main Release
Hit http://ftp.sunet.se testing/main Sources
Hit http://ftp.sunet.se testing/main Release
Fetched 111B in 3s (30B/s)
Reading Package Lists... Done
root ~> apt-cache search checkinstall
root ~>
None found. What am I doing wrong. I've recently switched to Debian and apt
from Redhat and RPM. I love apt. Can't say that I am a apt power user.
> > As soon as the user need to do things like maintain repositories or
> > run install scripts or somewuch, the Mac way wins.
>
> Well, I don't know any end-users who maintain repositories, but perhaps
> I haven't looked hard enough. They do maintain lists of repositories,
> but that's a lot easier to manage.
That's what I meant. The Mac way wins in comparison to this method.
> Running install scripts seems to not be all that hard since even Windows
> users manage it. What do you think setup.exe is?
This entire thread is about how setup.exe is better than linux way to install
applications. This, of course, isn't true when we look at apt.
> You're not the first one to suggest this. There was a distro a few
> years back that tried to do a thing sort of like the Mac. All apps
> lived in their own directories under /opt or something. Installation
> was by copying a directory into the proper place. But it was
> incompatible with the rest of the world and sort of fell off the radar.
Too bad.
> I think that gives an indication of how much interest there is in your
> "make it like a Mac" project.
Eh? I am not running any such project.
> The Mac way may be easier but apparently
> it is not enough easier to compensate for the resulting compatibility
> problems.
There aren't any compatibility problem for Macs. But I suppose you meant that
doing it the Mac way would lead to incompatibility problems on LInux, which may
be true. I suppose it would be due to linked libraries, which the Mac also
handles more flexible, and as far as I know - better.
> Or maybe Apple already has the market cornered and most
> people who value Mac-like ease of use over other things already have a
> Mac. But you're welcome to try it if you want. The source is out
> there.
Sorry, not my intention. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
Bob Hauck <postm...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 16:39:00 +0200, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> > My debian installation doesn't come with "checkinstall", and it isn't
> > in the debian tesing repository.
>
> It is not installed by default, but it is certainly in the repository,
> even in stable.
>
> <http://packages.debian.org/stable/admin/checkinstall>
"apt-cache search checkinstall" returns absolutely nothing... Hmmm.
--
Sandman[.net]
Bob Hauck
> In article <slrndi66rk.k...@bigbird.haucks.org>,
> Bob Hauck <postm...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
>> > Ok, that doesn't sound easier. Maintaining repository lists just so I
>> > can download a specific developers application kind of defeats the
>> > thing that *is* easy with apt.
>>
>> Keeping track of a few lines in a text file is "hard" now?
>
> Not in the "I wouldn't know how to do it" sense, but in the "I
> shouldn't have to do it" sense.
>
> It's an extra step.
And hunting for the app you need on the Internet or in the store is not
an "extra step"? Interesting perspective.
>> I guess the educational system has really broken down if users can't
>> manage to cut and paste a line.
>
> If the user need to cut and paste text lines from one app (web
> browser?) to another (package manager) in order to install an
> application, that would be considered as not as easy to use as a
> scenario where a user wouldn't have to do those steps.
Like if, say, the application developer had put his app in a central
repository you mean?
>> But even if things are that bad, a developer could still easily put up
>> an "installer" that simply adds the appropriate line to the file and
>> then runs apt-get. I think I mentioned this directly above.
>
> Right, but that same installer could just as easily just install the
> app on its own.
Yes, but then the user would not have automated updates, automatic
installation of dependencies, or an easy way to back out all the
changes those things did.
> We're talking about what makes apt better than an installer. Apt is
> pure *gold*. I love it. BUt it does require all apps to reside within
> the repository for it to *be* gold. As soon as you're downloading
> seperate installers, you've defeated what was so good about apt.
Not _the_ repository, but _a_ repository. And you're not downloading
separate installers, really, you're downloading simple scripts to add a
line to a control file.
Debian has a central repository and then there are a bunch of them run
by various people. Users can add any or all of them to their control
file and have access to all of the apps in all of the repositories
through one common interface.
If the developer can't get his app into the main Debian repository
(maybe it is closed-source for instance), then he's free to set up his
own or get together with other developers to do so. I don't see how the
repository idea constrains developers, and users benefit by having one
way to manage their apps, get updates, and so on.
