OSNews

Step 16, Windows: reboot

Not necessarily the case with Abiword, but it is with most Windows programs I install.

Try it with an ISA sound card on your K6-333 debian setup, or an off the shelf wireless network adapter.

Windows annoyance: the most trivial software installations require a reboot. Absolutely ridiculous. Only kernel updates require a reboot in most linuxes. Even most driver modules can be build and inserted in a running kernel.

And what about knowing that you need to update said package and its dependencies. On windows, it may notify me when I run it that there is a new version or I have to watch version tracker or some other thing. Using fink/mac osx (which is similiar to debian based linux distros), I just use the finkcommander to do a selfupdate and see what has new versions available all in one place.

e.g. fink selfupdate, python 2.4.1 available today, select outdated python, click install, do some work while it compiles, then its done and ready to use.

-kurt
bias warning: I am one of the many fink package writer s

Whatever. Apparently linux makes your network connection infinitely fast, because there are no "wait" steps involved. Did anyone else notice this?

And somehow, I am not convinced that # of steps = relatively complexity. There is a whole host of visual cues with a graphical installation step--guiding you. I don't believe that an instruction booklet "i.e. type this and then this and then this" is as intuitive as an interactive interface that can give you hints, cues, and choices....

Whatever happened to that argument, anyway? Linux people used to jump up and down and shout about "choice" and "configurability" and now, a few extra choices are supplied by a GUI command set up, and it's unconquerable complexity?

Please. This is such a tired debate. Please give up trying to convince us all.

these package managers don't work well with commercial software. You can't apt-get install oracle or apt-get install matlab. Commercial software runs into the problem of what package manager to use, and no matter which one they choose they leave out the other distributions. This is where your 15 step installer comes in, it doesn't care what distro you are using and is better suited for non IT people.

Don't forget about FreeBSD ports and ZeroInstall...both very cool!

Nice, what a broad and comprehensive comparison. I'm no Windows fanboy, but this is a bit reduntant and pointless.

Who cares how many more seconds the Windows install takes, what I care about is a uniform way of installation of software across the board in Linux, only THEN will it want to compare it to Windows. Sure you can compare debian to Windows, but what about the likes of Gentoo? "Step 1: emerge abiword", "Step 2: go cook dinner while it compiles".

I want to download any software out there for any Linux distro and install it on any version of Linux that I have installed here at home, without any hassles or workarounds, until then, don't tell me Windows' software installation is bad.

Just because you can type "apt-get install abiword" does not mean that the application will appear in the GUI menus, nor does it place the binary in default location most of the time, ie "Program Files". Its easy for a experienced user to install and maintain software on a linux machine.

What you should say is "It easy for a novice linux user to install software with apt-get". And to keep the comparison similar you should have tried the same process of obtaining the application for both platforms. Not using apt-get, and then using IE on windows.....

[off topic]Not to mention....but if someone wanted to
creat a apt-get like system for windows that downloaded and installed common GPL software...it really wouldnt take that long. Like: win-get install abiword[/off topic]

This whole "comparison" was lame.

He should have reviewed installing software under Arch Linux. People who have tried it say that writing your own PKGBUILD scripts is dead easy. :-p

Uhm, I don't mean to flame, but you have no clue about the real-world user.

If you think that someone is going to grasp ANY Linux installation procedure other than "double-click this icon", you're on crack.

However you want to detail it out on "paper", Windows is just simply easier to install applications on for the average user.

An average user's brain is going to explode when you ask them to su and use apt-get. And all of this is assuming they:

1. Give two sh*ts about Abiword (they don't.)
2. Are capable of maintaining a properly updated Linux desktop to ANY degree. (nearly all aren't).

And lastly, this is all pointless, because MSI packages could be used on Windows, and then it's often just a double-click.

The other commenter's words about drivers ring especially true.

I do agree that gnu/linux softwares are easier to install these days, but I never seen a comparison so subjective.

1) There's also a command line install, (xxx.exe) with switchs that allow you to skip the boring dialogs, for most softs I've seen under windows (provided that you have the software already downloaded)

2) you could have said for the linux install:
Step 1 - right click you GUI
Step 2 - open console
Step 3 - type s
Step 4 - type u
Step 5 - wait for the password prompt
Step 6 - enter your password
Step 7 - Search the net for the correct cmdline
Step 8 - type apt-get
Step 9 - type install
Step 10 - type abiword
Step 11 - type [Enter]
Step 12 - wait for the prompt
Step 13 - type y
Step 14 - wait for the install to be completed
Step 15 - Make a sandwich
Step 15 - logoff your su
Step 16 - close your console
...

Anyway I'm not suggesting that windows is easier or that gnu/linux are hard.. but you see my point....

:-)

Actually most of the time reboots aren't required. The reason for the reboot usually boils down to whoever created the installer covering their ass.

The ease of installing software under Windows is the number one reason why Windows is such a sweet target platform for virus/trojan/worm/malware/adware/etc.

No, in windows 2000 or newer, there is no need to reboot the computer after installing 99% of all of the applications. This review is a bit biased. For one step 7 on the windows is NOT necessary. You do NOT have to close anything to install an application unless you are updating a program that you are running.

Another thing that this article doesn't take into account is what if you don't know what application you want? What if you just know what you want the application to do? In windows you go to download.com. In linux you have to go to debian's site and search the package list descriptions which is much more of a pain.

Personally I think that the mac's install process beats the both of them. Insert cd or download application, open cd image, drag application to /Applications, drop. (Granted not all applications are like this but most are).

P.S. I've seen way to many people using gentoo (myself included) that had programs in portage that would not compile on their system making it impossible to get the application you want.

Completely one sided and everybody's pretty much said what has needed to be said.

TRUTH: there is NO, ONE UNIVERSAL procedure for installing programs in Linux PERIOD!!!!

Until Linux gets this right there is no way the AVERAGE COMPUTER USER [NOT AVERAGE (*cough* novice) LINUX user] will get the process of installing programs down.

Apt-Get....NO WAIT
RPM's...NO WAIT
tar balls...NO WAIT
Click N' Run....NO WAIT

OH F&CK IT JUST COMPILE IT YOUR DAMN SELF!

Oh, come on - don't complain about Gentoo. If you don't like a source based distro, that's one thing, but it also has nothing to do with it's package manager; Portage could be all-binary if someone wanted to make a Lindows-like distro.

The argument in this article is silly, I agree - but I also have to say I haven't really had any problems installing software on either platform - and I own finicky hardware like a Radeon 9600.

In linux you have to go to debian's site and search the package list descriptions which is much more of a pain.

I am pretty sure all package managers allow searching in their local package lists, the tools based on APT definitely do.

Most trivial software installations dont really need a reboot but they assume you are running windows 98 so they ask you to. Most of the last steps also assume that you want to put things other than in their default places which a lot of people I know don't. So the steps are excaggerated.

The comparison with GNU/Linux assumes that you are using a distro with apt-get and you know the commands (including the exact name of the program) to use it. so for those people who don't you could excaggerate and add in lots of other steps as well like "open web browser" "navigate to the web page of the distro you are using or other linux help site" "look up commands" "search repository for the name of the program you are wanting to use if you don't know the right name to put in to get it" "If your app is not in the repository then you are SOL" "do additional steps if it fails", etc. etc.

It's kind of like, not everyone knows the commands to use apt-get but they do know how to double click on an icon and hit next, next, next to install a program.

That being said I do agree that using something like apt-get or emerge is pretty easy in ideal circumstances. But sometimes you have to put yourself in other people's shoes. But I guess that could go both ways like the steps and problems that might arrise that you might think are trivial aren't trivial to some people.

First off, installing software on Windows is pretty damn consistent, in most cases, if you are installing off a removable device autorun will take care of running setup for you, if that isn't the case then all you have to do is browse for the setup.exe or install.exe, run it and boom...the majority of the time you'll have functioning software with icons in the appropriate places.
In GNU/Linux you could install from compiling...which could take ages depending on the size of the program and the speed of the computer, there could be a script that installs a binary, you might have a binary package (i.e. rpm), you could have a packaging system such as apt-get, or you may have this new autoinstall (?), which does look promising. Regardless it's much less consistent than the Windows option. Also there's the whole problem with getting new software, packaging systems like apt-get use repositories which need to be kept updated, you can't simply go to site xyz on the internet and download a program without having to take into account your packaging system and distribution...this is much harder for the average user to deal with then double clicking on install.exe or setup.exe, no if ands or buts about it, sorry. There's way too many different ways of installing all software on linux, if there was just one way, and I don't mean compiling, to install every piece of software imaginable on linux that was as easy as a double click on a setup.exe there would not be a problem, this is not to say that users should be able to have the choice of whether they want to compile or whatnot...however this is not the issue, the issue is making it easy for the masses.

Just a few thoughts about this comparison, mainly because I'm a using both Windows and Linux and I know these installation problems all too well. Probably good to note here is that I'm biased towards Linux when it comes to stability and performance and I'm biased towards Windows when it comes to user-friendliness.

First: it's not worth much if you compare the installation procedures of only one single piece of software. To get a good picture, you'd have to compare the installations of about a dozen different programs which the "ordinary desktop user" uses.

Second: While Linux program installations can range from very easy & straightforward (using a package management system) to really scary (downloading source code & compiling & dependency hell), all Windows program installations are about equally complex (or easy) for the user.

Third: If you count mouse clicks in the Windows installation, you have to count key presses in the Linux installation as well No, I'm serious here: If you really want to make such a comparison, try to be a bit more scientific and a bit less biased. Otherwise, just forget about it.

You have got to be kidding me. There is no way any sane person can claim linux installation is easier than Windows. I download a file in Windows, double click it, and install it. I don't even know where to begin in Linux. If installing was so easy in linux then why does every package have their own system: apt, yum, red carpet, click-n-run, and now this whole autopackage deal... it may be easier for a developer, but not for joe six pack.

since when is an ATI 9600 finickey? Try it with windows xp, sp2 and see how finickey it is, or ISA sound cards for that matter.

I would have agreed with the windows installation is easier a year ago myself but more and more windows is getting harder and harder to install and linux is getting easier and easier. And this of course is not taking into account other os installations such as osx.

One of the biggest issues with windows being "easier" up until now was in fact the supposed ease of use of the installation process. But windows installers are getting so arcane that at lest for some programs linux installers are in fact easer.

Also while many programs in windows dont require rebooting MANY MANY do including internal windows programs. In fact theres a few programs i think a driver installer that even if you cancel out of the darn thing it forces you to reboot.

But linux has really come along with here and personally i like the idea of knowing exactly whats being installed on my computer meaning depdencies and whatnot in linux as oppoed to not knowing at all what the windows installer is doing.

Oh and because windows 2000 is getting old many windows programs wont even work on it anymore. Which is a real pain. And lest we forget the internet explorer depdnecy on windows.

1. Click on Smart Package Manager
2. Type root password
3. Search for 'abiword'
4. Select the package
5. Commit

I first want to mention that people who say that normal users are afraid of the command line or that they will never understand how to use it are completely wrong.

I have seen many normal users use the command line with success.


That said...
portage and apt-get also have graphical user interfaces.


And one of the biggest advantages of apt-get and portage is something like this:

emerge -uD world
or
emerge -uD system

1 single line!!!
Yes, 1 !!!!

Don't tell me that a normal user can not remember such a command.

Can Windows do something like this?
Not yet, but Microsoft is going to do something similar in their next windows update (although in a graphical ui way)


I think portage is a "copy" of porthole on a bsd system?
Not sure.
But it's one of the best ways to install software.

A real comparison would be to give a windows user a pre-installed debian system with either KDE or Gnome and see if he can figure it out. He will probably find synaptic and do his best at guessing what's going on.

I've been a linux user since 2002 and think it's come a very long way since then in terms of applications getting better and KDE and Gnome and IceWM both getting much better. Ubuntu is very nice and has great potential. Hopefully easier to install drivers will be developed, especially for laptop computers.

OK, so you ran apt-get, portage, rpm, compiled, whatever, and now you're ready to run your shiny new software. How does the newbie do this?
1. Hmmm, it isn't listed ANYWHERE in the KDE or Gnome menus. I know, some package managers do place menu items, but some don't. EVERY Windows software DOES! This is a big point!

2. So the user opens a terminal window and types in the name of the program. Nothing happens. Sometimes it does but not always. Then he goes looking for the program and can't find it. Is it in /usr, /usr/local, /usr/bin, /opt, where? There is NO standardization of that either. This process can add hours to an install process. I know, I've been there and have programs "installed" in my Linux machine that I've never been able to find!

the gui package managers like synaptic, or lindows click and run make linux installing very easy.

also windows style installers vary between programs which makes them a bit awkward.

and dont forget licence numbers. i was asked to reinstall some comercial software for someone, and had forgotten the hassle of having to search through draws for the original cd case to find a 20 digit code that was required.

everything in your post is vague and incorrect.

Quote:
"1. Hmmm, it isn't listed ANYWHERE in the KDE or Gnome menus. I know, some package managers do place menu items, but some don't. EVERY Windows software DOES! This is a big point! "


Come on, that's just fiction.

I do:
emerge xchat

and what do I see in my KDE start menu?
That's right, xchat. And to say that it's not even a native kde program or even using any kde library at all.

And in the event that the desktop file of a prog is not found by kde, you can let it search for installed software and list it in your startmenu with one or two mouse clicks.



People, please, do not consider years of experience with a windows system, and just starting out with a linux system, as a similar thing.

Windows is easier because you are used to it.

Agreed

I issued the command "emerge abiword". Approx 34 minutes later on a system consisting of a Celeron 2.8 Ghz processor with 256MB of RAM, abiword was ready to go. Although installing the program on Vidalinux was time consuming, it is still shorter in steps and an easier process than installing software on Windows.

Now for the Windows installation.
Step 1 open web browser
Step 2 navigate to abisource.com The home page of abiword
Step 3 find and click the download link
Step 4 find and click the Windows Link
Step 5 click OK to save when the dialog box opens
Step 6 wait approx 45 seconds for download
Step 7 close browser and all other running programs.
Step 8 navigate to the setup icon and double click it
step 9 select Language click OK
Step 10 click next when the setup wizard appears.
Step 11 agree to license, click next
Step 12 choose file associations, click next
Step 13 choose Location for installation, click next
Step 14 choose start menu folder options, click next
Wait for installation, approx 35 seconds, click next when completed
Step 15 click finish.

So what, I would still choose a windows install over a linux on, beside when you compile does it not ask many quastions about your system?

With linux base system and autopackage ,everything is getting better and easier to the 'economic detriment' of the 'easy' linux's like linspire and other $$$ easy linux os' .

I have a friend who has been using *nix systems for at least 5 years, has a lot of experience with development and still doesn't know the difference between "su" and "su -". Doesn't know that the DISPLAY variable needs to be set to launch an X app or that xhosts needs to be set to allow access to other users on their machine before launching those apps. He does know how to use synaptic, but doesn't know which packages to get.

But the same can be said about any user for any platform, windows included. If you use a platform for 5 years you usually get pretty good with it. Everyone has been using Windows for the last 5 years, so of course they've learned how to install software. They may not know what software is available or how to use it, but they probably know how to double click on the icon and click Next until it is installed.

We could very easily give them the same stupid interface for Linux. But, of course, apt-get style package managment is so much nicer. So they'll have to learn something new. This will take them another 5 years, after we convert them over to using Linux. So maybe 10 years?

By then Microsoft will be selling a package manager for Windows for only $150. Well worth it, for these people who have a problem with learning new things. They are much happier when they can blame someone else for their ignorance.

quote:
"beside when you compile does it not ask many quastions about your system?"


Some programs do ask for user input, but most programs use the configure tool to do it automatically.

Uninstall Procedure for Firefox

On Windows:
1. Go to Control Panel
2. Click on Add/Remove Software
3. Select Mozilla Firefox
4. Click on Uninstall/Remove

On Linux (using command line):
1. su root -c 'apt-get remove firefox'
2. Type root password

On Linux (using package manager):
1. Start package manager
2. Type root password
3. Select 'firefox' package
4. Commit

On MacOSX:
1. Drag the firefox icon to the trash

I think that a great way to install/uninstall software would be drag an drop aplications to "aplications menu" or window and from this location to trash. Ask for root or administrator password is a good thing, this means that only a user with suficient permissions can install softwares. A little sacrifice for security.

Well i must have learned how to post comments from you.

:-)

Also as far as the others persons rant about how much easier it is to install programs on windows for "the average user", other then a browser and email client what other applications will the average user be installing that would make windows so much eaiser to install on???

I know for some more complex applications installing on windows was at one time MUCH easer to install then on linux largely because of depdnecy hell.

But linux installers are becoming so much easier to use these days that now the opposite is really becoming the case.

you all people make an assumption that is wrong: you assume that it is always present a broadband network connection. this isn't the case for many countries, and even when a network connection is present it may be an old 56k modem.
so think about this: how can you install an application under linux _without_ a network connection ? how can you do apt-get or similar without the network? you can't.
instead if you are using windows you usually get the app from a cover cd from magazines or from a friend or (sometimes) you download it. then you double click and you've done. yes maybe you have to reboot, so ? all users know how to rebbot windows. and then the app is installed.
think about it. the vast majority of the world thinks that this is the only way to install applications, so linux distros should come up with a similar way of doing installations. or simply be prepared to loose a _big_ share of users in the world.
peace.

Quote:
"how can you install an application under linux _without_ a network connection ?"

How can you on Windows?

You still need to get the program from somewhere.
Or not?

Gentoo, Debian, etc... all release cd versions too.

//Come on, that's just fiction.

I do:
emerge xchat

and what do I see in my KDE start menu?
That's right, xchat.//

And, that will happen in every single Linux distro?

Now, *THAT'S* fiction. Big time.

My personal experience it totally opposite - installation of new programs in Linux is terrible, and it is one of main reasons why I finally gave up Linux and returned to Windows XP.

In most cases newly installed programs in Linux, neither appears in menu, nor properly integrates with environment.

For example:
Even FireFox didn't add itself to start menu. So I had to go thru mess of subfolders to find it (it is also not clear what to look for, there are several files in different places with name “FireFox”). Then there is another problem to add it to menu/quick start bar (of course drag and drop doesn't work).

Divx codecks - after installation nothing happens at all. Video player still can't play divx/mpeg4 files. Of course I could find out how to update configuration files, etc, but this is no way user friendly.

The author listed "Agree to License" as an installation step on Windows. That means on Linux, I can get away with ignoring the license? Actually that would stand up in court when you think about it.

what if you want to install something which is not a standard applciation. Say the lastest Doom 3 ?
that would require some configuration of apt files, which you did not include in your "steps".

and not to mention the biggest issue: your example require user to *KNOW* commands, and to use a terminal.

So sorry, but Windows is much easier.

I think there are always cases you can find to say any of these systems are better at installing then others. It all depdends on what your use and ability is i guess. One of the issues also as i stated in my previous comment is that ive noticed that the windows installers are getting more complicated.

I tried to install something recently, sorry i simply cant remember what it was, and it had simply the most arcane installer i have ever seen, akin to the windows office installer with drop downs and select deselct and whatnots. I literally got a headache trying to figure it out.

Now if thats where windows is going then while its easier to just double click if doing so gets you into clicking hell then what the point?

Buit as with everything linux windows and osx realted im sure this will all flip flop many times.

>How can you on Windows?
>You still need to get the program from somewhere.
>Or not?

read my previous post: you often get the app from a cover cd from a magazine or from a friend (oh you have ms office xp! could you make me a copy?) it's more common than you think.

>Gentoo, Debian, etc... all release cd versions too

yes but I'm talking about new applications not included in the original cd of the distro. how can you easily install a _new_ version of xine without network? it's doable, but a newbie will never be able to do it.

Quote:
"and not to mention the biggest issue: your example require user to *KNOW* commands, and to use a terminal.

So sorry, but Windows is much easier. "


your example require the user to *KNOW* to double click a file to install it, and to use a browser or downloadmanager to get it.

So sorry, but your comparison is flawed


Please do not compare years of experience with one way of doing something with no experience in doing it another way.


I use portage for a year now, and all I can say is that it is equally as easy as double clicking a file in windows. Not easier, not harder.

Please, if the command line is so scary and evil for normal computer uses, can somebody then please explain me how I was able to teach this:
$ ls
...
$ emacs filename.tex
$ latex filename.tex
$ xdvi filename.dvi
in a language I didn't know well, in very short time, to someone who only knew Windows 3.1 and Microsoft Word?

I can't believe that yum was not mentioned. I use yum with Fedora 3 and it is COOL!

OK, so you ran apt-get, portage, rpm, compiled, whatever, and now you're ready to run your shiny new software. How does the newbie do this?
1. Hmmm, it isn't listed ANYWHERE in the KDE or Gnome menus. I know, some package managers do place menu items, but some don't. EVERY Windows software DOES! This is a big point!

2. So the user opens a terminal window and types in the name of the program. Nothing happens. Sometimes it does but not always. Then he goes looking for the program and can't find it. Is it in /usr, /usr/local, /usr/bin, /opt, where? There is NO standardization of that either. This process can add hours to an install process. I know, I've been there and have programs "installed" in my Linux machine that I've never been able to find!

Agreed. There should be a standard directory/folder just for application executables. Mac OS X has the best system in place, where you drag a new application to the Applications folder.