>> Given your earlier inability to locate checkinstall in the Debian
>> repository (and it is there, even in stable), I really do wonder
>> about the veracity of that statement.
>
> It's true, nonetheless.
> root ~> apt-cache search checkinstall
> root ~>
Interesting. It is in stable and unstable but not in testing, so I'll
retract my statement. Looks like it hasn't gone in because of a bug on
amd64.
<http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/update_excuses.html>
<http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?which=pkg&data=checkinstall&sev-inc=critical&sev-inc=grave&sev-inc=serious>
>> I think that gives an indication of how much interest there is in
>> your "make it like a Mac" project.
>
> Eh? I am not running any such project.
Call it a "proposal" then.
>> The Mac way may be easier but apparently it is not enough easier to
>> compensate for the resulting compatibility problems.
>
> There aren't any compatibility problem for Macs. But I suppose you
> meant that doing it the Mac way would lead to incompatibility problems
> on LInux, which may be true. I suppose it would be due to linked
> libraries, which the Mac also handles more flexible, and as far as I
> know - better.
That's a little bit of a problem but not the big one. It is more
incompatibility with what the users expect.
As I understand it, the Unix-like part of a Mac and the Apple part are
kind of in different worlds in terms of the user experience. Many users
never interact with the command line. That's ok for Apple, since they
don't sell the Mac as a Unix system per se, they sell it as an improved
Mac. But Linux is a Unix system in the minds of its fans. That means
you have to maintain certain conventions if you want them to use your
distribution.
As a simple "for instance", if you want things to act Unix-y your app
normally has to be on the path so it works as expected from the command
line. It isn't good enough to just have it appear on the desktop.
So you either have to add it to the path, or link it into a directory
that's normally on the path, or install into such a directory. These
all require a script to accomplish correctly. That points to either a
setup.exe type of solution, or a package manager. And if you do one of
those, well, then you don't need to fool with the directory layout in
the first place.
It seems that Apple has not solved this problem for the Unix side of
their system, hence Fink, which takes the package manager approach.
You could certainly base a system on the Linux kernel that has an very
different directory layout, method of installing apps, user interaction,
and so on, just as Apple did with the Mach/BSD kernel. But it wouldn't
be a "Linux" system as people understand the term.
So such a system would have to grow a user-base from scratch. It could
not count on attracting a large share of the existing Linux users unless
it was very compelling.
Bob Hauck
See my other post in this thread for an explanation.
Sinister Midget
> My debian installation doesn't come with "checkinstall", and it isn't in the
> debian tesing repository. I don't know what this tool iss and what it does, but
> the fact that Debian doesn't ship with doesn't really make it valid step when
> trying to describe something as easy.
It shows up here (not in testing):
kcsmart@5[~]$ apt-cache showpkg checkinstall
Package: checkinstall
Versions:
1.5.3-3(/var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.us.debian.org_debian_dists_unstable_main_binary-i386_Packages)(/var/lib/dpkg/status)
Reverse Depends:
Dependencies:
1.5.3-3 - installwatch (4 0.6) file (0 (null))
Provides:
1.5.3-3 -
Reverse Provides:
The only dependency listed is also there (it /is/ in testing):
kcsmart@5[~]$ apt-cache showpkg installwatch
Package: installwatch
Versions:
0.6.3-1(/var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.us.debian.org_debian_dists_testing_main_binary-i386_Packages)(/var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.us.debian.org_debian_dists_unstable_main_binary-i386_Packages)(/var/lib/dpkg/status)
Reverse Depends:
checkinstall,installwatch 0.6
Dependencies:
0.6.3-1 - libc6 (2 2.2.4-4)
Provides:
0.6.3-1 -
Reverse Provides:
Since libc6 is already installed, I'm pretty much covered.
Installwatch makes it easy to uninstall things because it records
what's installed via source. Checkinstall simply makes a binary package
out of it as a bonus.
--
Windows: The answer to a question nobody asked.
Sandman
Bob Hauck <postm...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>>> Keeping track of a few lines in a text file is "hard" now?
>>
>> Not in the "I wouldn't know how to do it" sense, but in the "I
>> shouldn't have to do it" sense.
>>
>> It's an extra step.