How can Windows users *possibly* defend a mechanism that requires extensive user intervention, and involves two seperate programs (web browser, installer). Especially considering that the Linux alternative is a few clicks in a single application, and no confusing questions.* It seems to me that most people are so used to doing things one way, they cannot possibly concieve that there might be an easier way. Of course, the points about commercial apps are valid, but here is where people who actually use Linux, and those who just bitch about it on OSNews differ. Most people *don't* use commercial apps on Linux. Those who do run stuff like SoftImage or Oracle, and those apps are hard to install on any OS.

* For those who doubt the questions are confusing: have a newbie install Windows. My dad, having used computers for two decades (started on a UNIX dumb terminal), still has trouble installing software on Windows. He'll call me up and say "it asked me about the path it should install to, what do I do?" I end up saying "just hit OK or NEXT until it gives you a button that says FINISH". This, of course, is less than optimal, because the user indiscriminantly clicking "OK" is a sure fire way to get a porn toolbar installed on your computer...

1. Hmmm, it isn't listed ANYWHERE in the KDE or Gnome menus. I know, some package managers do place menu items, but some don't.

This is a strawman argument. The major desktop package managers do place menu items. If you're not using one of these distros (Fedora, Ubuntu, Linspire), that's your own damn fault, you knew what you were getting into.

1. It is no easier or harder to install software on Linux than on Windows. The determinate factor is, and always has been, how familiar the user is with how the operating system works. It has not a lot to do with the operating system itself. This argument was beaten into the ground well over two years ago. Enough already.

2. Kevin Russo, you very much need to take both spelling and grammar classes. Your writing is, to be blunt, awful.

See you all in another year. I just like to poke my head in here every now and then and see if anything has changed.

Ok, this is dumb. Next time you compare, use two applications bundled with each OS. Windows : Add/Remove, Components, Check the component and click OK. Otherwise choose an application like oracle and install it on both OSes ... it will take much more time on linux considering you have to configure some parts of it yourself. I am a Linux user and I love it but I think this article was very unfair and pointless.

just some thoughts. i provide phone-based technical support as my job and i'm sorry, but you cannot take for granted that somebody knows how to use a wizard. more often than not, when assisting somebody they'll ask me if they should click Next on the first wizard screen (usually a blank screen). while i am here assisting them and they may feel a bit helpless, these people truly do not know what to do next.

wizards are not very user-friendly. yes, they give us power-users some assistance in deciding options and locations, but they are overly complex with many unnecessary steps/screens.

windows programs are not always consistent regarding shortcut location. while the majority of programs do install correctly to the Programs list, some put themselves in the root of the Programs list, some put themselves under a nested company name folder. i'm sorry, but if a user knows they are installing Mcafee, they are not going to think it is installed under Network Associates unless they know that company. my ubuntu install has always but the programs in the logical location.

as far as rebooting goes. if you install the latest version of Eudora it asks you to reboot. its a mail program! its a bigger issue than you windows fanatics will admit.

-- i use windows, mac, and linux.

The problem with apt emerge urpmi ect is your at the mercy of the distro. lets say a new version of abiword is released that fixes some major problem so you open a term type apt-get install abiword only to see its not updated in the repository yet, so you wait a few days and it still isn't updated. Weeks and months may pass before the repository is updated then what do you do, download the source compile and hope you dint just hose your system.

You also have to deal with the repo not having the program at all. Also have to deal with the problem of incompatible libs apt wanting to remove totally unrelated software to install something..Once upon a time a few years ago I tryed to install frozen bubble (I think that what it was) on my freshly installed libranet system without thinking I hit Y to uninstalling every single gnome app on my system including gdm and gnome itself just to install a game. Admittedly that was my own fault but why on earth should that even happen

Quote:
"Otherwise choose an application like oracle and install it on both OSes ... it will take much more time on linux considering you have to configure some parts of it yourself."


Although I never installed Oracle before on any system, I seriously doubt that it's just a double click on Windows.

And if it was... I would certainly prefer Linux above Windows because I was able to configure it.

You dummys. yum install mplayer. how much easier could it be?

Quote:
"The problem with apt emerge urpmi ect is your at the mercy of the distro. lets say a new version of abiword is released that fixes some major problem so you open a term type apt-get install abiword only to see its not updated in the repository yet, so you wait a few days and it still isn't updated. Weeks and months may pass before the repository is updated then what do you do, download the source compile and hope you dint just hose your system."


That is sometimes a problem indeed.





quote:
"Once upon a time a few years ago I tryed to install frozen bubble (I think that what it was) on my freshly installed libranet system without thinking I hit Y to uninstalling every single gnome app on my system including gdm and gnome itself just to install a game. Admittedly that was my own fault but why on earth should that even happen"


Once upon a time I put a gun against my head, and without thinking, I pulled the trigger. Admittedly, that was my own fault, but it should not happen ?


Golden rule:
Think before you do!

You're at the mercy of the software vendor no matter what you do. They're writing your OS, they should be able to write your packages. In any case, if you use something like Fedora or Ubuntu, things should stay quite up to date. Again, if you're using a smaller distro, either stop using it, or don't complain about it. With regards to Debian uninstalling software --- apt-get doesn't uninstall software when you install something new. There is something more to this story...

Let's see, what's easier and less confusing to the average computer user? Typing a bunch of commands in to a terminal window or downloading a file and clicking on it? You are definitely not looking at this through the eyes of most computer users. Whether people like it or not, Linux will not take any real market share on the desktop until the average user never has to use the terminal.

I hate Linux, but I hate Microsoft even more.

So what about this scenario. dialup.. yes some... lots of people still have dialup. try ap-getting openoffice and waiting 4 days for the download to complete. or the other scenario... cover cds on magazines, or cds your friends give you. where is apt-get emerge or portage then?

At least Windows, and Mac make it easy to install and uninstall software when the fast, unlimited broadband connection isn't certain!

I thought that Windows did not have a standard means of installing software? Don't all the applications have to bundle their own install/uninstall programs? Sure there are some common ones 'InstallShield?' and they all look similar by convention. I don't see the difference between that and the new Linux Autopackage tool. These have their uses but they're no comparison to the slickness of having a well built package management system (apt, yum, emerge, pacman, etc).

I'm suprised there's not a more widely available 'fink' system for Windows yet.

Michael

The point I was trying to make is that software installation should never ask you to uninstall unrelated software. yet its a somewhat common problem with apt

Didn't know that apt-get will do that, and I doubt it will, but it's possible of course.

At least with portage I'm warned that the program I'm going to install does not work with other installed software (so called blockers).

"Well i must have learned how to post comments from you.

:-)

Also as far as the others persons rant about how much easier it is to install programs on windows for "the average user", other then a browser and email client what other applications will the average user be installing that would make windows so much eaiser to install on???

I know for some more complex applications installing on windows was at one time MUCH easer to install then on linux largely because of depdnecy hell.

But linux installers are becoming so much easier to use these days that now the opposite is really becoming the case."

How about drivers?
Apt-get install ISA_support doesn't seem to work.

For those who use OSX this whole debate must be humorous to them they have the best implementation of software installation and removal.

linux geeks are always harping on about choice, but to me that choice is nullified when you apt-get, emerge or rpm etc. You install the package and it (if it works) installs wherever the hell it likes.. there is no choice for the user (and often no clue as to where its' been hidden)

This isn't a linux issue altogether, as some games and install scripts (Openoffice 1.0 springs to mind) gives you an install wizard and a choice of where to install to!

Let's see, what's easier and less confusing to the average computer user? Typing a bunch of commands in to a terminal window or downloading a file and clicking on it?

Except it's nothing like you just described. Both systems can use GUI tools to install packages. It's just that Linux's GUI tool requires fewer clicks than Windows's. More importantly, Linux actually has a GUI to install software, while Windows's system is kind of ad-hoc (web-browser is the "search" interface, some random installer program actually puts the program on the drive, and Add/Remove removes the software, but only if you were lucky enough to get an installer that updated its database correctly).

Let's see, what's easier and less confusing to the average computer user? Typing a bunch of commands in to a terminal window or downloading a file and clicking on it? You are definitely not looking at this through the eyes of most computer users. Whether people like it or not, Linux will not take any real market share on the desktop until the average user never has to use the terminal.
Two words: Linspire. Xandros.

So what about this scenario. dialup.. yes some... lots of people still have dialup. try ap-getting openoffice and waiting 4 days for the download to complete. or the other scenario... cover cds on magazines, or cds your friends give you. where is apt-get emerge or portage then?
OpenOffice is often included on the CD set. If you live in an area where you don't have broadband, or have a friend or library with broadband, you can actually order those shiny disks with the information already on them. Need the latest OO.o or firefox? Order it! Windows users in the same situation who need an MS Office update or IE update often have to go through Windows Update. Microsoft doesn't often offer updates via CD order.

linux geeks are always harping on about choice, but to me that choice is nullified when you apt-get, emerge or rpm etc. You install the package and it (if it works) installs wherever the hell it likes.. there is no choice for the user (and often no clue as to where its' been hidden)

This isn't a linux issue altogether, as some games and install scripts (Openoffice 1.0 springs to mind) gives you an install wizard and a choice of where to install to!

This "choice" is choice of what to (and what not to) install on your system. And this choice even applies to what you said, if you just take a second and think about it.

I have a choice to use apt-get or to compile from source.

See? Despite your attempt to make it look otherwise, you still have full choice in Linux.

Quote:
"How about drivers?
Apt-get install ISA_support doesn't seem to work."

For portage, you can do for example:
emerge ati-drivers

see: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1&chap=...

re: Mark Jenson (above) so the answer to poor installation system that requires a fast unlimited internet connection is find a place where you can buy CDs and will ship to your country or location? Or you could just use another OS (Windows or Mac)!!!

Correct.

If you live in 90-somthing percent of the internet-connected world, you can order CDs. In the rest, where you haev no broadband, and receive mail by donkey at some point, you can use MS, but not OSX (because I doubt Apple will have an outlet there)

Jeedee: Ok, this is dumb. Next time you compare, use two applications bundled with each OS. Windows : Add/Remove, Components, Check the component and click OK.
This will allow you to install about three mostly useless extra features. What if you want to install, say, a decent IM client, or music player?

Otherwise choose an application like oracle and install it on both OSes ... it will take much more time on linux considering you have to configure some parts of it yourself.
Have you ever actually installed Oracle for Windows? It certainly requires you to "configure some parts of it yourself"!
Oracle is far from a sensible example; the article was talking about ease of installation of software packages, which simply doesn't matter with Oracle. If a company is spending tens of thousands of dollars on Oracle they'll get someone who knows what they're doing to install it!

netean: So what about this scenario. dialup.. yes some... lots of people still have dialup. try ap-getting openoffice and waiting 4 days for the download to complete. or the other scenario... cover cds on magazines, or cds your friends give you. where is apt-get emerge or portage then?
So for these people on dial-up, how did they get OOo so easily under Windows? The download time will be the same, apt-get/portage just automates the process.
You've got a point with the cover cd's, but note most cover cds will have Windows binaries which aren't going to do a lot of good on a Linux box anyway...

At least Windows, and Mac make it easy to install and uninstall software when the fast, unlimited broadband connection isn't certain!
Installing: They're no different. Obviously if you don't have a net connection handy, you have to have the package first. This is the same on any system!
Uninstalling: At least with Portage, I'm in control - if I tell it to remove a program, it does so. In Windows, it's just a wrapper to kick off the various proprietary uninstall systems - try "uninstalling", say, Nortons. The amount of crap left on your system is astronomic.
And what's broadband got to do with uninstalling programs anyway...?

You're at the mercy of the software vendor no matter what you do. They're writing your OS, they should be able to write your packages. In any case, if you use something like Fedora or Ubuntu, things should stay quite up to date. Again, if you're using a smaller distro, either stop using it, or don't complain about it. With regards to Debian uninstalling software --- apt-get doesn't uninstall software when you install something new. There is something more to this story...

Why should I expect the distro to handle all of my software last I checked they didn't write any of it, redhat, ubuntu, debian etc doesn't write software they just bundle it. and yes apt-get does ask to uninstall software at times this is mostly do to packages not being updated to support new libs. in that case apt poped up and said something along the lines of the following new software will be installed frozenbubble perl the following programs will be removed and a huge ass list, and I hit yes without thinking and it killed the system

Knoppix did. Mandrake did.

As for ease of application installation: This is all baloney. The ease with which an application can be installed depends on which installation tool you use, Linux or Windows. That depends on the whims of the packager. If it's an MSI package, great. If not, you follow instructions, or hope the packager's choice of installers is smart enough to do everything right. Same goes for Linux distro's.

Don't forget: Microsoft will *still* provide you with instructions on how to install software by hand. That's in case you have a really oddball setup that doesn't like the standard tools.

Reboots:

Linux needs to be rebooted in certain circumstances. Windows 2000 and Windows XP will need to be if the software packager is still using an old installer.

One more point:

In this day of viruses, trojans, and spyware, do I *really* want it to be super-easy to install software on my computer? Maybe I'd like the operating system to *force* software installations to be really talkative and to require lots of user intervention.......

...and to let me know if the application can be *trusted.*

Don't know where you are Archangel, but in the UK there are several cover cds that have linux binaries with them and several dedicated linux mags with dedicated cds/dvds..
before I got Broadband I tried to use them all the time, but they suffered from the same dependency hell as everything else I've tried to install in linux (that didn't come on the distro cd).

compiling from source has never worked - I always seem to have the wrong missing header library or no compiling apps installed (i.e. the version of Mepis I have installed now! can't build my adsl modem drivers)

linux geeks are always harping on about choice, but to me that choice is nullified when you apt-get, emerge or rpm etc. You install the package and it (if it works) installs wherever the hell it likes.. there is no choice for the user (and often no clue as to where its' been hidden)

Ah.. This bugged me to no end when I started using Linux. I was used to the Microsoft way of asking where I wanted to install every time. To me, the Linux way of "the package manager will take care of it" seemed messy. But then I realized how much superior it is.
Why should you have to care about where your programs go? You don't! The package manager will put them in some place, and keep track of where they are. There is absolutely no reason why you should be specifying where to install things, aside from habit.
This lack of choice is actually a good thing in this case, because it keeps the system consistent. You don't have some idiot installing software to 10 different folders, just because they can. It also enables me to do things like hit WIN-R and type in the name of any program on my system and it will start. This renders the start menu obsolete since it is much faster to start applications that way than to hunt through the start menu.
In addition, with a package manager taking care of things, there is one central place to update your software. On windows, getting new versions is a painful process of visiting the website of each piece of softare, checking for a new version, downloading it, possibly uninstalling the old version, installing the new version. The alternative is for each program to roll their own update manager, which is a waste of coding time and still not nearly as easy as a central method.

Well this comment has gone on entirely too long.. I think it comes down to, if you put in a few minutes to learn the system, it will be far more convenient and simple than windows software installation. To a new user, it may be more complicated than windows, but new users aren't everything.

So it seems the only bad thing about OSX is that Apple seems to be even less open then windows in many cases.

If this is the case could linux adopt the same type of installer that osx uses???

Also ive seen mentioned about driver installtion and by the way I never mentioned anything about my having difficulties with them, that was "?" and not me. But i understand thats more of a manufacturers issue then a linux installation issue. I understand though its getting better all the time.

so the answer to poor installation system that requires a fast unlimited internet connection is find a place where you can buy CDs and will ship to your country or location?

I don't even know what you're getting at. You can download linux packages to cd and install them with the package manager! It works great. In either case, you need to get the software first. Either the package manager downloads it for you, or you get it on a CD!

Same deal as Windows. I think you have no idea about how these systems work.

It's not that it's any harder to install software, it's just a differn't proccess your going to have to get used to. Debian's apt-get is an amazingly simple way of not only installing your software, but keeping it all as up-to-date as you want as well.

In the end, I think its about the same amount of effort to install software on any of the major desktop platforms. Linux however (debian anways, haven't tried anything else in a long time) is much easier to keep everything installed up-to-date (if you want to, that is)

apt-get oracle-server

not found? Ups!
1- click the browser window
2 - navigate to oracle site
...

I though unix users where smart and could come up with good arguments. I was wrong.

I hate MS as much as the next guy, but the view presented in this article is naive and seriously flawed.

The point is, which approach is easier for newbies to figure out by themselves. Put a complete newbie in front of a Windows machine, and she'll be able to browse the web, google for 'Abiword', get to that website and install it. Sure, it'll take half an hour.

But, how long will it take the same newbie to figure out that she needs to login as root and run the cryptic 'apt-get' command? Probably the same time it'll take the infinite monkeys to reproduce Shakespeare.

If this is the case could linux adopt the same type of installer that osx uses???

Yes. In fact, check out ZeroInstall ( http://zero-install.sourceforge.net/ )

It's even easier than the OS X method. It just hasn't taken off yet (which is not a minor problem).

I don't really like the OS X method though. Yes it makes it easier to install applications, but apps don't have any way to integrate into the system. Drag an app to Applications and you will be able to start that application from there. However, you don't get a desktop icon, you don't get a dock shortcut, you don't get the option of perhaps starting at boot time, or as a service, or associate with file types. Many times an application will want to do other things when it is installed, and this just doesn't happen with the OS X method. Works great for installing TextPad (or something equally simple) but breaks down for more complex apps.

Also, you will notice that an increasing number of mac applications have Windows-like installers now. Precisely because they need to do external things when they are installed.

I wouldn't be so sure. First of all, if you're talking a complete newbie, they wouldn't even know the concept of installing a program, or why one might find it on google.

A complete newbie will have the same amount of trouble going to the website, then downloading and installing the software on windows, as they would opening the package manager, and clicking install on abiword.

The advantage of the linux system is that the package manager presents the user with known working software in a simple list. On windows, you have to find the software on the internet, where every website is different, and some websites are malicious. (I am reminded of my little sister installing Kazaa by searching on Google, and then installing it from the first website she found. It turned out to be spyware, which was incredibly labour intensive to remove and basically destroyed the system).

The advantage of Windows is that any software you may want to install is probably available on the vendor's site and packaged in a way somewhat resembling a standard installer.

But, how long will it take the same newbie to figure out that she needs to login as root and run the cryptic 'apt-get' command?

Who cares? All they need to figure out is to run Synaptic...

You're also a prime example of how Windows users seem to think it's natural to run a seperate program just to install a program. Try this little experiment --- unless they've used Windows, they will have absolutely no clue how to do this. I know I didn't, when I first started using Windows (somebody had to show me), and I guarantee you that if I put my mom in front of a Windows machine, and say "install AbiWord", she'll be like "what is install?"

This article is ridiculous, utterly and totally. I wouldnt let the author manage my dogs desktop.

[i]re: Mark Jenson (above) so the answer to poor installation system that requires a fast unlimited internet connection is find a place where you can buy CDs and will ship to your country or location? Or you could just use another OS (Windows or Mac)!!!</ii>

Windows and Mac have a way to install software that involves neither downloading it, or ordering a CD? How does it work, then, somebody reads you the raw bits over the phone, and you type it into Notepad?

The fact you all are missing is the existence in the world of "pringaos"(spanish word).
The pringao is somebody who makes what nobody do neither wants to know how to do.
Yes, in windows, we all know more than five, we have the pringao that installs or helps installing stuff to their parents, neighbours, friends, girlfriend/boyfriend, etc.
These people wouldn't buy a computer if they don't know a pringao.
They ask you for doing things and you feel important installing this and that for their windows machine.
Sometimes they give you something to eat, too.
Have you ever seen a novice user buying an installing Microsoft Office without the supervision of a pringao?
No way.
Pringaos come from the win95 and pentium I era, and they feel important showing their knowledge on how to click: Next>Next>Next>Next>OK.
Moreover, they love when you call them desperatedly saying:
I switched off the firewall thing you installed me because it told me I cannot reach a webpage and know the computer is blue!!!
(Respect deeply Pringaos because I was one of them but not anymore!!!)
I am leaving my "clients" one by one saying things like: you shouldn't have to buy an Antivirus Software if you where using Linux. Or: I am not going to install you any pirated software, there is a free choice if you install Openoffice, Audacity, Firefox, Thunderbird, Filezilla, Klamav, Gimp, Inkscape, Kmeleon, Virtualdub, Mplayer, or
Mandrake, Ubuntu, Connectiva, Suse, etc, I will gladly help
you .

To sum up, windows wouldn't exist everywhere without the help of pringaos.

For further information in English (translation):
http://pinsa.escomposlinux.org/sromero/linux/pringao/techslacky.htm...
For further information in Spanish (original document): http://pinsa.escomposlinux.org/sromero/linux/pringao/Pringao_Howto....

Windows software works after you install it. Linux software on the other hand often needs some help in the way of configuration files... Also notice that the windows install is all point and click, no commands to memorize. I think that linux is much harder to install software on.

But, how long will it take the same newbie to figure out that she needs to login as root and run the cryptic 'apt-get' command? Probably the same time it'll take the infinite monkeys to reproduce Shakespeare.

Yes, you'd first need to run "apt-cache search keyword", and maybe even "apt-cache show packagename", but I'd prefer to just launch aptitude. You see, aptitude sorts packages under several categories that help you to search the program you're looking for.

There is the initial "learning curve", yes, but that won't take more than 15-30 minutes and after that installing software on any Debian-compatible system is a piece of cake.

One feature that I haven't found on any other package management system than Debian's APT is the "apt-listbugs" utility, which you can install and after that it will automatically warn you whenever you attempt to install a package that has a problem report filed against it. And it will print a short description of what the reported bug is about, so you can decide yourself if this bug will affect your system or not.

Now, that is something that I can honestly call VERY COOL. ;-)

I didn't even bother reading the other post because I simply can't wait to say what I have to say.

ARE YOU INSANE?
let me explain...

Fewer steps IS NOT EQUAL to easier.

Exactly how many "USERS" will even know what a terminal window is? And if you honestly think they are going to type -su you have completely lost your mind. The first 2 hour help session with thier nephew in CA will put an end to them logging on as anything but ROOT.

And seriously, "type "apt-get install abiword"" you may as well have said "EGFN jnfdmkL()( dnkl; afjkhP WDdm;0K NDSL" as far as most "USERS" are concerned.

Let me say this as straight as I can. DOUBLECLICK
It doesn't get much easier.

But seriously, it was nice to laugh for a change.

P.S. I don't hate linux, just users....

Again, there is no commands to memorize in Linux either, unless you want to use a command. Some Linux software does require configuration --- that's true. That's the fault of the software, though, there is really nothing that the OS could do about it.

While I'm at it, you cheated BIG TIME.
How did you know the command line to use?

Following that logic I could have known the exact url for the download of a .msi package on windows.

It would go like this
1: select start-->run
2: type fulldownloadpath of application to install.
3: click "run" on dialog.
4: answer yes to everyhting it ask.
DONE

Windows and OS X do not have the concept of a package manager. Windows and OS X use software installers. They are not package managers. Package managers are an order of magnitude more sophisticated than ordinary installers. A package manager manages software packages, not just installs them.

I'm sorry, but that's what I thought, that Linux was a kernel, and that M$, Debian, Fedora, were distributions. So You lump All distro's into one, then try to say that Linux is easier than windows? Not a good way to promote Linux. An average user doesn't even know what the heck Linux is, and most can't figure out why they need to switch to it. The fact is, you'd have to compare how each of the main distro's do it. How do they install software. Compare how you'd install some of the more popular software titles that you can run on both side of the fence. I think if you looked at ALL Linux distro's, then I'd have to say that windows is easier. But only because you have one way for win , and many ways to do the same thing in Linux.

Everybody has a favorite distro, and I've tried probably every one. I've burnt hundreds of cd's and dvd's, and love to monkey around for hours just trying to figure things out. Some of these have been realy great, and others have a long way to go, but all are improving. I use Debian based ones mainly, and try out the source and rpm one's from time to time. After 6 years of using them, I still get stumped from time to time.

I'd love to read an article like this one that is far less biased, because the idea is a good one. Perhaps take several users and have them try to install a list of software that works on all the main ditro's. The standard stuff, like Gaim, Gimp, Mplayer,ect. Yhen have them do a review of how hard, and successfull they were, and make sure that there is a good cross section of user's from all the distro's, and relatively equal time on each. Then throw in 10 mom's, 10grandma's ,and 10 dad's, all with no experience. Then we'd have a good idea which is easier. And don't think for a minute that M$ and Aplle don't do this already, it's a healthy way to find out which way you need to go.

And seriously, "type "apt-get install abiword"" you may as well have said "EGFN jnfdmkL()( dnkl; afjkhP WDdm;0K NDSL" as far as most "USERS" are concerned.

Let me say this as straight as I can. DOUBLECLICK
It doesn't get much easier.

Ah, but WHAT to double-click? Where are you supposed to find these programs that you can just download and double-click to install? In my experience, you need to make extensive Google-searches to find the appropriate programs that you want -- the ones that won't expire after one month or won't turn your machine into a bot that is programmed from some other address. (I could tell you stories about this. ;-))

That was a very biased article. It's next to impossible to get an average user to run the command prompt on windows, much less linux. Ease of use is graphical instruction.
Score:
Linux - 50
Windows - 10

I love unix (Mac prefered, but linux second) and hate microsoft. I feel that getting more pople out of the microsoft trap is a very positive thing, but simply stating that you can install some programs in fewer steps does not make it easier.

Good packages cerianly even the playing field as can bee seen with Apple debian based packages. However, the following goals must be adopted by the linux community if you want to end microsoft dominance:

1. Users must be the target, not programmers. This means simple binary distributions of program (source selectable, but defualted off). No one who is not a programmer should ever have to type make. This is a deal breaker for most users. Sure programmers love it - we can tweak and improve as much as we want, but users will run back to microsoft 9 time out of 10 at their first "make" experiance.

2. Package manages must handle all the dependancies. This should include putting all the needed binaries in the package. You should not depend on the customers internet connection to get what you need.

3. Pretty graphical configuration scripts. Again the command line scared most users - I know every "unix geek" I know prefers these scripts because in a lot of ways they are better and faster. But users want a pretty box with well though out choices presented in small doses.

4. Include uninstall scripts as well. User do stupid things like install every thing they see ... they eventually have to remove all the crap they should not have installed anyway.

Linux is very powerful, but it can be made user friendly (as Apple has shown). Linux is very programmer friendly, but we are a small segment of the overall market. Linux has to choose to change or remain a backoffice server OS.

Graphical is not easy; it's easy for those who are used to it. Some of us can't understand graphical as easy as we read man pages. It's all in what you're used to/afraid of.
You can't get users to open the windows terminal because you can't do anything from it in daily tasks. In Linux/BSD/Mac/Solaris you can do everything from an xterm.

the windows install process is a joke. compare firing up synaptic, searching for what you want out of thousands of available options, then simply double clicking to firing up a web browser, searching the web, reading up on the different options, try to find one without malware, download it, and then install it. not only that, one command updates my ENTIRE system. just one. and dont get me started on dynamic linking vs static linking, windows wastes obscene amounts of memory.

Ok, you install it by apt.

But : How (and where) do you start it ?
How to tell a dummie-user to navigate to ?
Why doesn't appear AbiWord in the Start Menu (tm) ?

No, that's too naiv. That's no fair comparison.

My suggestion :
- Test 20-30 OSS apps that are also available under Windows
- Try NOT to think like a Linux/Debian-Zealot rather than being a Dummie-User
- Test this with real-world-people

Why de author did not mention about Synaptic or another package management frontend, where installing applications is about 2 clicks? Commercial software on Linux also comes mostly with a "Setup Wizard" or compressed in .tar.gz which must be uncompressed and moved to place. This is common even in Windows environment, and don't say you are lazy to read the readme file.... Or if so, you don't deserve to use a computer.

I didn't even bother reading the other post because I simply can't wait to say what I have to say.

yeah, thats rather apparent.

ARE YOU INSANE?
let me explain...

Fewer steps IS NOT EQUAL to easier.

Exactly how many "USERS" will even know what a terminal window is? And if you honestly think they are going to type -su you have completely lost your mind. The first 2 hour help session with thier nephew in CA will put an end to them logging on as anything but ROOT.

your not gonna get too far trying to log in as ROOT, but anyways....

its called synaptic. it has been around forever and a day. it is a graphical, fully searchable front-end to apt. if you think that requiring a password to install software is a bad thing, i pity you.

And seriously, "type "apt-get install abiword"" you may as well have said "EGFN jnfdmkL()( dnkl; afjkhP WDdm;0K NDSL" as far as most "USERS" are concerned.

Let me say this as straight as I can. DOUBLECLICK
It doesn't get much easier.


you are wrong. you dont just double click on windows. even if the installer is already on your desktop, you still have to go through their redicules installers that ask 50 inane questions that are not nessicary in the slightest, hiding one that is vitally important somewhere in the middle just to mess with you.

But seriously, it was nice to laugh for a change.

P.S. I don't hate linux, just users....

yeah, i like to read funny things too

well, ill tell you, my family cant seem to install software on windows for the life of them. they alwas hit a question that confuses them, are terrified of hitting "next", and phone me up.

as for linux package management, a desktop system that does not have apt, yum, urpmi, or some other system that is lightyears ahead of windows really is not for normal users.

commercial software needs to be distro agnostic, but i have seen some that offer rpms or debs as well as the binary installer. that being said, hopefully we will see autopackage take off, and will be able to kiss those things good bye forever.

actually, that already exists. its called synaptic, and has been the tool of choice for the vast majority of apt users for years.

I agree - some do find text based operation easier, but most do not. I have no problem with a text based alternative install, but if you want to reach the masses, you need to speak in their language ... for most that is graphical.

I am the odd ball, I am completly comfertable working on the command line, but still prefer graphical interfaces for most things. If any of my family or friends ever see a command line they call me to figure out what is broke.

I have heard all the text arguments, and many make sense, but all are overidden by the fact that most people are afraid of it. I know that for a small subset this is going to be a hinderance, but the increase in user base will help us all.

The difference between installing software in Windows and Linux really comes down to who you are getting the software from. In Linux you are depending on the distro you are using to package up the application for you. In Windows, you get the app straight from the developer.

Whether it takes 5 clicks to 15 clicks is just a result from the difference in the two philosophies.

I personally perfer getting the app straight from the developer. I don't want any middle-man.

what a terribly inaccurate and biased comparison. what qualifies as a "step"? seems like you just stopped short of saying "Step 1: move mouse cursor 1 pixel left, step 2: move mouse curseor 1 pixel up,..."

Ok, you install it by apt.

But : How (and where) do you start it ?

on ubuntu, i have "synaptic package manager" in my menus, along with the other administration tools

How to tell a dummie-user to navigate to ?

same as anything else

Why doesn't appear AbiWord in the Start Menu (tm) ?


it does if you use apt.

No, that's too naiv. That's no fair comparison.


agreed. the author ignored synaptic, possibly trying to put windows and linux on equal footing.

My suggestion :
- Test 20-30 OSS apps that are also available under Windows
- Try NOT to think like a Linux/Debian-Zealot rather than being a Dummie-User
- Test this with real-world-people


after an install of ubuntu on a new machine, i will be installing at least 20-30 new apps. they all install the same, requireing no more then a double click. they are all in a searchable database, and tend to install far faster then hunting down the same amount of setup.exes, and going through the windows installer for each of them.

"as for linux package management, a desktop system that does not have apt, yum, urpmi, or some other system that is lightyears ahead of windows really is not for normal users."

Of course, this is right. But everyday people who wants to try out Linux, must be advised firstly to try Mandrake, SuSE or maybe Fedora. As a bit more advanced user of Linux, I use more Gentoo and Slackware, because I like that I can make my system to run as I want, but I don't need wizards, and unchangeable config files (as I saw in SuSE, you could modify the config file, but the system turned it back to the original state after a reboot ), but an everyday user must have all the things set up easily with a global configuration utility like YaST or Mandrake Control Center.

thats true, but new users are only new users for a brief time, so bending over to please them will only shaft everyone else, including them once they get past the newb stage.

fedora - yum
linspire - click n run
ubuntu - apt
mepis - apt
mandrake - urpmi
xandros - whatever they use for their xandros networks
nld - red carpet(i think)
lycoris - something equivilent, just cant think of the name

anything that bills itself as a desktop distro will have a good package manager nowadays. comparing windows xp to slackware is building a strawman.

Of course - installation on Windows has always been sort of a problem. Since MSI is really *complex*, alternative installers have emerged like NSIS or the commercial InstallShield.

But what I remember from the past : Unix people alway told me, that it is bullshit that you can't move an installed program from partition "a" to partition "b" just by copying (registry and so).

But if I think about it : It's nearly also impossible to do this with current Unix/Linux-Apps (dependency-hell).

The only thing left are Java and .NET/Mono apps ...

what are you doing with your so easy linux when you have to install a program that doesen't have a package from your provider. Or you buy a new piece of hardware and must install the driver manually?

also with that package auto installers, you don't have any control over the installation process.
you can't read the license, can't choose the language, can't set file associations (the program doesen't know which window manager you are using), can't choose the install location and so on.

when it's going wrong it doesen't make a menuentry and you don't even know where the package have been installed.

Windows and Mac OS are far much userfriendly because every user can install a program the same way, no matter where they buy or download it.

What drove me from windows to linux was how much easier it was to upgrade programs in linux, and how much cleaner uninstalls were.

Upgrading all installed programs in linux:
- start the package manager
- select "update"

Upgrading all installed programs in windows:
- find out which version of program 1 is installed (e.g. by running the program and selecting the Help->About menu item)
- surf to the website of program 1
- download the new version (if there isn't a new version then skip this and the rest of the steps for this program)
- read the manual/FAQ/support-forums of program 1 to find out whether the old version should be uninstalled before installing the new version (if you get this part wrong you could end up with either two versions of the program or losing all your settings)
- find and back-up the program settings anyway just in case
- uninstall the old version if it should be uninstalled
- run the installer of the new version of program 1 (if you didn't uninstall the old version then the installer will probably ask if you are completely sure that you want to install the program into the selected folder which isn't empty... sounds scary, but fear not, just answer "yes")
- find out which version of program 2 is installed
- surf to the website of program 2
etc. for each program


Uninstalling a program in linux:
- start the package manager
- find the program in the list of installed programs
- select it to be uninstalled (here you can also select whether to keep the settings or to remove everything)
This will remove the program completely (except if you chose to keep the settings, in which case the settings aren't removed).

Uninstalling a program in windows:
- Control Panel -> Add/Remove programs
- find the program in the list of installed programs
- press "Uninstall" or "Modify" or "Change/Remove" or whatever the button happens to be called for this program (a few programs ask whether to remove or keep the settings, but most don't)
This will remove parts of the program, but the program will most likely leave a lot behind, such as registry entries, config files, "C:Program FilesProgNameuninst.exe", etc. However, the uninstall program won't tell you this, and the system have neither any idea which files/registry entries are left behind, nor which of such files and registry entries are safe to remove. Don't even try to remove such cruft manually, unless you are very experienced.

Hmm... what do I need now when I have the OS installed?

Maybe a Word processor, some music players, video players, licq (icq), xchat (similar to mIRC), Gaim (Multi protocol IM client), Firefox, Thunderbird and some more, just to get things started.

Fire up Synaptic, it's in your menu, choose all the above apps and klick "Apply". (Btw, pure Debian has like 16000 apps to choose from).

ALL the applications are installed in one go. No reboots, no web searches, just select and apply.

Sounds like real trouble to me

And one more thing. If you spend 0,1% of the time you have spent on Windows, instead trying to learn just the basics in Linux, you will manage do to about everything needed to feel comfortable with Linux.

My dad (66 years old) feels more at home with Knoppix than with Windows nowadays. Only using it for a month or 2.

..and what i have forgotton. In most cases the installation for a windows programm is simply clicking "next" or "install" after the autostart of the application or driver or game cd started.
and the best of this mechanism is, it works completly without a (broadband) internet connection

"also with that package auto installers, you don't have any control over the installation process.
you can't read the license, can't choose the language, can't set file associations (the program doesen't know which window manager you are using), can't choose the install location and so on. "

In gentoo, if you search for the package with emerge search, or if you view it, you can see what licence it does have, if you are really that curious, you can read in /usr/share/doc/Application's name/LICENCE. Most distros do make icons for Gnome and KDE, and if you use a lighter window manager, like FluxBox, I assume you know, why you use it, and how to use it. As for language, it grabs the system's default language, or your DE's default.

"Upgrading all installed programs in linux:
- start the package manager
- select "update"

Upgrading all installed programs in windows:
- find out which version of program 1 is installed (e.g. by running the program and selecting the Help->About menu item)
- surf to the website of program 1
- download the new version (if there isn't a new version then skip this and the rest of the steps for this program)
- read the manual/FAQ/support-forums of program 1 to find out whether the old version should be uninstalled before installing the new version (if you get this part wrong you could end up with either two versions of the program or losing all your settings)
- find and back-up the program settings anyway just in case
- uninstall the old version if it should be uninstalled
- run the installer of the new version of program 1 (if you didn't uninstall the old version then the installer will probably ask if you are completely sure that you want to install the program into the selected folder which isn't empty... sounds scary, but fear not, just answer "yes")
- find out which version of program 2 is installed
- surf to the website of program 2
etc. for each program
"

Really? Maybe i have an other Windows and Apps.

Windows have already an Autoupdate, thats inform me when new Patches or Updates are available.
My Firefox Browser have a green arrow at the upper right corner. When it is red, i simply klick it and get the new version. My Virusscanner downloads new version automatically.
Office informs me too when updates are available.
Every Program have such a feature nowadays.
At least i don't have one without it! - And i have a lot.

When you are looking for a program on windows or mac, there are plenty of sites presenting nice and up to date listings of programs that might fill your need. In mandrake or debian, you get a long list with names that don't make much sense, with the little help of the "categorie". Personally I end up asking on some forums what others use and then I open synaptic and try to find it. When it's there, fine, but when it's not....


In that case, Windows (and OSX) win hands down. I have used mandrake, libranet and now ubuntu but each time, finding some software has been a question of hunting for repositories offering those packages not covered by the distro. And of course, there is no point and click way to add a repository to sources.list. No problem for me but I've given up arguing that it's a great feature, except maybe to solaris people.

I wanted to try oo.org pre2 on my debian rig but I've not had yet the time to locate a deb package. On XP, I just downloaded and installed.

Another situation is when a new version of a package comes out, it might take a long time for it to be available for your distro, sometimes days, more often weeks and sometimes, the next release of the distro. Whilst understandable for some core package tighltly integrated to the system like kde or gnome, it's harder to accept for something like kino or scribus, especially when the release is a maintenance release that might fix some problems you have been experiencing.

I use linux because I think it's a better system but saying that package install is easier than in windows is stretching it a bit.

Ok, I had to pre-configure smart to use an FC-extras repository, and I had to put a smart-gui icon on the desktop. Now all I do is

1. Click on smart-gui desktop icon
2. Wait for smart-gui to appear
3. Scroll down to abiword
4. Right-click to bring up menu
5. Select Install
6. Click on the Apply marked changes icon

not as easy as yum (or apt-get) install abiword from a terminal, but easy enough for your average Windows user

I hate most linux installers, and I really hate windows installers. They ask the same questions whether you're a total newbie or power user, and they almost never provide any help with answering those questions. (Some ncurses-based linux installers provide help, although in an almost useless fashion: the help is shown before the question! (This is less useless if you keep a digicam nearby and snap a pic of each help message and then when you read the actual question(s) and thus know what you need help with you can look at the pic you took.)) And in the few systems where you can configure whether you're a novice or a power user this setting is global, as if the same user couldn't be ignorant regarding one type of program but knowledgeable regarding another type of program.

Why can't people make something like the Amiga installer? When you install an Amiga program it first asks what level of questions you want (novice, intermediate, advanced). At each step in the wizard there is a Help button, and pressing it will bring up a help screen to assist both with the question(s) in said step of the wizard and with the installer program itself. I'd probably spend 50+ h/yr less on giving support to relatives if windows installers had a Help button like this!

the article is a bit biased but for standard maintaining it is far easier on any system with synaptic or kynaptic, you click "smart upgrade" and come back in half an hour to an upgraded system.

In windows I'd have to locate each program individually, (atm there is no package maintainer in windows) and download them then install them. (*reboot optional?*)

I think autopackage will take off and will make all package maintenance and installation easier on linux, you'll be able to browse the web download an autopackage, and use your built in repository to keep everything else up to date.

packages not in the repos that you have to compile yourself???
last i checked you didnt have that hassle with windows..

also.. as far as rebooting goes.. i havent had to reboot windows after installing something since win98 ish.. win2k and winxp NEVER ask me to reboot.. cept an occasional package where the programmer requests it.. then i just say no.. and it still works fine... you guys really need to ditch the whole 'reboot for anything when your on windows' thing.. its getting kinda old..

btw.. i use ArchLinux fulltime now.. no more windows, but thats because of 'genuine' and other legal reasons..

dont get me wrong i love being able to pacman -Ss name and pacman -S name, but there is still alot of things i need to compile myself.. in which case i would LOVE to have a windows box running.. because at times i need to tinker a lil with the souce or install other packages..

this article does NOT address installing from source.. which it REALLY should.. sure.. it touches on portage.. big woop.. thats not
./configure && make && make install
now is it..

maybe
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=10155
will help solve alot of the issues.. :-D

just my opinions..

I find it funny how many people bit this obvious troll story. Keep it up guys, you're all giving me a great entertainment.

Well if the stupids above wouldnt post such on a news site, then there wouldnt be a problem ;-)

People, people, people...

You cannot compare Linux and Windows with respect to high level user activities like installing software. You can compare Debian to Windows, or RHEL, or Fedora, or SUSE. The process of installing software varies enough from distro to distro that it's just plain silly to compare to Windows (which may differ in fundamental respects from 95 to XP, but software installation from the point of view of the user has remained substantially the same).

Which leads me to me second point, any difficulties installing software on one Linux distro DO NOT represent a valid argument about the ease of installation on another distro. The fact that I can roll my own Linux system which requires me to do everything manually without any handholding whatsoever in no way detracts from the ease and convenience of using apt, or yum, or upmri.

Likewise, the fact that different distros handle software installation differently should be of no concern to the average user. Pick a damn distro and stick with it if an overabundance of options is somehow beguiling you. You can run Debian or one of it's close relatives while remaining blissfully unaware of how it is people install software on Mandrake, or Fedora, or Slackware. The same is true in reverse.

The official way to do this has you creating directlies all over the place, and linking to different files etc.

There may be some special trick, or application, that makes the linux install easier, but that would be just as bad, because it requires some special insider knowledge - with windows, it's all standard.

I love Debian. I'm using debian right now, but that article was a very unfair comparison.

forgotten wrote:
> Windows have already an Autoupdate

I said nothing about the OS itself, only the programs. WindowsUpdate is OK, imho.

> My Firefox Browser have a green arrow at the upper right
> corner. When it is red, i simply klick it and get the new
> version.