>
> And hunting for the app you need on the Internet or in the store is
> not an "extra step"? Interesting perspective.
We're not discussing a scenario where the user wants to find a application of a
given type. The process leading up to choosing the correct app has already been
taken, which on both LInux and Mac could be through the
repository/VersionTracker/MacUpdate or through a friend telling him to go to
www.greatapp.com and download it.
For the first variant, apt wins, since it's just a double click away, but on
the second, the Mac wins. That's basically my point.
A scenario where I know exactly what application I want:
Mac (via versiontracker/macupdate):
1. Search application name
2. Click "download"
3. Drag the resulting icon to /Applications
Linux (via apt repositories)
1. Search application name
2. Click "install"
Via developers homepage - not found on VT or apt:
Mac:
1. Click "download"
2. Drag the resulting icon to /Applications
Linux
?. edit repository lists
?. or download installer
?. or download source
> > If the user need to cut and paste text lines from one app (web
> > browser?) to another (package manager) in order to install an
> > application, that would be considered as not as easy to use as a
> > scenario where a user wouldn't have to do those steps.
>
> Like if, say, the application developer had put his app in a central
> repository you mean?
Exactly. We are discussing a scenario where he (or the repository manager)
hasn't done that.
> > Right, but that same installer could just as easily just install the
> > app on its own.
>
> Yes, but then the user would not have automated updates, automatic
> installation of dependencies, or an easy way to back out all the
> changes those things did.
Right.
> > We're talking about what makes apt better than an installer. Apt is
> > pure *gold*. I love it. BUt it does require all apps to reside within
> > the repository for it to *be* gold. As soon as you're downloading
> > seperate installers, you've defeated what was so good about apt.
>
> Not _the_ repository, but _a_ repository. And you're not downloading
> separate installers, really, you're downloading simple scripts to add a
> line to a control file.
I know. :)
> Debian has a central repository and then there are a bunch of them run
> by various people. Users can add any or all of them to their control
> file and have access to all of the apps in all of the repositories
> through one common interface.
>
> If the developer can't get his app into the main Debian repository
> (maybe it is closed-source for instance), then he's free to set up his
> own or get together with other developers to do so. I don't see how the
> repository idea constrains developers, and users benefit by having one
> way to manage their apps, get updates, and so on.
It doesn't constrain the developer at all. If you re-read what you just replied
to, it should be clear that apt and the repositories are *very* *good* and I
like them *very* *much*. But what makes them good is easily removed once the
app I want isn't maintained in one of the repositories available to me.
> > root ~> apt-cache search checkinstall
> > root ~>
>
> Interesting. It is in stable and unstable but not in testing, so I'll
> retract my statement. Looks like it hasn't gone in because of a bug on
> amd64.
OK, that explains it.
> >> I think that gives an indication of how much interest there is in
> >> your "make it like a Mac" project.
> >
> > Eh? I am not running any such project.
>
> Call it a "proposal" then.
Well, as (you?) said, I don't think it can be done easily on Linux. It has too
much history to be a good platform to try something entirely new on.
> > There aren't any compatibility problem for Macs. But I suppose you
> > meant that doing it the Mac way would lead to incompatibility problems
> > on LInux, which may be true. I suppose it would be due to linked
> > libraries, which the Mac also handles more flexible, and as far as I
> > know - better.
>
> That's a little bit of a problem but not the big one. It is more
> incompatibility with what the users expect.
"The users" we are talking about here should be the non-savvy users, the ones
who like to double click and have it extremely easy?
I runt apt-get myself and not even a X server, so... :)
> As I understand it, the Unix-like part of a Mac and the Apple part are
> kind of in different worlds in terms of the user experience.
Oh, most certainly.
> Many users
> never interact with the command line. That's ok for Apple, since they
> don't sell the Mac as a Unix system per se, they sell it as an improved
> Mac. But Linux is a Unix system in the minds of its fans. That means
> you have to maintain certain conventions if you want them to use your
> distribution.
Well, don't you think that's pretty backwards thinking? Like "we want to expand
to a broader market than our tech-savvy crowd, but we don't want to loose the
tech-savvy crowd". I thought this was what contemporary distros did anyway.
They try to hide the shell and stuff like that, for LInux to be more user
friendly. Surely tech heads can still use KDE even if xterm is hidden in a menu?