You are correct that many programs nowadays can automatically check for updates. (So instead of the first two steps in my list you'd have one step, "run the program".) Only very few can actually update themselves, though. Also, since Microsoft is so utterly clueless and doesn't provide a standard interface for update management each program has to have its own update checker, each of which have to be configured separately. Several of these also won't copy the proxy configuration from the browser (and in my case I don't even want the update checker to use the same proxy as my browser), many don't support all proxies and some don't support proxies at all! And you'd also have to grant network access to all your programs. And you'd also have to run the programs that you want to upgrade, one by one.

All in all, there is no way the windows upgrade mess could be considered comparable to the simplicity of upgrading programs in linux.

I'm surprised not more people have commented on the inability to have the choice of where to install the app on *nix systems (except MacOSX apparently)..
One guy commented on it and got the answer that you shouldn't have to care where the app is installed.

However, when I was using Linux (Slackware) a few years back, my biggest issue with it was that I didn't have the same control over where my apps were installed, as I do in Windows.

My reasons for wanting to choose where to install stuff?
1. I want to have control over how space is divided on my hdd's, as in maybe I want to keep one partition solely for installing apps on and one solely for loose documents, etc..
From what I remember I can easily do the second but not the first.
2. I do not always wanna have to go through a menu to start an app, nor having to open a terminal to start an app that way. I want the choice of having a filemanager open with a nice structure over my installed apps so I can simply go the the app folder of my choice and doubleclick on the executable to start it.

My second argument might seem stupid, but it's just how I've gotten used to use my computer, especially since the startmenu in Windows quickly fill up with alot of crap (since every app puts it's own submenu in it with usually more than one shortcut, for sometimes ridiculous features) so that it's no longer usable at all really..
The quickstart panel is nice, but only usable for the most used apps really, if you don't want it to fill up and become useless too aswell as making the taskbar way too small to be usable.

So, the best way to keep a nice, usable, clean Windows system (for me) is to use the file manager for just about everything and keep it structured in a way that's optimal for me. And that is definitely not by using c:/program files/ as the installpath for my apps, since Microsoft puts all kinds of crap in there that I will never touch. And it's not by using the Documents and Settings folder for my loose documents, since Microsoft creates a mess in there aswell..
So for me, it's way better to simply use C:/ solely for Windows and create a D:/ for all my stuff and structure it to my liking.

Maybe this is not a problem in Linux, but what if I like how all my files and apps are structured? Can it be done in Linux? Can it be done with ease? (really, I'm asking, because it was years since I last used it on a daily basis and it was Slackware without a package manager)

walterbyrd wrote:
> The official way to do this has you creating directlies all
> over the place, and linking to different files etc.

Sounds odd.. I'll try it..
"sudo aptitude install firefox && firefox [URL to applet]"
... works fine here, without me having to create any directories or linking or anything.

UN-installing Software: A GNU/Linux VS. MS Windows Comparison
which is perhaps a more interesting article

"I want to download any software out there for any Linux distro and install it on any version of Linux that I have installed here at home"

Have you tried installing a Windows 2000/XP only software on Windows 98? Windows 95?

Upgrading Microsoft Office from Office 97 to 2003?

My point is not to be facetious. Linux distros are independent operating systems who happen to share the same (mostly, if not tweaked - and most are) kernels. They use different versions of libraries, different locations for critical system files, and the like.

Maybe they shouldn't but they do.

So why would anyone expect to be able to install "anything" on "anything"? You can't do that on Windows either. I'm not familiar with the Mac, but I doubt that older stuff runs well on OS X, nor that OS X only stuff runs on older Macs.

If Linux had only ONE distro and that distro was only released EVERY THREE FUCKING YEARS (like Windows), your comment would be useful.

Otherwise, it's completely pointless.

Yes, it would be nice, but it's not going to happen until AutoPackage and the distro repositories and the distros and the LSB get their act together and cooperate.

In the meantime, most Linux users are happily installing from RPMs and source and whatever, and getting on with using their systems. Worrying about some clueless Windows idiot who can't even install a Windows program (and the article is correct, installing Windows programs CAN be a huge pain in the ass depending on the author's competence, so it's not entirely the user's fault) is not terribly useful to anybody.

There is always an error in installing software on Linux, either because of a version already installed but corrupted, or on compilation time, or installing from the binaries. Good luck also to update software in Linux. It took me a day to update Apache, PHP5, MySQL and PostgreSQL 8. Time is money. Be prepared to have to search in forums, discussion newsgroups, erratas and all that with Linux. It almost never succeed to install successfully and to run properly the very first time you try to install it.

There's a lot to improve in this area too.

Only developpers are able to install using the console. Linux was made by developpers for developpers.

> 1 single line!!!
> Yes, 1 !!!!

> Don't tell me that a normal user can not remember such a
> command.

> Can Windows do something like this?
> Not yet, but Microsoft is going to do something similar in > their next windows update (although in a graphical ui way)

I doubt it, and I really don't hope so. It's more Linux copying Windows'easy step by step installation process.

ok, my 2 cents,
for me (seasoned linux user), it is just as easy if not easier to install software on linux weather it be via portage, apt, yum, or even many rpm's, however..... Windows is IDIOT PROOF, all you need to remember for most software installations on windows is... click ok and keep clicking ok till it finishes installing.

oh yeah.... in reply to Joe User, i very and i mean very rarely get errors when installing software in linux... but i use gentoo, which is the only linux distro that i have used that follows this precident ;-)

one more thing.... there are alternatives to the command line for installing software on a debian or gentoo system, debian has synaptic (an apt gui), gentoo has porthole...among others (a protage gui), however... once you are accustomed to the commandline... it is generally faster and more efficient to use it

<p>I think that the most important feature that people are forgetting to give Linux distros is the fact that most (not all, but most) software that is used for every-day tasks is licensed in a way that it can be packaged by the, distro and installed by the geek or OEM installing the system in the first place effectively making this entire issue moot. A reasonable distro will come with a word prossesor and a chat client along with a pile of other software leaving the user without having to worry about installations at all, unlike Windows which comes barebones and is expensive as all hell to add on to. A complete system out of the box verses one that you have to manually purchase and install a ton of software for, guess which one I use.<p> <p>PS It is a shame that this article was written by someone who insisted on unnesiccarilly using the command line for a useablity comparison.<p>

Good luck also to update software in Linux.

Are you kidding? Updating software in Linux, especially multiple apps at a time, is a lot easier than in Windows.

On Mandrake, I click on Mandrake Control Center, then on "Installing/Updating Software". I select the packages to update, click install and the rest is all automatic.

It took me a day to update Apache, PHP5, MySQL and PostgreSQL 8.

What distro were you using? I did something similar only a week ago and it took me about half an hour.

Only developpers are able to install using the console. Linux was made by developpers for developpers.

I am not a developer, yet I am able to install/upgrade apps using the console. Ergo, your argument is false.

Using modern distros, installing and upgrading software in Linux is indeed easier (and a lot faster) than in Windows - whether you use the command line or a GUI front-end. And with development such as Autopackage, Zeroinstall and Klik, the gap in ease of installation is even greater.

Gee, I can't believe the amount of FUD here.

#$@@$^&* ! The brains of childrens and youngs nowadays are seriously damaged by years of Windows...

Do you never use M$-DOS ? Even secretaries could use and install CLI programs in past. Why young people, born after 70's cannot type: apt-get install program ?

"I've been there and have programs "installed" in my Linux machine that I've never been able to find!"

...that's funny as hell.

I've been down that road.

http://www.nongnu.org/synaptic/

http://www.nongnu.org/synaptic/action.html

Use synaptic in conjunction with MEPIS, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Knoppix or Xandros (Linux distributions).

No compiles necessary. No command line - it is a GUI package manager.

# Install, remove, upgrade and downgrade single and multiple packages.
# Upgrade your whole system.
# Manage package repositories (sources.list).
# Find packages by name, description and several other attributes.
# Select packages by status, section, name or a custom filter.
# Sort packages by name, status, size or version.
# Browse all available online documentation related to a package.
# Download the latest changelog of a package.
# Lock packages to the current version.
# Force the installation of a specifc package version.
# Undo/Redo of selections.

-- Any of the above actions can be done in a few clicks.

-- never had to resolve any "dependencies" - the manager handles it.

-- never had to re-boot.

-- new packages appear in menus after install.

http://www.debianuniverse.com/readonline/chapter/06

[/i]Again, there is no commands to memorize in Linux either, unless you want to use a command. Some Linux software does require configuration --- that's true. That's the fault of the software, though, there is really nothing that the OS could do about it.[/i]

Well that's not true. I guess the linux way of installing software is better, but it simply doesn't work like it should. I'll give an example:
yesterday i installed kubuntu, first thing i did was installing nividia-glx (via kynaptic), it didn't update xorg.conf and the provided script doesn't work, in fact i allways end up editing X11's config file because it simply can't setup monitors right.
Then i decided that kubuntu's fonts looked like crap and upgraded xft2, freetype2, fontconfig etc. They still looked like crap because the people that put packages on the repositories are never able to compile them right, so I ended up downloading, configuring and compiling those packages myself (./configure make make install).
I changed the default KDE fonts to the way i like them, but then every package i download or upgrade still uses the old default preferences so now I have two types of menu fonts and whatnot on my system.

yesterday i installed kubuntu, first thing i did was installing nividia-glx (via kynaptic)

Um, Kubuntu isn't a stable release yet.

in fact i allways end up editing X11's config file because it simply can't setup monitors right.

What does that have to do with packaging? Yes, configuration needs to be easier in Linux. But that's a seperate issue.

I changed the default KDE fonts to the way i like them, but then every package i download or upgrade still uses the old default preferences so now I have two types of menu fonts and whatnot on my system.

Again, that has nothing to do with packaging. I wonder how Windows apps would react if you replaced the font rasterizer! Now, the fact that you don't like the fonts out of box, and that apps don't use the same font preferences, those are legitimate complaints. However, they have nothing to do with packaging. It's not a fault of the packaging system when the user tries to subvert it, no regardless of the reason for the subversion.

Whoa! Talk about a need for medication for some individuals.

All I know is that I should sue a certain company for Repetitive Reboot Syndrome and time lost for the reboots.

Why not do a comparison of Linspire and Windows...

i used linspire 5.0 live for the first time last night and i have to say that if you can't use and install additional programs with that dist then you shouldn't be touching a computer.

its so freaking easy its laughable and out of the box it comes with most stuff you need anyway, you tell me that you can do the same with windows!

i've used well over 20 linux dists as well as most versions of mac os, dos, beos and windows... so i know my stuff

arguments like this are stupid, but all the posts trying to defend one thing against the other is ever dumber. some people like to do things one way, some another...

personally, the best way of installing stuff i've used is BeOS (click and drag, bit like some mac os programs)... next to that i like apt (using synaptic of course!)

but i can almost guarentee that within the next 10 posts, someone will disagree with me, my advice... get over it!

The author listed "Agree to License" as an installation step on Windows. That means on Linux, I can get away with ignoring the license? Actually that would stand up in court when you think about it.


Ask the person installing the software to comply with the license agreement is kind of flawed on a multiuser system.

If you wan't your users to read and agree to it, you should pop up the dialog the first time the user runs the program.
So this should really not be in the installer.

I find this rediculous. There is no way Linux is easier to install software over Windows. I don't like windows but when it comes to having to resolve dependencies - search for dependencies etc. This article assumes too much - like all of the applications you want are on one repository with all available dependencies etc. Then there's the matter of setting up apt in the first place to point to the repository and blah blah blah - c'mon people face the facts.

"There is no way Linux is easier to install software over Windows. I don't like windows but when it comes to having to resolve dependencies - search for dependencies etc. This article assumes too much - like all of the applications you want are on one repository with all available dependencies etc. Then there's the matter of setting up apt in the first place to point to the repository and blah blah blah - c'mon people face the facts."

Not so. Not one of these is true for a modern distribution.

Didn't you read about synaptic? It comes pre-installed with many Debian-based distributions. It is a GUI installer. It does not have any problems with dependencies. It comes with the distribution repositories already defined. There are 15558 packages in the debian repositories - all in the one place, all installable by synaptic, all free to download and use, and all installable and useable after a few clicks without any need to reboot.

Face the facts yourself. Installing software on a modern Debian-based system using synaptic is in every way imagineable far easier than anything in Windows.

http://www.nongnu.org/synaptic/index.html
http://www.nongnu.org/synaptic/action.html

... in real life, the most frequent way installing new programs in windows is just browsing internet. Just open internet explorer, check some fun sites, and thats it, several programs installed in your computer without even being asked.

In the other hand, for installing most programs under linux you need to have some extrange "root" password for even thinking on that.

Well i think that the nvidia drivers problem with updating config files pertinent but fair enough. Since the author mentions abiword have you compared installing abiword (package manager vs .exe file), i just checked and the .exe method gives you a lot of pre-install options if you want to(file associations, dictionaries, clipart, desktop icons and start menu entries etc) that you don't get via package manager. And most user would find having to hunt for several packages for just one program annoying.

I don't like windows but when it comes to having to resolve dependencies - search for dependencies etc. This article assumes too much - like all of the applications you want are on one repository with all available dependencies etc.

The vast majority of apps are available on the Mandrake repositories, and all the good ones are there. For Joe User (the typical Windows user, not the person posting with that name in this thread), all the apps he'll need are available and easy to install. Obscure apps, real cutting-edge stuff and commercial apps aren't, however for the latter the serious software vendors will distribute an installer. Again, commercial apps are pretty rare in Linux so the point is moot.

Then there's the matter of setting up apt in the first place to point to the repository

If I recall correctly Mandrake can do that automatically. I know it does that for regular updates and security fixes.

and blah blah blah

What wit.

'mon people face the facts.

The facts are that installing and updating apps in Linux are very easy with modern distros. With "newbie" distros like Linspire it is easier than Windows, certainly. For a distro like Mandrake it's as easy, and software management is more powerful and much less time-consuming when you upgrade many apps at the same. My time is worth something, and since I upgrade software quite regularly Linux is a productivity gain.

Well i think that the nvidia drivers problem with updating config files pertinent but fair enough.

That's really nvidia's responsibility. If they released their driver under an open-source license, then it could be installed as the same time as the OS, or through the hardware config program (e.g. harddrake), updating xorg.conf at the same time.

i just checked and the .exe method gives you a lot of pre-install options if you want to(file associations, dictionaries, clipart, desktop icons and start menu entries etc) that you don't get via package manager.

That's a valid point but I'd rather have the app do this for me the first time it's run - especially file associations.

And most user would find having to hunt for several packages for just one program annoying.

Using a tool such as rpmdrake, you only need to select the "main" package for all of them to be selected at once. It's a compromise between convenience and customization.

"And most user would find having to hunt for several packages for just one program annoying."

Not so - you don't have to do this in a modern Linux distribution.

Synaptic lets you list packages by section. For example, just click the button on synaptic for the "word processors" section, then from the list of packages displayed select the one you want - Abiword, KWord, OpenOffice.org writer - or whatever. Then mark that wordprocessor for installation, and click "apply". The package manager will sort out all the required file downloads (including any library dependencies), download all the files and install them, and create menu entries for your new application. Presto, wordprocessor installed in a few clicks.

This works (at least) for synaptic (GUI for apt in Debian), Software Installer (GUI for urpmi in Mandrake), kynaptic, kpackage and YAST (GUI for SuSE (I think it works for YAST)). I can't say if it works for YUM (GUI installer for Fedora) or not, as I haven't tried that.

... and I'm adding another one.

Windows programs are much easier to install MOST of the time. But that is because Windows install are homogenous. Linux has hundreds of flavors, Windows has only one maintainer..

Try apt-get install faad2 in debian, go on.

The package system is great, sure, if the software you want to install is actually packaged for you.

Problems with *NIX installing

-w/ portage, you must wait for the compile process to finish, which may take hours

-often you must use the command line to involve shell scripts; with windows it is just point and click

-there are too many package managers

-there are too many ways of installing program. Sometimes with command line, sometimes with double click (rarely), sometimes by right click and rpm.

-After install, it is hard to find the program. there are no icons, and the file system is messed up.

You think you know everything and that every user is like you. You are wrong on both accounts.

Or you're a troll.

what a great article!!
with this kind of reasoning the author should concentrate on writing articles on how God must be a communist!

Try apt-get install faad2 in debian, go on.

The package system is great, sure, if the software you want to install is actually packaged for you

Umm, I'm not positive, but Debian has this thing about NOT putting cracking programs in thier repository. Not sure, but if you are trying to circumnavigate copyright laws by breaking the law... they can't afford lawyers. But that's a whole nother kettle of fish. I will say this, if you want it bad enough, you'll figure out how to run the command line, or go do it in windows. Either way, if it isn't in the repsoitory, I generally READ how to do it. Forums are a great source of info.

I can't say if it works for YUM (GUI installer for Fedora) or not, as I haven't tried that.

YUM isn't a GUI installer but a solely command controlled package manager, allmost like the superb emerge from Gentoo.

Didn't you read about synaptic?

I actually used it a lot :-)

It is a GUI installer

Well correct me if i'm wrong, it's a GUI front-end to apt/dpkg.

It does not have any problems with dependencies

Most of the times it does it's job fairly well.Sometimes you can still get dependency obstacles when you try to install app X from stable that depends on some library "that isn't going to be installed" because it's in the unstable repository.


There are 15558 packages in the debian repositories - all in the one place, all installable by synaptic

Nice although the packages are devided between:stable,testing and unstable.So all packages are not inmediedly avaible after initial install without directly editing /etc/apt/sources.lst or via synaptic menu.

Michelle de la Resistance:

Well i think that the nvidia drivers problem with updating config files pertinent but fair enough.



a nun, he moos (IP: ---.53-203-24.mc.videotron.ca):

That's really nvidia's responsibility.

Doesn't realy matter whose responsibillity it is,in the end the user still isn't helped.Than again we should be glad they made such exellent drivers.

If they released their driver under an open-source license, then it could be installed as the same time as the OS

It's still feasonable,which is not per se due to a license issue.A script could download and install the driver from a NVIDIA website close to your geographical position during install time right away and changing "nv" into "nvidia" in whatever file your OS has put xorg.conf in.To make it even more convenient a link with a nice icon could be made to some native TV-OUT,twinview,tweak,whatever function.

Ok so according to you, typing the name of a program in one line is all Linux needs to install a program. It somehow knew exactly what program you meant, knew where to go get it and every other setting you would need to tell it where to go.


ok ya, this was obviously a fair comparison.
How about instead of a program that has been built in, you go through the installation of something like “Doom3”

Eugenia, please take no offense, but articles like this do nothing but hurt OSNews' reputation. Much more than you imagine. And yes, you should care.

Ok so according to you, typing the name of a program in one line is all Linux needs to install a program.

As you might know Linux is a array of distributions that have at least a kernel in common.There isn't *a* Linux.

In Gentoo and CentOS 4.0 (RHEL 4.0) for example installing your daily usage apps is something like: "emerge mozilla-firefox"
(Gentoo) and "yum install firefox" (CentOS)

It somehow knew exactly what program you meant, knew where to go get it and every other setting you would need to tell it where to go.

Yes,for emerge (Gentoo) and yum (CentOS,Fedora,RHEL..) to work ther're "repositories" . Textfiles with relevant info like where to download the apps ,which mirrors to use,which branch to follow {stable,testing,unstable,etc} etc,exsist in for example /etc/yum.config on your system,when you have installed one of the above mentioned distros that install yum by default that is :-)

Only what is necesary is devs making quality apps. package maintainers, so end-users can install even more apps with ease as described.

I'm still a novice Linux user though.

"YUM isn't a GUI installer but a solely command controlled package manager, allmost like the superb emerge from Gentoo."

I did a bit of looking (I did say I hadn't tried YUM). I would say YUM is more like apt-get or urpmi (command-line package installer's) than it is like emerge (this one doesn't install packages, it compiles them).

"Ok so according to you, typing the name of a program in one line is all Linux needs to install a program. It somehow knew exactly what program you meant, knew where to go get it and every other setting you would need to tell it where to go. "

Apt use repositories. A Debian-based distribution, such as MEPIS or Ubuntu, will come pre-configured to point to a set of compatible repositories. Every now and then, one "updates" the package information from the repositories. This is achieved either by typing "apt-get update" on a command line, or by clicking the "Reload" button in a package manager such as synaptic. (See here: http://www.nongnu.org/synaptic/images/0.53-main.png).

These actions will download a set of index files from the package repositories. The index files contain information (names, description, version, list of dependencies) about all of the packages in the repository.

When one "browses" or "searches" the packages available to install, one is actually looking at the index files.

When one types "apt-get install abiword", or one searches for "abiword" in synaptic, or one chooses the "wordprocessor" section and selects "abiword" from that section, one is merely selecting an item from the index files.

When instructed to install such an item, apt will check the dependencies (from the information out of the index file) to see which are already installed. Apt will download any unsatisfied dependencies, and then also download the requested package files. Apt will then extract the package files and install the contents. The package files contain information about where the content files should be placed and other settings information for the actual distribution.

So you see, "typing the name of a program in one line" realy "is all Linux needs to install a program" in actual fact.

Really Millsy, if you have never tried something, you should not comment about it. If you just don't know, don't pipe up with an opinion that makes you look iditotic and uninformed.

"Eugenia, please take no offense, but articles like this do nothing but hurt OSNews' reputation. Much more than you imagine. And yes, you should care."

There was nothing incorrect in the article.

My only comment would be that the article should have focussed more on the GUI installers in various Linux distributions, (such as synaptic for Debian, RPMdrake for Mandrake and YAST for SuSE) rather than talk about the command line.

Windows has nothing that comes anywhere near the ease of synaptic.

Synaptic (and similar tools for other distributions) provides a one-stop GUI to easily manage all package management (install, upgrade and remove) for a Linux distribution. My copy of synaptic (for MEPIS which is Debian-based but dead easy to install) currently lists 16599 packages (of which 1075 are installed on my system). I can sort, browse, read descriptions prior to install and search by name, category or keyword in the description.

Try doing any of this with Windows. Not possible.

Package management on Linux is light-years ahead of Windows.

I don't think this is a fair comparison on the whole because any experiment should have valid parameters on order to get a valid result. I am a competant computer user and have been using them for 25 years. I am also a Debian convert. Debian is a huge learning experience in comparison to MS based systems. But lets say that the user of each system has equal competance in his own os and we apply the same test. The result in this case is valid. The time taken to install in the Debian environment is certainly much shorter. I have experience of this on a personal level on many occassions. A typical example was when I installed broadband. It took 10 minutes to get my networking setup with Debian and 30 minutes with the MS installer.
I think a lot of the comment from MS users in this long thread derives from a lack of knowledge. apt repositories do have over 16 000 programs available in each flavour (stable, testing and unstable). The details of the apt respository are local and are updated via an apt-get update. An apt-get upgrade will upgrade every single package that has an updated package. No need to find out which of your hundreds of packages has an updated package available. I remember having a specific application for Win '98 to do this for me. For me and many others my Debian has big advantages;
It's free
The applications I use are free.
I have not had a system crash in the 2 years I have run in comparison to the 8 crashes I had in an hour with '98 last week (its old now I know)
I have an Internet server that has been running for 6 months without a reboot and its updated every week.
I don't have malware or spyware.
I have a software firewall that works and I have the rights to prevent malevolent users from comming on to my server if I wish to.
Having permissions on an operating system that operates in a wide area network (the internet) is fundamental requirement to ensure system integrity and protection. This in my opinion, is a very serious design flaw in all the user MS operating systems (DOS, Win '95, '98, XP) designed to date. When it was conceived it was always intended to be used as a single user system and not in a network environment.
All I can say is if you want to carry on paying somone else for a half baked os and applications and have no real knowledge or control of what happens to or on your system, then help yourself because it has nothing to do with me as you are paying for the priveledge.

Doesn't matter if you agree or not, the article is quite factual.

"-w/ portage, you must wait for the compile process to finish, which may take hours"

-- so if you don't like Gentoo, and don't want to wait hours for the optimised compiles, use a different distribution such as Debian which sacrifices optimisation for ease of use, and install binary packages.

"-often you must use the command line to involve shell scripts; with windows it is just point and click"

-- so use synaptic which is even more "point and click" because all the available packages are searchable in the one place (try doing that with Windows!). In using synaptic (or equivalent such as RPMdrake) I have never once had to use a command line.

"-there are too many package managers"

-- so use only the one for your distribution that suits you.

"-there are too many ways of installing program. Sometimes with command line, sometimes with double click (rarely), sometimes by right click and rpm."

-- so just use the package manager alone if you find choice confusing.

"-After install, it is hard to find the program. there are no icons, and the file system is messed up."

Not at all. The programs appear on the menus after install. This is typically achieved by a package installing a menu definitition in /etc/menu. Here is one such from my system for acroread:

====
?package(gv):needs="x11" section="Apps/Viewers"
title="Acrobat Reader"
icon="acroread.png"
command="/usr/local/Acrobat5/bin/acroread"
hints="PostScript,Documents"
categories=Graphics
====

Automagic !

Package management on Linux is light-years ahead of Windows.

That's right-- The reason being that Windows doesn't need it. You can install anything without being tied to a distros 'way of working'.

"That's right-- The reason being that Windows doesn't need it. You can install anything without being tied to a distros 'way of working'."

Pfft. Utter, utter rubbish.

1. There are many ways to install things on Linux. For my system, I can choose to use synaptic (GUI), kpackage (another GUI), apt-get (command line), aptitude (console-with-mouse-and-menus), or I can download packages with a browser and install them with dpkg or via a file manager such as konqueror, or I can install them off cdroms, or I can download source files and compile for myself if I so choose.

2. I can choose from over 16000 packages (yes, that is correct, 16 *thousand*, all free by the way) - only just over 1,000 of these represent my distro's "way of working".

3. I can choose from a multitude of desktop GUIs - such as KDE, Gnome, Xfce, Icewm, Windowmaker, Fluxbox, Blackbox, Rox - to name but a few - I can even have all of these on my system at the same time if I so choose, and let each user decide which one of these he or she wishes to use.

4. You can only install something on Windows if you can find it somewhere - except of course the stuff that installs itself that you do not want and which you cannot get rid of. There is no one place to search for stuff. Nearly everything comes with a hyper restrictive license - except of course the stuff that installs itself that you do not want and which you cannot get rid of. The rest costs a fortune or quits working after 30 days - except of course the stuff that installs itself that you do not want and which you cannot get rid of.

As some others pointed out there are some "accidental" omissions in the article. Not a Win fan but I use it, and I appreciate the fact that the installer does it all. When the sw is installed under Linux I have to locate the binary, create shortcuts, configure menus etc etc etc, often by hand. On Windows that is all done for me. You also forget the fact that with Windows there is only one thing you need to do - point and click repeatedly. This is much easier than having to remember (or even find out) which commands you have to write. It doesn't matter that they are simple commands, it takes quite a while for inexperienced people to get their heads around them. "-hmm, was it apt_get, aptget or apt-get and did I need any command line switches?" And that would be an advanced, normal user thinking, ie someone who even grasps the concept of root vs. others on his system.

"In linux you have to go to debian's site and search the package list descriptions which is much more of a pain."

This is incorrect. Misinformation.

In Linux, one downloads the package list descriptions to local disk. Then one searches, sorts, filters or browses the list (including dtailed descriptions) - or one choses sections (such as Office applicationsWord processors) to find the package(s) one wants.

In Windows, new applications cost one dearly 90% of the time. Sometimes many, many thousands of dollars. Sometimes they cost over and over again. This alone is infinitely more of a pain that installing anything under Linux ever.

Oh - and you do have to reboot. Often. One has to reboot about six times just to get the OS installed - one has to reboot often when one installs new drivers - and often one has to reboot in just installing a new application. This is also a right royal pain - and almost a complete showstopper for a server.

"I appreciate the fact that the installer does it all."

Misinformation. There is no one "installer" in Windows.

"When the sw is installed under Linux I have to locate the binary, create shortcuts, configure menus etc etc etc, often by hand."

You can do this if you want to, but why would you want to? Just install your application using a package manager from your distribution and it is all done for you. Again, I think, an attempt at misinformation.

"with Windows there is only one thing you need to do - point and click repeatedly."

Unless it comes in a zip file. Unless it has a EULA where you give away your rights to your firstborn in order to install something.

"This is much easier than having to remember (or even find out) which commands you have to write."

So don't do it that way - use a GUI package manager. Search for "word processor" or just go into the word processor section. Choose the one you like best from the list (all with descriptions) that is presented to you, mark that one (or even a couple of them if you want) for installation, and click "apply" - then you are done.

"did I need any command line switches?"

No, not if you don't want. Use the GUI - it installs exactly the same set of packages as the command line. Over 16000 to choose from by the way - and all free. All installable with a few clicks. No licenses to worry about. Easy to upgrade, at zero cost. Enjoy.

You should have used a novice for your comparison. A person experienced at both O/S comparing methods means nothing to the newbie and helps them not one bit. Sure it will be easier for the newbie when they are no longer newbies - but that it is not the point.If your intention is promote how easy Linux is for new users then you have missed the point - because it is not - it is a mystery to them. I spent 2 weeks trying to successfully install one program, any program - I tried a few. I tried gzip, RPM, apt-get types etc but it was a freaking nightmare. You forgot to mention the person having to find and know what a Command Line is, how to find directories, files etc, where on earth did the files disappear to when they were installed, did they really install? how do I know? wheres the executeables and so on.
The only thing you have proved is that for an experienced windows and linux user the Linux installation method is just as easy. This is nothing to do with winning new users. Also the documentation/directions are always written with view to
a person knowing how to use the command line. The only packages I could get installed was in Ubuntu using Synaptic Packager (ie it did it for me). For the newbie Windows is far far easier. At least WIndows has a file manager where someone can search for files in an intuitive way. The newbie has to spend an hour just to find out where to look at files and directories which is far better in Windows. Frankly I use computers to produce work, it is not a toy for its own sake that I know many Linux geeks find it - I dont have the time to waste having to study Linux before I can use it. I think the fact that program installation is an actuall issue for people in the real world among new users should tell you something is wrong - no matter how you tell yourself how wonderful and easy it is. Linux is missing out on many new users because of this issue - you telling yourself how easy it is wont fix that. I think the phrase 'Read The Freakin Manual' sums up many Linux proponents attitude to anybody wanting to take up Linux - many are in love with the nerdy niche they think they have with Linux - and actually will probably dread Linux becoming common as place as windows. Sorry but Linux is fails dismally when it comes to the one thing that newbies will want to do - install programs. Poor obvious documentation giving basic 'dummy' instructions for the newbie is missing. Sure once you hold their hand all the way through a process a few times they will not be put off. And dont say go read the man page or poorly set out help files. I dont have the time for Linux anymore, I have work to do - I must advise all the people whom I work with (about 75) to not try Linux yet - they have even less time than I to work Linux out. GET the message - It doesnt matter what you think as an semi/experienced Linux user - the truth is what happens when the newbie first opens up Linux. Oh and if you want me to tell you how to survive a myocardio infarct - I can tell you RTFM. ;]

Not not joking - perhpas you are the joker?

Every thing you say in your post is incorrect.

For example - Linux has more than a dozen GUI file managers. Konqueror for example behaves almost exactly like Windows file manager.

Here is the GUI way to install packages on linux - for people new to Linux:

=======================
KMenu->System->Synaptic Package Manager.
(KMenu is the equivalent of the Windows "Start" button).
Dialog box appears - enter the root password.
Click the "Sections" button in the lower left corner.
Scroll through the list of sections until "Multimedia" appears.
Click on a few of the packages that appear, and spot the one which says:
beep-media-player
and has this description displayed:
"Versatile audio player that supports Winamp skins
A player that supports Winamp skins, with a customizable interface based on GTK2. It has various output plugins and can read various audio formats."
Double-click on "beep-media-player" to mark it for installation.
Click the Apply button.
Dialog box appears informing that 1 new application will be installed, 1 package file to download.
Click Apply.
Package takes about 30 seconds to download.
Dialog box appears stating "Applying Changes" - descriptive text displayed within - terminating with a message: "Successfully applied all changes. You can close the window now."
Click close.
Quit Synaptic.
There is a now a new entry on the "Multimedia" menu saying "Beep Media Player".
Click that new entry - new media player application starts, and works.

Whole process from start to finish - under two minutes.

To remove again:
KMenu->System->Synaptic Package Manager.
Enter root password as before.
Select "Sections", then "Multimedia" as before.
Find "beep-multimedia-player" (now marked as "installed").
Right-click, then select "mark for removal".
Click "Apply".
Dialog box appears informing that 1 application will be removed.
Click "Apply".
Dialog box appears stating "Applying Changes".
Dialog box states (after a short while) "Successfully applied all changes. You can close the window now."
Click Close.
Quit Synaptic.
There is a now no entry on the "Multimedia" menu saying "Beep Media Player".

Also under two minutes.

==============================

Now here is the absolutely critical bit:

**** All packages which can be installed on the command line using apt-get can be installed this way using a GUI instead if users prefer *****

Get it? You can install *everything* using the one GUI and never use a command line in your life - and there will be no packages that you miss out on!!!

Much hyprocrisy from one more Linux fanatic, nothing too surprising in fact (I'm not saying there aren't fanatics in the other team, BTW)...

I wonder why it is so difficult to keep one's head cool and in working order when it comes to computing. Is it that hard to acknowledge the pros and cons of each competitor in a professional and unbiaised manner?

This kind of unfounded propaganda ends up generating a lot of disappointment, frustration and disgust among newcomers (I've been one myself not so long ago).

If you can't see it's broken, then you'll never get it fixed!

Just my 2cents anyway...

What was wrong with the GUI way of installing packages that is described above?

It is a dozen times easier than finding and installing anything under Windows. Under Windows, the Start->Control Panel->Add/Remove Programs has only about 20 or so programs available to install - and then you have to go & dig out your original Windows CD to even istall those. For the vast majority of Windows programs you have to get the install file to your Windows box somehow - and every single program has a different way to locate it.

You cannot put a "here is how to install programs on Windows" section into a help file or an instruction book because no two programs install in the same way.

Yet there just a few posts above I have put the instructions for installing via a common GUI on Linux that will enable anyone who owns a machine to put upwards of 16000 packages on that machine all using the exact same GUI steps every time.

You can't do that with Windows.

"documentation giving basic 'dummy' instructions for the newbie is missing."

Not so.

KMenu->System->Synaptic Package Manager.
Click "Help" or press the F1 key.

In the first instance the author was not writing an article aimed at newbies but was doing a somewhat unscientific experiment. So this article is not a comparison of how newbies would get on in equivalent environments. Given a blank sheet and comparing the learning time of a newbie starting with MS or a Debian based distro like Linspire or Ubuntu I am sure that they would be at similar compentance levels after a month. The main difference would be that the Linux user would be more aware of the functions of his os than his MS counterpart. With regard to APT - it only took me a few days to figure out how to use it and how powerful this system is.
Linux is very much a working environment. Once running I don't have to worry about BSD's and networking stopping because of some unknown glitch in the system. I also don't have to pay some exhorbitant fee to someone for antivirus software either. There is also a great deal more help out there for Linux users than I have ever found for MS.
My 10 year old son uses his Debian system quite happily and is equally at home in MS but guess what he prefers Debian.

From Linux (remotely):

KMenu->System->Konsole (Terminal Program)

or from Windows (remotely) find the menu for Putty.

at the prompt, type:
$ ssh root@machine.name.net
password: (enter the root password)
root@machine.name.net$ apt-get install package-name
...
...
... apt-get types out several messages here
...
...
root@machine.name.net$ exit
$ exit

Try and do that with Windows.

I ranted in an earlier post because I was simply overwhelmed by the outragousness of the article.
I have since read over a hundred different post from people commenting. Some just as put out as I was, and some defending linux as a superior system.
BUT,
what all of the linux users seem to be missing is that in MOST of your arguments you depend on a particular distribution with a particular installer and specific knowledge about how to use it.

If an average "USER" wants to install software the first place they are likely to look is the internet.
That said, most linux software installation is tedius from the web, because there are hundreds of different options for numerous different flavors. It is simply overwhelming and confusing.
It is made MUCH WORSE by the infamously BAD ATTITUDE of most linux die-hards. I know that is improving, but those of you who love linux and want to truely see it adopted by the world in mass know what I'm talking about.

The author did specifically compare the installation of a particular piece of software using windows typical installation methods versus a specific installation manager on a particular linux distro, and I was happy to learn something new that could assist me in the future with my linux woes, and marked the information in my brain for future use.

However he seemed to be implying that that meant all software was easier on all linux distributions. (I know that's not what he said, but I do feel it was implied)

He made several large assumptions, like how the user knows which distribution to use (or cares). That the user understands about execution context (or cares).
He also made big assumptions in his "rating" system that could have even the odds a bit had he made the assumptions evenly on both sides, like how he knew the exact command to execute from the command line, which I have already said is like giving the full url to a .msi package.

But unfortunatly what we get from the community is more of the same "LINUX IS BETTER - WINDOWS SUX" crap we have been listening to for years.


Now lets talk about non "USERS". He did not elude to how I would change the default installation path, or how to add (or not add ) the icon to my start menue or desktop. Is that easy as well? it is in most windows installations.
Honestly I don't know. perhaps someone else could enlighten me. But I'll tell you now if it involves editing configuration files you have already lost.

-moidib

<quote>
From Linux Remotely):

KMenu->System->Konsole (Terminal Program)

or from Windows (remotely) find the menu for Putty.

at the prompt, type:
$ ssh root@machine.name.net
password: (enter the root password)
root@machine.name.net$ apt-get install package-name
...
...
... apt-get types out several messages here
...
...
root@machine.name.net$ exit
$ exit

Try and do that with Windows
</quote>

You are assuming those tools are available, and that you know the exact commands to use.
If I make a similar assumption for windows I can just say

- PSEXEC \MachineName -c LOCALPATH TO INSTALLER.msi "INSTALLER.msi /q" -u USERNAME
- Enter password at prompt

for most applications I install.
THERE I just BEAT THAT on Windows!!!

Of course there is a distinct advantage to not having to go get the file first. But it is hard to say that is signifigantly simpler for someone that would be installing software remotely.

Ok, I'm 13 yrs old and I thought I would give a prospective from the other side of installing software. I have never head of or used a microsoft operating system ever. My dad and mom have always used Linux since I can remember. I only started using microsft at school. So, after reading some of the posts here, I thought I would give my preceptions of installing software from the "Never used windows" prospective. That way people can look at this and say "There is someone that is on the other side of the spectrum; never used windows and always used Linux." At school, I asked my teacher if I could learn windows a little. So, she sat me down and we went over some do's and don't about the internet (very similer to my Linux training; dont go to bad sites, dont chat with strangers, etc...etc). I was shocked to learn about virus' and mallware (Although that sounds exiting, well, the "mall" part:-). Anyway, I proceeded to instal a package called Office. I is supposed to be like OpenOffice and has alot of the OO features. I really like OO alot and use it all the time. Anyway, I put the cd in the drive (lol, didn't have to donwload it. That was kind of nice. Internet at school sux0rs). I told my teacher not to help me unless I absolutly needed it and she left me alone. So, I put in the cd and went to the my computer icon like I had read to do. But before I was able to do anything, something poped up that started the install for me. Kind of nice I suppose, but what if I didnt want to install it at that time? Anyway, so this is where I got totally lost. I know nothing about windows filesystems, process', or anything, and it started asking me where I wanted to put the files. I tryed to put in /opt/office, but that didnt seem to work. So, the teacher steped in and said the default was ok. I was a little embareassed to have the teacher tell me that, but I got over it . So, I dont really know what else happend afer that, but it asked me other questions about programs I wanted to install, something about a ticket or license or something and I had to spend 5 min putting in a long number. Sheesh. The whole process took me about 30 min to figure out what to do (With the teacher helping occasionally). Once I was done, I had to reboot the machine. Well, that was a new concept for me as my Linux box at home has been up for 184 days (Needs a new kernel update though, so I might have to reboot it soon for that). So, the machine rebooted and I had to log in. Then on the windows desktop start menu, I found alot of icons sitting there kind of "cluttery" and in the programs directory, I saw MS Office. I wondered why it puts all those other icons in the start menu; really looks out of place thee. Well, It was a little cluttered, but functional. I was able to get a document typed and felt good about doing it. I tried to install some other stuff from CD, but was halted by not knowing the mount command for windows. The Office CD was nice in that it automounted for me, but the other CD's didnt. Oh well. All in all, I have to say that windows is pretty ok, but Linux is far simpler for me to use as I would excpect the opposite from someone that uses windows. Later, I tried installing windows from the CD and I was not able to finish that. Too many questions that I didnt understand. I have installed Red Hat, Mandrake, Arch, and some others. I am going to try Gentoo this comming weekend. Should be simple enough though. Point is, that to each his/her own. If you are good with windows, then that is for you. I find Linux much simpler to install and work with, but that is because I am used to it. I think it is importaint for your kids and schools to teach Linux, Apple, and MS in their schools so everyone has a rounded idea of what is out there. I really appreceate my parents from protecting me from all the bad things that happen to windows users while running windows (identity thefy, virus', this mallware stuff), but I was glad to learn about it. Someday, maybe all the bad virus' will go away too, but I'l glad I dont have to worry about that!!!

All of these comments are forgeting that most pc users can, hardly use the machines that they are on, and don't really have the know how to install software using a command line. That is why windows will allways be prefered to mass public.

All of these comments are forgeting that most pc users can, hardly use the machines that they are on, and don't really have the know how to install software using a command line.

And what you're forgetting is that you don't have to use the command line to install software in Linux. This has been repeated many, many times in this thread already.

Click to check out the instructions for installing some popular software on Ubuntu:
http://ubuntuguide.org/#skype

That's typical for many Linux distros, but not all (some, like Libranet, SuSE/Novell) make the process even easier, but you have to admit Windows has an advantage in this area. That said, this one one-up is not enough by itself to claim Windows superiority overall.

I ranted in an earlier post because I was simply overwhelmed by the outragousness of the article.
I have since read over a hundred different post from people commenting. Some just as put out as I was, and some defending linux as a superior system.

the article was comparing apples and oranges, the linux commandline installers with a windows gui one. it depends how you define superior, if you mean easy to upgrade with low memory consumption, then linux is superior due to its almost total use of dynamic linking. if you mean superior as in ease of use, that is what the article was about.

BUT,
what all of the linux users seem to be missing is that in MOST of your arguments you depend on a particular distribution with a particular installer and specific knowledge about how to use it.

what you seem to missing is that ALL the top desktop distros have great package managers. and for the most part, it requires less knowledge to use a linux installer (i cant think of any that dont just answer the standard 10 windows installer questions for you with sane defaults.)