> As a simple "for instance", if you want things to act Unix-y your app
> normally has to be on the path so it works as expected from the command
> line. It isn't good enough to just have it appear on the desktop.
Well, with paths setup to launch applications from /Applications, any app the
user drags to another location would be the choice of that user.
Besides, on Mac, mopst developers put a graphic in the window of their .dmg
that says "Put this in your Applications folder".
> So you either have to add it to the path, or link it into a directory
> that's normally on the path, or install into such a directory. These
> all require a script to accomplish correctly. That points to either a
> setup.exe type of solution, or a package manager. And if you do one of
> those, well, then you don't need to fool with the directory layout in
> the first place.
I think it's worth noting that this sort of thing *could* possible be solved
dynamicaly. For example - shared libraries in Mac works a bit differently than
on LInux.
If you download an application bundle named MyApp, you actually get this:
/Application/MyApp.app/
This is a directory, but is presneted as an icon to the user. Within this
directory, there could be a shared lib, as such:
/Application/MyApp.app/Resources/MyLibrary.foundation
Which could be version 1.0. Now, the user downloads CoolApp:
/Application/CoolApp.app/
Which has a new version of the same library
/Application/CoolApp.app/Resources/MyLibrary.foundation
This will register with the system automatically (not through a install script
or somesuch, but through the process of copying the files).
Whenever I launch MyApp, it will use the libraries from CoolApp, which are
newer.
The same could be done with both the shell and the GUI - app registration that
is done through the process of copying.
> It seems that Apple has not solved this problem for the Unix side of
> their system, hence Fink, which takes the package manager approach.
Yes, Apple is mostly concerned with the Aqua part of OSX, but that doesnt' mean
it couldn't be done - but it would be a HUGE change and lots of utilities would
have to be rebuilt. APple has the luxury of only managing ONE distro, so... :)
> You could certainly base a system on the Linux kernel that has an very
> different directory layout, method of installing apps, user interaction,
> and so on, just as Apple did with the Mach/BSD kernel. But it wouldn't
> be a "Linux" system as people understand the term.
Well, OSX is still a BSD system, no?
> So such a system would have to grow a user-base from scratch. It could
> not count on attracting a large share of the existing Linux users unless
> it was very compelling.
I think the Mac does this very good,. For a Linux user, OSX behaves just as he
or she would expect, when using the Terminal. But he or she wouldn't use the
terminal to launch, for example, PhotoShop, so there is no need for PhotoShop
to be in the path.
Should he WANT to do it from the terminal, it is quite possible:
~> open -a PhotoShop
Launches PhotoShop using an internal database of known applications on the
system. The "open" command is actually a good bridge between bsd and aqua in
Mac OS X. It pretty much is "double click" but in the terminal
~> open foo.txt
Would invoke the same process as if you would have double clicked the file in
the GUI, and as such open it it in the correct application.
~> open -a TextEdit foo.txt
Overrides the default and opens it in TextEdit.
~> open /Applications
Opens the /Applications directory in the Finder GUI.
And so on. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Ian Hilliard
> I've tried out an number of implimentations of Linux, but each time I
> gave up and went back to Windows. The main reason is the complicated
> process of installing software. Why can't software be installed under
> Linux by just double clicking the program's icon as it is under
> Windows. Until it is Windows wins.
>
> This is why Linux is not being taken up more widely, as I see it.
> Developing this ease of installing programs should be given the highest
> priority in the development of Linux at present. Why isn't it?
>
> Until programs are installed as easily under Linux as they are under
> Windows Linux will remain the specialists' OS and will not realise its
> promise to become the people's OS. So come developers, don't give us
> more applications until you've given us a simpler way of installing
> them.
You can thank the programmers, who wrote the package you are installing
for using an installation framework to make the installation process
easier. These are third party applications for which the programmer has
had to pay. The programmer has had to spend hours or even days to
configure the install scripts. Without these packages, installation of
Windows software would be a horror. Windows has NO mechanism of itself to
automate the installation process.
On the other hand, in my Fedora installation, I can click on an .rpm file,
it will request the root password and if this is correct it will
automatically install the package. This is all done using rpm, which is a
part of the operating system.
Your argument has no basis. I suggest that you go back to Troll school as
you just failed the test.
Ian