If an average "USER" wants to install software the first place they are likely to look is the internet.

You mean the average WINDOWS user. The average linux user opens his package manager.

That said, most linux software installation is tedius from the web, because there are hundreds of different options for numerous different flavors. It is simply overwhelming and confusing.

Agreed. That is why you just install it the normal way instead of hunting through websites, like you would on windows.

It is made MUCH WORSE by the infamously BAD ATTITUDE of most linux die-hards. I know that is improving, but those of you who love linux and want to truely see it adopted by the world in mass know what I'm talking about.

Dude, I am still a newb. Only been using linux for a few years, and I have yet to run accross this BAD ATTITUDE, at least directed at me. the only time I see the BAD ATTITUDE is when DUMB WINDOWS USERS ask IDIOTIC QUESTIONS that could be answered by a GOOGLE "I FEEL LUCKY".

The author did specifically compare the installation of a particular piece of software using windows typical installation methods versus a specific installation manager on a particular linux distro, and I was happy to learn something new that could assist me in the future with my linux woes, and marked the information in my brain for future use.

I'm not defending the article, as I said it was a bad comparison. If you want something similar, look up how to install .msi files from the command line in windows. The equivilent to the setup.exe process in windows is synaptic, not command line apt.

However he seemed to be implying that that meant all software was easier on all linux distributions. (I know that's not what he said, but I do feel it was implied)

Every once in awhile you will run accross a 0.1, or something pre-1.0 that is simply too obscure to be in a repository. However, these are fringe cases, and many of the linux package managers still handle it gracefully. If you are using one that doesnt though, you will definately be going through a painful process.

But, we are once again comparing apples and oranges. Try installing pre-1.0 software in windows, by doing a cvs pull and compiling it yourself. Remarkably similar. Biggest difference is that windows simply cant handle it out of the box, and linux can.

He made several large assumptions, like how the user knows which distribution to use (or cares). That the user understands about execution context (or cares).
He also made big assumptions in his "rating" system that could have even the odds a bit had he made the assumptions evenly on both sides, like how he knew the exact command to execute from the command line, which I have already said is like giving the full url to a .msi package.

Agreed. He should have compared command line apt to installing an msi via the command line using all the switches for the same sort of silent install you get on linux machines. OR, he should have compared the click-a-thon that setup.exe gives you with synaptic. one or the other, because they are really two different things, for two different purposes. I would say linux wins hands down in both cases having extensively used all four methods, but thats just me.

But unfortunatly what we get from the community is more of the same "LINUX IS BETTER - WINDOWS SUX" crap we have been listening to for years.

Well, theres definately alot of that going on in this thread, but not by me. I dont like windows too much, and I get real annoyed by having to use it all the time at work, but I have reasons for those annoyances that go beyond the great battle of good vs evil you usually get from zealots. But really, its been that way since time immemorial. ITS vs UNIX, MacOS vs Windows, Windows vs Linux, Linux vs UNIX, Boxers vs Briefs, etc.

Now lets talk about non "USERS". He did not elude to how I would change the default installation path, or how to add (or not add ) the icon to my start menue or desktop. Is that easy as well? it is in most windows installations.

Very very very good. You have touched on the reason that windows installations blow so hard. If 99.9999999% of the cases a question will be answered the same way, you do not require the user to answer it every single time. Instead, you allow through ealier intervention to change the way it will work. All that is possible in linux, but it is rarely used, because its only a one in a thousand situation where you would want something like that.

Honestly I don't know. perhaps someone else could enlighten me. But I'll tell you now if it involves editing configuration files you have already lost.

No editing config files, but you use command line switches. I dont remember them, because I have never used them. But since linux documentation rocks, if I ever do need to use them, they are just a man away.

I think Rebecca came nearest to the point.I think it's all a matter of what you are most familiar with.With todays modern Linux distributions it's as easy to learn for a first time user as windows is.As with learning a new language you have to get hold of a fair amount of basic skills first.A first time windows user has to learn about different file suffixes and unzip tools etc first to make a sinfull install from the web.".exe"=double click right away","*.zip=unzip first and see if that *.exe is somewhere around"..

Yes if there would be only commercial applications avaible for windows on CD,installing on windows is far easier.However the majority of savvy windows users don't have endless deep pockets and install now and than from the net,than i say there's not much difference between a modern Linux distro and windows at all in terms of how difficult the actual install is.

actually, being unfamiliar with something makes it uncomfortable to work with. That feeling goes away quickly after you adjust to a new way of doing things. It is a feeling that is easily identifiable if you are used to trying new things. However, most windows users equate the windows way of doing things with "the way a computer is operated". So that uncomfortable feeling with using an alien design means that its bad, and that is where the introspection ends.

This attitude bugs me to no end. And its not just with computers.

Try a few different distros. Try installing various apps to those distros. Refrain from pulling out all hair and curb desire to bludgeon author of this article for suggesting Linux is that easy.

Seriously, the author has chosen to take the easiest install experience possible under and Linux distro. Usually, the user ends up with one vague error message or another. Dependancy hell is not a phrase the author seems familiar with.

In refference to your last reply...

Sounds like you and I are seeing eye to eye for the most part.
Of course unless the numbers have changed, the average "USER" uses windows.

I am a little surprised you have not had the "bad attitude" experience I had, but perhaps your idea of an idiotic question and mine are different. Still, I don't think so. I'm fairly capable and most of my questions would go well past a simple google search.

Your comment about compiling source may have been a little obscure to me, but it does bring up a good topic. I have for some time now felt that that was both the joy and bane of the linux world. Most developers know you will have the compiler, so they don't put a lot of effort into cleaning up thier installation method. That's a shame because it gives the whole environment a bad name.

Perhaps I'll have to give the whole linux/gnu thing another try soon.

-moidib

//Where are you supposed to find these programs that you can just download and double-click to install?//

Huh? Where to find Windows software? How about every damn computer store on the planet, outside of a Apple Store? How about Wal-Mart, Targer, grocery stores, Starbucks ... hell, just about every retail outlet selling most anything will have Windows software.
Stop the FUD.

I've been in the IT world for going on 20 years now, and if there is one thing I've learned it is never listen to a techie when it comes to ease-of-use.

As a model user look to the person who uses a computer simply because they have too, that is about 95% of the current user comunity, ignore them and you're ignoring a huge market.

When I setup the home network to save money I used Linux on the main workstation, winXP on the laptops. Used ultraVNC to allow terminal access.

The wife *COULD* not figure out how to use the main workstation. A week later I gave up and shelled out 100 bux for winXP.

"I just want to click and have it work".

The world is no longer RTFM based, if a user needs to read they'll give up.

This is a lesson MS and Apple both know, but the Linux crowed seemed to not hear. This is why where I work Linux is on the Servers (not all) and windows on the Desktop.

rob

//well, ill tell you, my family cant seem to install software on windows for the life of them. they alwas hit a question that confuses them, are terrified of hitting "next", and phone me up. //

Well, then, would please inform your family that by hitting "Next" they will NOT blow up their computer?

Geez. Are they terrified of most other electronic devices, too?

What's funny is it never really was a RTFM world, they just didn't (don't) know it.

Back in the day...say 1985...it was a RTFM world, simply because you wouldn't let someone like my wife touch that $8,000 -- 1985 dollars-- workstation.

There was always the IBMjr, but then we were forced to create those batch file menu systems...

The Apple IIc was no easy-to-use system either. AppleDOS II, if I remember correctly was as complex as DOS.

I do not miss those days.

rob

The wife *COULD* not figure out how to use the main workstation. A week later I gave up and shelled out 100 bux for winXP.

That’s strange. My ex-girlfriend was a total non-geek, a novice computer user who barely gets by on Windows. She had no problems whatsoever using KDE 3.2 (and later variants).
Usability studies have shown that Gnome 2 is at least as easy to use as Windows.

"I just want to click and have it work".

Linux just works. Enough with the FUD.

he world is no longer RTFM based, if a user needs to read they'll give up.

I’ve only needed to RTFM for system administration – and that’s true of Windows as much as Linux.

This is a lesson MS and Apple both know, but the Linux crowed seemed to not hear.

No, the lesson has been heard and learned, which is why modern Linux desktops are as easy to use today as Windows XP. Of course, if you’re already used to Windows XP there is a small learning curve, but the reverse is true as well.

Back in the day...say 1985...it was a RTFM world, simply because you wouldn't let someone like my wife touch that $8,000 -- 1985 dollars-- workstation.

And yet office secretaries used DOS all over the world. My first PC was a Sinclair ZX81. I was 11 years old, IIRC, and yet I manage to learn how to use this totally user-unfriendly system. And then, one or two years later I learned how to use the first generation of IBM PCs. And so did everybody else.

It seems to me that there's a common misconceptions that users have somehow become less intelligent since then...

In any case, modern Linux desktops are as easy to use as Windows. Personal experience and empirical research have demonstrated this time and time again.

Try a few different distros.

Why? If you're satisfied with your distro, why should you switch? I've been a happy Mandrake user for three years. Its package manager works just fine for me.

Try installing various apps to those distros. Refrain from pulling out all hair and curb desire to bludgeon author of this article for suggesting Linux is that easy.

If you go out of your way to make life difficult for yourself, then of course you can claim that Linux isn't easy. Linux is what you make of it. If you install official Mandrake packages from the repository, you won't have any problems (and the process will be indeed easier and much, much faster than under Windows).

Seriously, the author has chosen to take the easiest install experience possible under and Linux distro.

No he didn't. For some reason he chose a command-line tool. For ease of use, he should have used a GUI package-manager front-end, such as rpmdrake.

Usually, the user ends up with one vague error message or another. Dependancy hell is not a phrase the author seems familiar with.

Dependency Hell has never happened for me when using official packages for my distro. And with upwards of 6,000 packages in the official repository, I've always been able to find the apps I need. When I didn't, there were double-click installers available and all worked well.

Enough with the FUD.

Your posts consistently rereat two misunderstandings which I'll attempt to clear up for you.

Re: package management

You cannot compare .msi packages and apt. An .msi file is the equivalent of .deb or .rpm file. Apt is a collection of utilities which exists above the underlying packge management system that allows for packages and their dependecies (deb or rpm) to installed from central repositories.

You've stated that:

PSEXEC MachineName -c LOCALPATH TO INSTALLER.msi "INSTALLER.msi /q" -u USERNAME

is the Windows equivalent to initiating a root session to a linux box with apt installed and typing:

apt-get install packagename

This is incorrect for a couple of important reasons. First, let's set aside the issue of how one invokes a "shell session" on a remote machine. Sysintenals PSEXEC is a much welcome utility on Windows, but it is not the functional equivalent of shh, which is designed to accomplish more than PSEXEC. With that out of the way, lets examine the functionality which apt brings to the table abovwe and beyond what is provided by a simple package management (.msi or .deb).

The functional equivalent to your PSEXEC command on Debian machine would be:

wget ftp://path/to/package.deb && dpkg -i package.deb

Which grabs a remote package and then feeds it to the installation utility. Installing a package in this manner could definitely be useful in many circumstances, but apt brings a whole host of additional functions to the table. First, as you've noted, you must know the actual location of the package you are looking to install, whereas with apt you only need to the name of the package you wish to install. Apt only requires that input the package name rather than the full location because it has a searchable index of all the package names and description which are available in the repository. Apt is a system for managing large repositories of software packages, including utilities for installing, resolving dependencies, updating, and uninstalling.

It is worth noting the dependency resolution is a distinctly different reality on Linux as compared to Windows. Much of the underlying technical realities are the same, but on Windows it has long been conventional to include a program's dependencies within the package, unless those dependencies are included in the standard Windows system.

One might well argue that the conventions covering software packaging on Windows is superior, and I'd agree that there are definitely circumstances where that is true (eg., commercial binary only programs), but it is also true that apt is a vastly superior solution when the program you want to install is included in one of the repositories provided by your distro (over 10,000 programs in Debian testing/unstable currently).

Secondly, you write:

what all of the linux users seem to be missing is that in MOST of your arguments you depend on a particular distribution with a particular installer and specific knowledge about how to use it

to which I must reply, of course they do, as the generic Linux OS doesn't exist except as a conceptual shorthand for huge number of specific distributions which range from highly customized embedded distributions burned on a ROM in a set-top appliance to server instance running on an IBM mainframe. So I must ask, why don't you just pick a damn distribution and learn it? Really, you can learn Debian and remain totally unaware of how things are done on Fedora without losing any the functionality of Debian. The same is, of course, true in reverse. Of course, most people will find that after learning one distro, it's only a matter of reading a couple of pages and hour or so of tinkering to completely transistion their skills from distro to another.

Excellent post. Very thorough.

Dependency Hell has never happened for me when using official packages for my distro. And with upwards of 6,000 packages in the official repository, I've always been able to find the apps I need. When I didn't, there were double-click installers available and all worked well.

The reason about dependency hell myth shows that some people does not have any clue about the functionality of rpm nor dpkg (designed to install a single package). Try to do 'make && make install' with a package on a system that does not include a needed package to be compiled.

Heh, heh! Your name is Rebecca and you're 13 yrs old and you can install Arch Linux. Yeah, right. Just don't expect anyone to believe you.

Don't embarrass yourself. If a 15 years-old teen is able to get a doctorate, why not a 13 years old can install a distro like Arch Linux?

Heh, heh! Your name is Rebecca and you're 13 yrs old and you can install Arch Linux. Yeah, right. Just don't expect anyone to believe you.

I don't see why a 13 year-old wouldn't be able to install a modern Linux distro. Hey, learned to program APL when I was 13 (a lot of good it did me, too ).

Or perhaps you think that girls aren't as good with computers as boys?

Don't embarrass yourself. If a 15 years-old teen is able to get a doctorate, why not a 13 years old can install a distro like Arch Linux?

I have problem with host server

The whole story is just terribly unbelievable. Read it yourself and make your own conclusions.

I like the idea that someone would have parents using a GNU/Linux system and no experience at all on using MS Windows system. However, that's clearly just imagination.

Basides, it's clearly impossible that someone could install a distro like Arch Linux not being a GNU/Linux guru (or, at least, not wearing a propeller-hat). Just don't embarrass yourself by claiming the opposite.

By "Basides" I meant "Besides. Sorry for the inconvenience. ;-)

Basides, it's clearly impossible that someone could install a distro like Arch Linux not being a GNU/Linux guru (or, at least, not wearing a propeller-hat). Just don't embarrass yourself by claiming the opposite.

You forgot parents that are GNU/Linux gurus to provide help.

Real life example: I need software to file taxes. I am ready to pay for it, $30-$40. Saves me time, saves me money on not missed deductions.

****************************Windows, Part I.

For Windows, I drive to CompUSA and ask salesperson for tax preparation software. QuickTax, TacWiz, TaxBlahBlah- they offer me.

I choose QuickTax. It is one CD, the box says: Win95/98/ME/NT4.0/2000/XP.

Same binary (as far as I can tell), runs on 10 years old OS. Sure, QuickTax is not a rocket science, just a simple software application, why not?

I put CD disk to CD drive, autoplay starts and usual boring long, long, painfully long Windows installation starts.

***************************Linux, Part II.

#apt-get install QuickTax
#apt-get install quicktax
#apt-get install "tax preparation software"
#emerge QuickTax
#Sesame, open!
#WTF!!!!!!
#(*&^%^%^%^%^$%#^%$#%& you!

Gets me nowhere.

OK, I am dumb Linux user. So, I start my car and drive to LinUSA. I want tax preparation software, I am saying to salesman. Next, he truly tries to help me:

- What Linux do you run?
- I do not remember, some type of ByzantineOS, perhaps.
- You sure it is not Lindows?
- Who am I to you, a Lunar? I think the name of my distro is more like mandows.
- Can you be more Specifix?
- I can not be even more Scientific. I am telling you, it is Linux! Devil, I can not even remember the name of my Linux Puppy. All I remember it is Damn Small!
- Are you making fun of me and all mighty Linux?
- Not at all, Pingwinek. Sorry, I'll come later with my desktop so that you'll check what Linux am I running.

*************************************

All bold names are names of real Linux distros, you can check at www.distrowatch.org

>"That is why you just install it the normal way instead of hunting through websites, like you would on windows."

That is called freedom of choice, baby!

So, next time someone starts telling me stories about vendor lock-in, I'll ask them where are they getting all their Linux software from, the normal way.

Here is what happens.
First most people don't know about apt-get if they're fairly new to Linux.

Second where is the logic in apt-get? When I want to install software I want to install it, not set it up (setup.exe) or apt-get it makes no sense. Isn't installing the goal here? apt-get is obscure at best and when I want to setup something it is usually after I install it. Isn't install the comon goal regardless of the platform?

Here is a scenario that recently had a buddy ring my phone. He get himself INSTALLED with Mandrake 10 community (thanks to me) he then SETUP his box with software he wants. Grabs Firefox and starts a little surfing and waddya know he needs Java. No big deal just INSTALL it right? Wrong! He find he can't auto install in Firefox with a .xpi so over to Sun for the manual download. Tries to figure out the RPM thing and finds himself but gives up and calls me. Here are the INSTALL directions
http://www.java.com/en/download/help/5000010500.xml#selfextracting
To install the Linux RPM (self-extracting) file

Follow these instructions:

1. At the terminal: Type:
su
2. Enter the root password.
3. Change to the directory in which you want to install. Type:
cd
For example, to install the software in the /usr/java/ directory, Type:
cd /usr/java

Note about root access: To install the JRE in a system-wide location such as/usr/local, you must login as the root user to gain the necessary permissions. If you do not have root access, install the JRE in your home directory or a subdirectory for which you have write permissions.
4. Change the permission of the file you downloaded to be executable. Type:
chmod a+x jre-1_5_0-linux-i586-rpm.bin
5. Start the installation process. Type:
./jre-1_5_0-linux-i586-rpm.bin

This displays a binary license agreement. Read through the agreement. Press the spacebar to display the next page. At the end, enter yes to proceed with the installation.



type YES to agree to the license agreement

6. The installation file creates jre-1_5_0-linux-i586.rpm file in the current directory.



RPM unpacking completes

7. Run the RPM command at the terminal to install the packages. Type:
rpm -iv jre-1_5_0-linux-i586.rpm
8. The JRE is installed in jre1.5.(version number) sub-directory under the current directory. In this case, the JRE is installed in the /usr/java/jre1.5.0 directory. Verify that the jre1.5.0 sub-directory is listed under the current directory. Type:
ls



Verify the installation filename

The installation is now complete. Go to the Enable and Configure section.


I won't even go into explaining how we got Firefox to use Java since the directions only cover Mozilla and the directories and such are different.
Windows and Linux have some work to do in this area but Linux has a LONG way to go. Next week I explain how we got 3D ATI drivers going.

i>I don't see why a 13 year-old wouldn't be able to install a modern Linux distro. Hey, learned to program APL when I was 13 (a lot of good it did me, too ).

Or perhaps you think that girls aren't as good with computers as boys?[/i]

Did you actually read the post I was responding to? It's clearly fictive -- a "speculative fiction" as you'd probably like to call it. It's a nice play on the available possibilities, but there's no doubt that it's all fiction.

And, yes, I really think that girls aren't usually as interested in computers as boys. You can sue me for my opinions. :-p

Yes thats one way to install java. However you could have just as easily ran "apt-get install j2re" for the java runtime envir. and "apt-get install mozilla-j2re" for the plugin.

Software installation is NOT easier on a Linux system. Not to a windows user, and especially not with the examples you describe.
This article would make no sense on a windows forum, and if we hope to teach and convert, that needs to be the criteria.

As both a windows and linux user I've always loved linux and thought it was a great OS, but you cant get over the fact that NO established windows user is going to convert to *NIX because they are just that, established. They're not going to go out of their way to relearn all their favorite programs even if they are crap, just so they can make you fanboys happy.

HEADLINE:
Attention you linux fanboys --- it may seem easy to install *some* programs on linux, but what if i want to play Half-life 2? Or run any of those other windows games? Dont even suggest WINE, because that hardly will work with something as shitty as steam (LOL). Please, get over Linux, its wonderful because its the underdog, we all know!! so stop bashing Windows.

Windows is the target of a TON of hackers! That's why there are so many bugs found, not because the programmers are complete idiots. For its size and ease of use, windows does an AWESOME job of handling software updates and installs. WTH are you measuring things like CLICKS come on just look at compatability here! If we're going to be specific down to the click, then try checking out the OPEN button in internet explorer when you try to download a file? That might save you a few steps. In any case, linux is a sweet OS, but windows OBLITERATES it when it comes to ease of use! People who are running windows, look around and just notice how freaking uniform everything is, that is the goal of this OS, its not to have "less clicks" then linux.

I currently have a duel boot system with fedora core 3 and windows XP. Getting fedora all setup was not to easy, I had to bend over backwards just to get things MP3 support, come on, that stuff should be a no-brainer! If the average user logs on to his newly installed linux machine and tries to play an MP3 only to find an error telling him there is no MP3 support, what is he going to think? "Uh oh i guess i need the MPEG layer 3 codec" or "damn let me try to reboot!" Catch my drift??

ok i'm done ranting, let the flaming begin

How to get java:

KDE->System->Synaptic Package manager
Dialog box appears - enter the root passwrod.
Click the "Search" button
Type "java" into the search dialog
Scrool through the list of search results showing java add-ons & other things, and notice that the "java-common" is already installed.
Read the description of "java-common" which says:
=================
Base of all Java packages
This package must be installed in the system if a Java environment is desired. It covers useful information for Java users in Debian GNU/Linux, including:
* The Java policy document which describes the layout of Java support in Debian and how Java packages should behave.
* The Debian-Java-FAQ which provides information on the status of Java support in Debian, available compilers, virtual machines, Java programs and libraries as well as on legal issues.
* Information on how to create dummy packages to fullfill java2 requirements.
=======================

OK, so it was installed already when I first installed MEPIS.

Quit Synaptic.
Done.

You just don't get it, do you?

There are myriad packages available for Linux. Basically the same packages are available for all the Linux distributions - but the exact same "packaged" binaries do not work across all distributions.

So each distribution organisation takes the common source code, compiles it to a binary that is set up for that distribution, packages the binary and associated files (including config files) into an installable "package" ***for that distribution*** and places the complete package in an on-line repository for anyone to download use if they want.

So if you want firefox for Linux, you can go to the firefox web site and download & install from there if you want to - but that will prove to be a messy way to do it.

By far the better way is to go to your package manager and get the same program from your distribution repository.

So for Debian: either type apt-get install mozilla-firefox (that is one way), or if you prefer a GUI:

KDE->System->Synaptic Package Manager
at the dialog, enter the root password.
Click search
Type "firefox" in the search box.
In the search result window, double-click the mozilla-firefox package to mark it for install.
Click Apply.
Click Apply again.
Wait for the download to complete, and the package to install.
Click close.
Quit Synaptic.

You are all done. Firefox will be on your menus.

The method will be slightly different for other distributions and their associated repositories. For Mandrake you use the Mandrake package manager, which is called rpmdrake. For Suse, you use YAST. The process and the results are very similar though.

Just because Windows doesn't have a single place to search for and install programs from, and it doesn't have a single easy-to-use install method like Linux distributions do, doesn't mean that Linux should be badmouthed for Windows lack.

Your problem is that you used RedHat.

Try MEPIS (Debian based). MP3 support right out of the box.

I did have a bit more trouble with DVD support. When I first stated kaffeine, it told me that I would have to get a decoder installed, by the name of libdvdcss. This pakcage was not part of the default Debian repositories.

A few seconds searching on the net told me that I needed to add another source to my list of repositories. I did that, then "apt-get update && apt-get install libdvdcss" - all done.

I am sure that a similar result could have been obtained for RedHat by using yum (rather than apt-get which is for Debian).

Attention you linux fanboys --- it may seem easy to install *some* programs on linux, but what if i want to play Half-life 2? Or run any of those other windows games? Dont even suggest WINE, because that hardly will work with something as shitty as steam (LOL).

You should try it instead of saying it won't work, because it does. Transgaming's Cedega makes using Steam and playing Half-Life 2 on Linux a snap if you have a gaming machine. You'll get a few less frames per second, but on modern hardware it is very playable.

Man, this article surely was a FUD magnet, the likes I've only rarely seen.

"You are assuming those tools are available, and that you know the exact commands to use.
If I make a similar assumption for windows I can just say

- PSEXEC MachineName -c LOCALPATH TO INSTALLER.msi "INSTALLER.msi /q" -u USERNAME
- Enter password at prompt

for most applications I install.
THERE I just BEAT THAT on Windows!!! "

I assume no such thing. If I know a machine name and the root password to it, then I am the administrator of that machine and I happen to *KNOW* it is debian-based, therefore with apt-get installed. If I know about ssh and I know the root password to a machine, then it is incredibly unlikely that I would not know "apt-get install package-name".

I would also be highly likely to know "apt-cache search <regular expression>" if I did not happen to know the exact package name - so I could find out what that name is anyway.

You on the other hand assume that the program you wish to install has an .msi installer.

I would also venture to suggest that there are many Windows admins who do not know PSEXEC.

So no, you did not beat that on windows. Not even close.

I am sure that a similar result could have been obtained for RedHat by using yum (rather than apt-get which is for Debian).

Depends on "the repositories" you have enabled,other than that yes practically the same,"yum install xine" on CentOS 4.0 (RHEL4.0) gives the whole deal,or "emerge xine-ui && emerge libdvdcss" on Gentoo.

I currently have a duel boot system with fedora core 3 and windows XP. Getting fedora all setup was not to easy, I had to bend over backwards just to get things MP3 support, come on, that stuff should be a no-brainer! If the average user logs on to his newly installed linux machine and tries to play an MP3 only to find an error telling him there is no MP3 support, what is he going to think? "Uh oh i guess i need the MPEG layer 3 codec" or "damn let me try to reboot!" Catch my drift??

Fedora Core is 100 percent open sources. The reason Fedora Core 3 does not include mp3 support is due to mp3 licenses:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=1890&page=5
http://www.nward.net/commentary/mp3/
http://www.newsforge.com/business/02/08/29/1633205.shtml?tid=17

Because Red Hat is a commercial company, they decide to remove mp3 support to avoid lawsuits. Don't blame them for the removal. Look at US software patents laws.

You’re correct except Mandrake doesn’t come with apt-get, so over to rpmfind.net to get it. Well that one doesn’t work (not to mention the dependency hell thing to get it installed). I have read there is another one that does work but have not tried is of yet. I do not have a problem using tarball files but I can certainly understand frustration of users trying to install software in Linux.

So many posts not worth reading. I suppose I might as well add mine to the list....

I liked the article. It was slightly biased towards Debian/Gentoo though.

I havent heard much mention of one of the most important practical issues that is related to this argument of installing software on Windows vs Debian/Gentoo and that is the issue of spyware/malware.
Spyware and malware effectively do not exist to me, and I doubt it'll ever be a problem. The reason being that such crap isn't going to make it into Debian now is it? And I can say sure as hell that my install of program X in apt isnt going to act as a piggy back for gator.

We have a sort of quality control that windows users lack. Broken things get marked as broken, malicious things never get included in the first place.

In windows installing any program that you are not closely familar with is a bit of a gamble, who knows what that exe is going to do? Who knows what its going to install? Who knows what files are in there?

And for me, installing software is a case of "sudo aptitude --assume-yes install abiword". One command, no interactivity needed. Lack of interactivity needed means how long it takes is less important, I dont have to be there to click the next button in the install, or double click the .exe when its downloaded. This means I can be productive in the meantime.

Yes as a windows user you will have to learn how to use aptitude. But its a hell of alot easier then trying to work out how to install a program in windows *and* knowing
you wont hose your system (which generally means learning how to use adware/nortonantivirus/whateversoftwareyouneedtotoprotectwindowsfromsi lly.exe's

take me as a n00b, but with all those commands, where does the program get installed? I like to know where things go... in windows, I usually just set the path while installing.
so if i need to install the app in some other location i will type the path of the new location? in the console along with the other command.... so i have to type a lot in the console.....

i prefer just clicking "next...next" and stopiing when needed...

honestly I dont have anything against linux, but I wont agree to the fact that its still not as easy going as Windows is.

What is to get?
Look at what you wrote

“So if you want firefox for Linux, you can go to the firefox web site and download & install from there if you want to - but that will prove to be a messy way to do it.”

By your own admission it is “messy”

Then you run over to Debian Linux to site your example. Why don’t you cover the install of apt-get on Mandrake to make it work on the distribution or was it easier for you to overlook that and go back to a distribution that already has it?

You obviously have some poor reading comprehension skills or you would have not made this comment.
“Just because Windows doesn't have a single place to search for and install programs from, and it doesn't have a single easy-to-use install method like Linux distributions do, doesn't mean that Linux should be badmouthed for Windows lack.”

I am not badmouthing Linux I was badmouthing Linux AND Windows. And you’re wrong with Windows on a single place to install, does Add/Remove programs ring a bell? Is it lacking you bet but it is a single place to install like it or not.
Apt-get is great if you have it on your distribution and I love the idea. But like I said most new users certainly don’t know about it (that doesn’t mean it doesn’t do its job) anymore than many experienced Windows users know about installs from Start>Run>\192.168.0.1winampsetup.exe (just a local example of my home network)

I try not to be biased about any platform and try to see their shortcomings as well as their strengths. I would recommend this philosophy to any would be zealots.

===
“So if you want firefox for Linux, you can go to the firefox web site and download & install from there if you want to - but that will prove to be a messy way to do it.”

By your own admission it is “messy”
===

It is only messy if you DON'T use your distribution repositories. If you get the same prgram from the correct repository, it is not messy at all. I think you have got a bad case of "proprietary windows-think" here - you seem to think there is only one place to get a given program from. That might be true of Windows, but it is not true of Linux distributions.

======
Then you run over to Debian Linux to site your example. Why don’t you cover the install of apt-get on Mandrake to make it work on the distribution or was it easier for you to overlook that and go back to a distribution that already has it?
======

If one has Debian installed, one gets firefox from debian repositories by using apt-get or synaptic(command-line and GUI respectively).

If one has Mandrake installed, one gets the same program firefox from Mandrake repositories using urpmi or rpmdrake (command-line and GUI respectively).

Don't mix them up - it won't work at all well for the similar reasons that it is not a good idea to get firefox directly from the firefox website. Get it from the repositories of your own distribution and there will be no trouble whatsoever.

===
"And you’re wrong with Windows on a single place to install, does Add/Remove programs ring a bell? Is it lacking you bet but it is a single place to install like it or not. "
===

Pfft. Utter rubbish. Less than 5% of the programs anyone might install on a Windows machine would start the installation process from the "Add/Remove Programs" Control Panel applet. In what fantasy world does this become a "single place to install" ?

It would seem it is you who have 100 times more difficulty with reading comprehension than I do.

===
But like I said most new users certainly don’t know about it
===

Synaptic is right there on the Menus - it is more visible than Add/remove Programs in the Control Panel - and it is a one-stop shop for all installs. 16000+ programs available from the Debian repositories - I'm sure also similar numbers in Mandrake or RedHat repositories (for those distributions respectively) as well.

There is nothing on Windows that comes remotely close to the ease of obtaining new software and installing on Linux using these tools.

Well I"ve been using both for awhile now and I"ve got to say that its far easier for the end user to use Windows. Just saying that makes me grind my teeth though because I love Linux. But the fact remains. I use Slackware, not Debain, and for the most its getting better as far as having prepackaged software availble, but not really. Most of the time I have to install from source code. and that involves a lil more steps than 5.

Installing Software: A GNU/Linux VS. MS Windows Comparison
Posted by special contributor Kevin Russo on 2005-03-31 18:40:11 UTC

I think a better comparison would have been to install a linux distro such as Suse 9.2 pro and windows XP on the same machine. The install would include all of the drivers and software one would use in a Workstation or office type environment. Since Suse recognizes all of my hardware and installs all of the drivers and office software at the intial install, It beats windows XP hands down on my machine.

Windows XP takes longer and I have to install drivers for my video card, Modem, Motherboard chipset, USB, and then still install MS Office or Open Office, Roxio Burning software, Graphic and photo software. With My Linux Distro all of this is installed from a DVD Disc and ready to go without having to use other CD's to install the Drivers and other software.

M H Bell

I've used Mandrake,slackware and linspire. Out of the 3, which do u think I had an easier time with?

Slackware was easier for me and much more powerful. You might say yeah for the average geek but the truth is, its not geeky or any harder than what you are using. Every Distribution/OS has a learning curve. I don't know how many times I formatted my XP system, due to file corruption or some stupid ass virus that got to me through msn messenger.

I agree that windows is a click and go, and installs don't differ from OS to OS, but if you were a non-biased windows user you would know,its not much different than a package manager on linux. Hell it can be worse, You talk about dependency issues in certain linux distributions, Windows xp is running with dependencies. Ever try to shut a service down and notice 4 things shutdown because they are somehow interconnected with that particular service? isn.t .NET required in most modern software? it doesnt even come pre-installed with windows, let alone hog ressources as much as java.

Linux has its flaws, the only true flaw I see with Linux is its exploding with distros and compatibility is low in terms of commercial software. I.E Photoshop (don't get me started with "gimp") The only reason im still using XP is gaming, honestly, I have no other reason to use it. ANd I hate handling dual boots, so since I use xp for gaming i just go all the way and use the rest of it. I don't see the problem with compiling and installing. ./configure && make && make install ? is that the show stopper? If you run across software that doesn't include an automatic config file, then just get the binary for your system. When Ubuntu Hoary comes out or the new debian comes , this xp install is gone, and leave xp on the scondary hardrive which 12 gb isnt a gaming harddrive, ut2004 and half life 2 and its gone, assuming I could install both lol.that partition will be used for anyone else who uses my computer for working in windows. on a side note, linspire is crap. Mandrake has dependency issues, its the only distro i've come across with those issues, hated it, went to slackware loved it, but I always missed my gaming library, I just need to get an nvidia card and then i'll be able to switch lol.

call me a Linux fanboy or windows fanboy or whatever makes u feel superior. But other than windows is installs, its got nothing on linux, gaming will be a thing of the past for me eventually, the only thing windows can do for kids that are jobless are new computers. Seriously want to seriously mess up the pc and blame it on the hardware itself? windows can do that. and if u looked at the hardware requirements of longhorn theres more proof that windows is good for technological evolution since it requires so much for nothing. And by nothing i mean the OS with the same crap with just a few built-in features that would take so much processing cycles and ram , you'll wonder why your system isnt handling longhorn the way it did with XP even if it looks and handles the same. If windows asked u during installation what kind of system do u want to setup? server,desktop,network...just loading stuff into the kernel for what u really need instead of bloating, wouldnt complain about this. Windows will always have the edge over linux. Not because its better but because of monopoly. Linus has been here for how long? same time as windows? longer or shorter? but they had enough time to make it work like windows if they wanted to. Why didn't they? Why are most distros starting now? or the past couple of years, because of demand. And who are those people? windows users wanting to switch to something that doesnt require formatting every so often for a virus or spyware that cant be removed. Not to be an ass or anything. But a few who stood up and defended windows couldn't even spell , no wonder commands are so hard for them lol.

If you wanted to install World of Warcraft, you first need to install Transgaming's Point2Play, and then you'll have your point-and-click installation.

What's that? You're a troll? Sorry, I though you had something to add to the discussion.

> take me as a n00b, but with all those commands, where does
> the program get installed? I like to know where things go...
> in windows, I usually just set the path while installing.

You do not set the path in Linux (with package managers) because it adds no value to know where things are installed. Why would you want to know this?

Deosn't it make you feel uneasy too that you don't know which sectors on the hard disk your files occupy?

I'm new in linux soft (mandrake), and I fell into dependecy hell... I tried to install giFT (I started trying 3 days ago ;(((). Can't handle it anymore!! Now I'll try that Gentoo... hope it will work fine.

What distro are you currently using? For Mandrake, you can get the giFT packages on the plf repository.

"I'm new in linux soft (mandrake), and I fell into dependecy hell... I tried to install giFT".

1. Visit the "easyurpmi" website, and use the instructions found there to add the plf repositories.

2. use rpmdrake ("Software Installer" on the menus) or use "urpmi giFT" on the command line to install giFT.

It's easy install apps in Linux and...
It's easy install apps in Windows...
with differences, becouse they are differences OS.

what next?...

Es simple, hace 2 años o mas (ni idea de cuando se creo sistemas como apt-get) se podia decir que era dificil instalar programas en Linux. No solo en ese aspecto Linux viene luchando duro para ganar un espacio en las computadoras hogareñas y de trabajo.
Y ya lo logro con muchas cosas: la instalacion del sistema base, la instalacion de programas, la configuracion de hardware (no en todas las distros)...
Creo que hay cosas mas importantes, esto deberia ser un tema cerrado. Una persona que viene de windows, no esta pensando si le va a ser mas facil instalar un programa, esta pensando en que no quiere mas virus, spyware, cuelgues y comportamientos extraños.

Si alguien puede traducir a ingles lo que escribí en español, se lo agradecería.

Saludos
Argentina - Buenos Aires

I've used Linux off and on for about 8 years now. I've also used Windows during that time. There is just no legitimate claim that installing software on Linux is easier.
Here are some claims made by Linux users:
1. Installing software is a no brainer with apt
This is true for the most part. And it actually does work 95% of the time. What about the other 5%? What about newer versions of the software that haven't been updated in the repository? What about software that's not in the respository? I don't know how many times I have looked for software that was not available via apt. I have NEVER had a problem installing a software package on Windows - just double click on the install file and it installs and runs.
2. All of the applications you'll ever need are available on the CD from the distro vendor.
This one's really ridiculous. What if I don't like what's on the CD? An operating system is supposed to be the basis for running software, not all of the extra software too. The operating system should support the loading and executing of programs, not provide everything you'll ever need. That's exactly what Microsoft is getting into trouble for in the first place - installing software that plays media, unzips file, checks for spyware, etc. with it's OS? Personally, I love KDE. I think it's a top notch desktop environment. When a new version comes out I want to upgrade. I don't want somebody telling me that I shouldn't be upgrading to the newest version.
3. Windows suffers from 'DLL hell'.
I've installed probably 10,000 pieces of software in Windows and NEVER ran across DLL hell. People who use this excuse are just plain wrong.

Articles like these are just more examples of us kidding ourselves. The number 1 reason I use Windows 90% of the time is software installation. I don't want to compile software to run it. I don't want to chase down dependencies. I don't want to resolve conflicts. I just want to be able to keep up with the latest versions of software easily. Currently Linux just does not do that. We really need a universal package manager like autopackage. We need the same functionality for software installation that is available on Windows. If we get this problem resolved that will be a major hurdle removed for Linux adoption.

What about newer versions of the software that haven't been updated in the repository?

Simple: wait for the repository to be updated.

You're really doing an unfair comparison. With commercial software, the "newer" version isn't available until it's commercially distributed. With open-source software, it's "released early, released often". The fact that you have access to the very latest, cutting-edge version is a bonus, a freedom which you don't have on Windows. If you want to do a comparison with Windows, then you have to stay with supported software.

I don't know how many times I have looked for software that was not available via apt.

Really? I can count on the fingers of one hand the times when I wasn't able to find what I was looking for in the Mandrake repositories. So I didn't always have the "very latest" version - so what? I had stable versions, that's what counts.

The problem is that you're approaching Linux with a Windows mindset, i.e. you feel the need to use the absolute latest version of an app available (because that's what you'd do in Windows). In Linux, if the app isn't available yet for your distro, then it probably means it's not stable enough to use within that distro (which may have customized settings, etc.). If you absolutely need the latest versions all the time, then perhaps you should use Gentoo...

What if I don't like what's on the CD? An operating system is supposed to be the basis for running software, not all of the extra software too. The operating system should support the loading and executing of programs, not provide everything you'll ever need.

That's why they're called "distributions", because they're not simply an OS. And usually it comes in multiple CDs. Apart from commercial apps, I'd be curious to hear what applications are missing from the Mandrake installation CDs...all the best apps are available on the CDs (or DVD) for the user's convenience.

Again, you're looking at this with the Windows mindset.

That's exactly what Microsoft is getting into trouble for in the first place - installing software that plays media, unzips file, checks for spyware, etc. with it's OS?

Actually that is incorrect. Mandrake (for example) bundles all kinds of programs with its distribution, however they're not Mandrake programs - they're programs made by a myriad of different developers. Microsoft, on the other hand, includes all kinds of Microsoft apps in Windows, in an attempt to shut out the competition. So your example, unfortunately, is completely wrong.

The number 1 reason I use Windows 90% of the time is software installation.

Do you really install software that often? If so, then I'm afraid to say that the Linux way is much better. Let's say I need to update 12 different apps in Windows, and the same in Linux. In the first case, I'll have to double-click on 12 different installers, and click "Next" multiple times for all of them. In Linux, meanwhile, I simply select all packages from the list, click "Install" and that's it! It is both simpler, and a lot faster.

I've installed probably 10,000 pieces of software in Windows and NEVER ran across DLL hell.

Which version of Windows would that be? I've gotten DLL hell a couple of times myself - about the same number of times as I've had dependency problems in Linux.

If we get this problem resolved that will be a major hurdle removed for Linux adoption.

Nope. The only hurdles to Linux adoption are a) some ISVs (such as Adobe and Macromedia) not releasing their software for Linux, and b) Microsoft's proprietary Office file formats. Installing software has nothing to do with it.

I have NEVER had a problem installing a software package on Windows - just double click on the install file and it installs and runs.

True,but first you have to find something you want to install.MS doesn't have a repository of more than 16000 apps on it's websites do they?

Most of the apps you download for windows don't have a signature!How will you know nobody infected the download(s).

>"Simple: wait for the repository to be updated."

What if OS distro vendor promotes competing product? How ironic that people are willing to give all fredoms they promote (freedom to run software you want), and don't even realize it.

No worry: Big Brother cares about you. Software that is not in repository does not exist.

Are you on crack?

"It is only messy if you DON'T use your distribution repositories."

The one in the Mandrake respository is the exact same one one the Firefox site. Please check your facts you would appear more credible.

I love this one from you.

"I think you have got a bad case of "proprietary windows-think" here"

You accuse me of something that is utterly false. Which you would have known had you read what I wrote. That said, you make that stupid comment after saying "It is only messy if you DON'T use your distribution repositories." Thats mighty MSish of you. I bet you would be screaming to everyone you know if MS made such an assertion that if you don't come to MS you will have messy installations. And then you quantify your stupid comment with this gem
"it won't work at all well for the similar reasons that it is not a good idea to get firefox directly from the firefox website. Get it from the repositories of your own distribution and there will be no trouble whatsoever." Please before you accuse me of ""I think you have got a bad case of "proprietary windows-think" here" don't follow it up with comments that suggest that that if I don't use my distro repository I am in for doom and gloom.

"Pfft. Utter rubbish. Less than 5% of the programs anyone might install on a Windows machine would start the installation process from the "Add/Remove Programs" Control Panel applet. In what fantasy world does this become a "single place to install" ? "

I have looked about the web and can't find one single page to support what your opinion on Add/Remove programs. Did I not say that "its lacking" then you want to comment on my reading comprehension skills. I could go into the fact that every version of Windows since 95 has had add/remove programs and that there is no commonality between many Linux distro on installation but then I would be accused of something MSish.

"Synaptic is right there on the Menus "

It nowhere to be found on Mandrake 10 unless you went somewhere downloaded it and installed it yourself. SO this may be the case with your distribution but not mine. So I decided to run a little test. I brought my trusty Dell C840 in from my car downloaded Ubuntu 5.04 (Hoary Hedgehog) which is Debian based. Nice distribution btw (using it as I type this). And decided to look for Synaptic Package Manager. This is where is it if your accessing it from Gnome. System>Administration>Synaptic Package Manager then login as root. Now in Windows 2000 Start>Settings>Control Panel>Add/Remove Programs runas Administrator
it took about 5 seconds in each scenario.
So I searched for Java hooray its right there oh wait thats not Suns Java thats something else. So I go configure Synaptic to look at more respositories and it still didn't show up. Now in all of this time I could (and did) just go to Sun, download and install Java. Still had to configure Firefox. SO in this case Synaptic did nothing for me. The same thing occured when trying to install Adobe Acrobat, Yahoo Messenger and LICQ. However XmmS was right there and installed properly.

I am very confident in saying that you have made up your mind that Linux apt-get or perhaps Linux itself is somehow superior to other OS's and that you are most likely a zealot without his facts in order. Your tripe may work better on someone with a little less common sense than I.

What if OS distro vendor promotes competing product? How ironic that people are willing to give all fredoms they promote (freedom to run software you want), and don't even realize it.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say. Can you rephrase that?

No worry: Big Brother cares about you. Software that is not in repository does not exist.

Quit being so melodramatic. If software isn't in the repositories, then you can get usually get it from the developer's site (and complain to the developer if he doesn't have installable packages). However, the Debian and Mandrake repositories are huge. I've rarely been unable to find what I need in the Mandrake repository.

I know you've got an anti-Linux agenda, but could you give us specific examples of quality open-source programs (more than one, please) that aren't available on the Mandrake repositories? Because you anti-Linux posters are very good at giving hypothetical examples, but when it comes to providing anything concrete, you just stop responding.

The one in the Mandrake respository is the exact same one one the Firefox site. Please check your facts you would appear more credible.

It's the same program but it doesn't get installed the same way. You may have missing menu entries. Also, you can't conveniently uninstall it using the package manager, and if you later install the package you might have conflicting file. The Autopackage crew is working to solve this (there's a discussion on the Mandrake Cooker list on how to help make this possible, by installing Autopackages in /opt, for example), however that's still a work in progress.

So, no, installing from the official repository and using the downloadable installer from the Firefox site is not the same. I think you should check your facts to appear more credible.

Not to mention the fact that starting a post with "Are you on crack?" makes you look quite immature.

I have looked about the web and can't find one single page to support what your opinion on Add/Remove programs.

Let me put it this way: can you install Photoshop using the Add/Remove Programs control panel? Or, if we want to stay with F/OSS apps, can you install Gimp from the Add/Remove Programs control panel? I think that was the original poster's point, which you seem to have missed entirely.

"Synaptic is right there on the Menus "

It nowhere to be found on Mandrake 10 unless you went somewhere downloaded it and installed it yourself.

Synaptic is the Debian (and Debian-related distros) tool. For Mandrake, you'll want to use Rpmdrake. And it is right there in the menus (and the Mandrake Control Center).

"So, no, installing from the official repository and using the downloadable installer from the Firefox site is not the same. I think you should check your facts to appear more credible. "

I just did and that did not happen. So I am quite confident in what I said was indeed fact. But it should work that way no matter where you get it from.

"Not to mention the fact that starting a post with "Are you on crack?" makes you look quite immature."

Thanks for your input. I shall take it under advisement and discard.

"I think that was the original poster's point, which you seem to have missed entirely"

Point wasn't missed at all I just think the point was wrong.

"Synaptic is the Debian (and Debian-related distros) tool. For Mandrake, you'll want to use Rpmdrake. And it is right there in the menus (and the Mandrake Control Center)."

rpmdrake like apt-get is a great idea. I said that in my other post which you have not seem to have read. But there is the problem. I need debian for this or Mandrake for that or something else for something else. There is no commonality. I don't want to apt-get software I want to INSTALL it. I don't want to rpmdrake software I want to INSTALL it. Most computer users INSTALL software WIndows, Linux Mac etc. I am just saying the proces is neither as soom as the author of this article would lead you to believe. But I don't think you seem to understand that either.

[i]So I searched for Java hooray its right there oh wait thats not Suns Java thats something else. So I go configure Synaptic to look at more respositories and it still didn't show up. Now in all of this time I could (and did) just go to Sun, download and install Java.[/i}



Someone who knows for sure he/she needs java has a special purpose for it,and doesn't per see need to rely solely on a package manager such as "apt-get" or "emerge".In my opinion they are great starting points.Why do i think they are,quite simple:Some distros who amazingly (or not) have an outstanding package manager seem to have an extensive online documentation avaible to anyone who wants to get something done seriously.Installing software should be quick and reliable so everybody can work with the specific app as soon as possible.A lot of good distro specific documentation can assume the install is been taken care off:" apt-get install alsa-headers" or "emerge alsa-hearders alsa-driver" ,simple quick and dirty.

Although i like to use windows now and than for specific tasks with IDA pro, i can save a lot of time by installing the basic apps needed with an package manager like the two i mentioned.No more searching on the internet,no registration,no need for turning on java-script and/or cookies, no bad rendered sites,no more digging through links
just "emerge mythtv-frontend" or "emerge gdb" and thats it.
A lot mention the gaming platform quality of windows.
Ever tried to download patches or additional option or files for those games?Makes you want to have a package manager and quickly "emerge etpatch2.60" from a nearby mirror.Well my gaming days are fortunately long gone.

I just did and that did not happen.

Are you saying that you can install Firefox from the website installer, and that you can then uninstall Firefox using the package manager? I find that highly unlikely. As far as the menu entry goes, if you already had one then installing from the web site is not going to remove it. What you'd have to do is install it from the website on a vanilla system that doesn't have Firefox already installed, and then see if there's a menu entry. There might be, since menu methods are being standardized, but then again there might not.

In any case, if you want to use the package manager to manage your installed software, then you should not install software from other sources.

But it should work that way no matter where you get it from.

That is what autopackage is trying to achieve. Of course, it would be simpler if there was only one Linux distro, i.e. a monopoly situation. But since those are a Bad Thing, this alternative is better. In any case, all the software I want is on the Mandrake repositories. If you have specific examples of software that's missing from those, I'd be curious to hear it - otherwise, as I've said to Russian Guy, it's all hypothetical situations which are not grounded in reality.

Thanks for your input. I shall take it under advisement and discard.

It's just a matter of keeping a civil tone for this discussion. It just makes your arguments more credible.

Point wasn't missed at all I just think the point was wrong.

As I understand it, the point was correct. You can't just install stuff from repositories (or anywhere else on the Internet, for that matter) using the Add/Remove Program control panel. Furthermore, since you didn't present any counter-arguments to the contrary, the point still stands.

Simply saying it isn't true isn't sufficient. You've got to say why.

rpmdrake like apt-get is a great idea. I said that in my other post which you have not seem to have read.

Correct, I did not. But whether you think they're a great idea or not is irrelevant. The fact is that in this comment and others you clearly seem to indicate that they're inadequate, while I argue that you'll only have problems if you misuse them.

But there is the problem. I need debian for this or Mandrake for that or something else for something else.

No you don't. If you run Mandrake, you should only need the Mandrake repositories, and then perhaps use standalone installers for those very few programs that aren't in the repositories (or, in a worse-case scenario, compile from source and use checkinstall so they're registered in the package manager database). In four years of using Linux, I've never installed a Debian package on my Mandrake install. That just sounds like a bad idea.

I don't want to apt-get software I want to INSTALL it. I don't want to rpmdrake software I want to INSTALL it.

You're playing on words here. When you use rpmdrake or apt-get to get a piece of software, you are in fact installing it. So what you just said makes no sense at all, except if you view the whole process from a purely Windows point of view.

Most computer users INSTALL software WIndows, Linux Mac etc.

And this is what you do when you use rpmdrake. For the record, Mac users often don't use the Windows-like point-and-click installers. They drag the program in the applications folder, and that's it. A little bit like what the Klik guys are doing.

http://klik.berlios.de/

I'm sorry, but you can't get any simpler than this.

I am just saying the proces is neither as soom as the author of this article would lead you to believe.

No, in fact it's simpler than what the other described, because he focussed on command-line installation, and left out GUI package managers like rpmdrake, or the even simpler interfaces such as Click'N'Run for Linspire and the aforementioned Klik.

But I don't think you seem to understand that either.

Don't be so arrogant, especially when you don't seem to have any arguments to back your assertions. I understand perfectly what you're trying to say, I just don't agree with it and I've tried to demonstrate why I think you're wrong.

Again, tell me which is simpler and faster: installing/updating 12 different programs in Windows, or installing/updating 12 different applications using rpmdrake?

I don't want to apt-get software I want to INSTALL it. I don't want to rpmdrake software I want to INSTALL it. Most computer users INSTALL software WIndows, Linux Mac etc. I am just saying the proces is neither as soom as the author of this article would lead you to believe. But I don't think you seem to understand that either.

You can either install the software with apt-get( Debian,binairy) or compile the app from source.Or you could use emerge (Gentoo) which allways downloads the source and compiles it according to your arch needs and in the end you have your mozilla-firefox or whatever app installed.

Either way it's not difficult for an average savvy windows user to use a package manager like apt-get or emerge in order to install need3ed apps.More than enough can be installed from most repositories,for free!

A beginning windows user gets with his PC a lot of software bundled.PC is plug and play ready.Perhaps it's enough.Some are a little more adventurous and or are a little more demanding and start looking for more software.They have to use the net more in order to find specific apps as the average Linux user,or does wallmart,dell,gateway have repositories?,i guess not.He or she might go to zdnet and start searching through the lists (repository).

The very start of this article shows that in fact linux software installations have a long way to go. When it takes you SEVERAL paragraphs just to list a bunch of the different ways you can do it, there's the first problem. There should be ONE COMMON WAY among ALL distributions. And there is no reason it can't be done if someone had the knowledge and skill to write it.

Windows DOES win the installation battle hands down (unless you've got OSX ... that's just an awesome way to install apps. Period. Why can't THAT be done with linux? Both OS's are unix-based!!). And I don't say that as a linux zealot, although I've been running my home computer on linux 100% of the time for a couple of years now. And I don't say it as a M$ fanboy either ... else why the heck would I be a full-time linux user? I say this as a user of both systems between home and work. And both systems have strengths, both have weaknesses. With Windows, the weakness is the insecurity of the OS, with Linux the only real weakness are the lack of SOME drivers (many vendors are finally starting to play nice though) and the lack of SOME programs from the Windows and Mac camps. But now that studies are starting to show linux use surpassing Macs, I only wonder when the argument that there aren't enough users to support a port will wear thin? If you ask me, it already has.

Though it is 15 steps in windows, those steps probably take a second each, especially with a broadband connection, i myself experienced that dependency hell problem using linux, and it is terrible having to do so much to get one thing working. It takes less time to install software and reboot in MS.

Talk about easy, have you tried Linspire (5). The software library has a gui index and text and you click and load the application. They call it CNR I call it easy.
Kever

Alot of people that complain about dependency hell are using the rpm based distributions, ie: Mandrake,Suse,redhat,fedora.

Now people will say yeah, if you don't download a mandrake rpm with signature you'll most likely get dependency hell. That's half the truth. Ati's drivers always give u a dependency issue even though u really dont need them. RPM's are the problem. For those who are running or had an rpm-based distro and switched back to windows because you were annoyed. Try using something like Debian or slackwate or their user friendly counterparts that use .tgz(slackware) or .deb (debian based binary.) No issues with Dependency whatsoever unless of a broken app, which n that case is the fault of the developer and not that of the package manager.

As for someone who asked, whats easier, 10 linux installs or 10 windows installs. The answer differs, if you're using source, windows, if you're using a package manager which all linuc distros do, Linux.

See there is no such thing as an absolute one, every linux distro is different and so will the install methods. Windows is just windows. if u were to wipe oit all other distros and put it up against Debian...Linux wins in a heartbeat. People switch to linux thinking its windows with better security and stability.

No it's not windows, it doesn't work like windows and it doesn't use windows exectuables. Mac is different and the install method is different, If everything was like windows, double click installs...it would suck. Same thing on different platform. it's what makes the OS unique. Why do you care if every linux distro has a different install method, its not like you're going to run into all of them.Unless you have partitions of every single distribution. Sorry that Linux didnt provide a windows experience for you. But its not windows, thats what many people fail to see. if windows works for you, then enjoy, but overall I prefer Linux installs,compiling isnt bad either, if the program isnt running u know you screwed up, in windows is either a corrupt install or just badly configured, Unless the source is bad, which is unlikely, you get no errors if configured properly in Linux. the little apps I compile it to my likings, the big apps that I know is going to be a bitch to compile,(in terms of amount of time its going to take) I let binary do the work.

Before you say it's "rediculous" to think that Linux installs could be easier than Windows software installation, take some time to actually learn what a package manager is and how it works.

Yes, there are several different package management systems, but you only deal with the one that's designed for that distribution. The existence of yum, urpmi, rpmdrake, emerge, etc. is totally irrelevant when you're using Debian Linux: you're only going to be using the APT system. You can use the APT system with command-line utilities such as apt-get, apt-cache, apt-show-versions, and other commands, or you can use a GUI like Synaptic, or a console front end like aptitude. These are all just front ends to the APT system.


Let me try -- though it may be a wasted effort -- to address some misinformation. I'll stick to APT. Other package managers should work similarly.

1) MYTH: Linux software installation doesn't handle dependencies. TRUTH: If you're using APT, dependencies are automatically handled for you

2) MYTH: You have to create your own shortcuts. Truth: APT creates shortcuts for you. Each package registers a shortcut with the Debian menu system. Install the package, you get the menu option. Automatically.

3) MYTH: You have to know the exact name of the program. Truth: If you use a GUI like Synaptic or Aptitude, you select the package from a list. If you use the command line, then you have to provide the exact name. But you don't have to just KNOW it: you can look it up. The 'apt-cache search' command will search package descriptions and names for any word or phrase you would like. Use 'apt-cache show <packagename>' on package you're interested in to see the entire description. Or just use the GUI, where it's done for you.

4) MYTH: You have to have a high-speed connection to use APT. Truth: APT is designed for and works best with high-speed internet connections, but you can also use it with CD-ROM's. If you want to install something huge, like Open Office, get a CD-ROM. For day-to-day maintenance, a dial-up internet connection works fine.

5) MYTH: Software installation has to be point-and-click. Truth: Point-and-click is nice, but the reason people still use the command line tools is because they're honestly faster. If installing software is something you do often, it may well be worth your while to learn how to use apt-cache search and apt-cache show to find just the right package, then apt-get install to install it. If you rarely have to install new software, then just stick to the nice GUI's and be done with it.

6) MYTH: You give up freedom by using a package manager. Truth: By using a package manager, you're giving up complexity. The whole point is to let the package manager handle the details for you of putting the executables in the usual place, the libraries in the usual place, the documentation in the usual place, setting up any appropriate menus, etc. So why doesn't this mean you're losing freedom? Because no one ever said that you HAD to use the package manager! We're talking about open source here. You have the source code: you can always compile it yourself and put all the different pieces exactly where you want. But very few people want to do that unless they have very special needs. And if your needs are that special, Windows installers are equally useless to you.

7) MYTH: If it's not in the repository already, you can't install it. Truth: Most common programs are in the repository already, and already customized to that distribution. But if you have to have a program that is NOT in the repository, APT doesn't prevent you from using it. 95% of the software you need is already in the repository ready to install. Those that are not, you'll just have to install separately. Do you want Sun's official Java package? Hunt it down, download it, and follow Sun's instructions. Just like you would do in Windows. Do you need some small utility that hasn't been packaged for Debian? You can either try to find an RPM and convert it to a .deb file with alien, or you can just download and compile the utility. APT doesn't put any programs at all in the /usr/local directory. Put anything not handled by the package system in there, and APT will never mess with it. Most software will either install into '/usr/local by default, or will let you pass '--prefix=/usr/local' to the configure command before compiling.

The package manager is your friend. Use it often, get used to it, and installing programs in Windows will seem just so ... backwards.

Sorry, but ....

You said:
> There should be ONE COMMON WAY among ALL distributions

I say:

Why? Does Debian have to solve the problem identically with Mandrake before Debian's solution is acceptable? As long as the distribution you're using has a consistent package management system, who cares that other distributions take their own approach? If you're not using Mandrake's distribution, is it relevant that Mandrake does it differently?

If you're concerned about commercial software vendors being able to release one installer for all Linux versions, that can be dealt with by making sure you use a distribution complying the the Linux Standard Base. That should solve the software compatibility issues.

You pretty much have to go Xandros or Linspire (with the former having the advantage of no paid yearly subscription).

1) Click X-Launch - select Xandros Networks
2) Either use Search to Find what you want or browse down the application tree on the left
3) Select Package
4) Click on Install Button {will apply for either 1 or several packages}
5) Confirm
6) Click Done.
-> Elapsed Time = depends, of course, on size and qty of packages selected.
=>> Once completed all packages have icons in their respective sub-categories.
No Fuss, No Muss - even Windows cannot compare.

Enjoy the Freedom, Feel the Power. Xandros 2.0 / 3.0

LB.

To be honest, why compare windoze to linux at all. Theres a reason why we dont want windoze users on linux. Because theres enuff noobs as is.

Plus if we convince windows users to switch, how are we gonna host all those botnets, and what purposes would there be to write windoze virii and trojans. Its much more fun to leave things as they are.

Windows for the dumbasses of the world, Linux for the Pros.

"No, in windows 2000 or newer, there is no need to reboot the computer after installing 99% of all of the applications."

Kindly show a listing of the 99% of all of the applications that can be installed without a reboot in Windows 2000 or newer?...

Note: No flame intended, but mind this;
Working in an all-windows environment with over 200 machines to maintain on a daily basis gives proof that completely wipes the statement 99% of all programs can be installed without requiring a reboot off the table. In fact, there's even programs that FORCE an immediate reboot without even asking the user if it's OK or not to do so (Based on actual experience). A most pleasing effect if you happen to be working directly on your server machine, which unfortunately is required sometimes!. Am I missing something? I haven't had to reboot any Linux machine I have had under my fingers before after installing software. It just works.
Like Err stated, the reboots in Windows mostly just boil down to the creator of the installer covering their own ass, after all, (Example) if you design something and let the user install it and it FAILS because it didn't fully register without a reboot, the user will call you and blame YOUR work. Fact: 99 out of 100 times anything you install from Microsoft will require a reboot. Especially anything related to drivers, DLL changes, Registry changes, or hardware changes* (*Yes, that happens. Example would be a simple USB mass storage device entering the system, such as an USB pen drive. Happened to me 5 times on 3 different systems so far, even when the device was supposedly already 'installed'.)
Worst I get in Linux is not being able to re-read a floppy disk or an USB storage device after removing it and plugging it back into the system, simply remounting fixes that ofcourse.

Installing software in Windows has it's benefits and drawbacks.
Installing software in Linux has it's benefits and drawbacks.

What makes the difference? No two computer systems are alike. It's like 2 drops of water, it's still H2O, but they will never look alike, taste alike, have the same temperature, etc.
You can't expect them to be equal, and this is why

You still can't really compare Windows with Linux and vice-versa. Each user's experience will always be different. Luckily things seem to be improving though, Microsoft is learning (late, but still) and Linux is improving vastly in many ways. Time will tell a better comparison.

The first stupid part about this article is that it assumes the user, who happens to be having some difficulty INSTALLING software, somehow managed to get "lunix" installed to begin with. M$ has made no effort to make their install process easy, because they don't have to. Windows comes with computers, so who cares? Especially those who would need an easier method to install software. Even still, when their WinXP, etc. install stalls out, they'll probably just have someone to come in and fix it for them. I know about that...it happens.

I agree with the idea that anyone with half a brain can type all those arcane commands, which is how most people view typing anything. But, certainly anyone can click "Next >" a billion times, and have fewer questions. Hey, you may only need a quarter of a brain for that!

Then, as someone mentioned, you have to KNOW what does what with this linux crap. I, as an average user is inclined to believe, could care less which version or application does what I want it to. I would just want software to do a TASK, especially if it has an easy to remember trade name that makes it old and familiar, sort of like "band-aid" or "kleenex" are generic terms.

apt-get install "software that manages music in a library" ... please
emerge "photo album program"

Now how easy is it to install?

Windows is for idiots, and can be for power users. Linux is for power users. Both have crufty user interfaces at best (what the hell is with all those links in the start-type menu?)

All can see a key difference:
To Do in Linux - TYPE
To Do in Windows - CLICK

All can see a key difference:
To Do in Linux - TYPE
To Do in Windows - CLICK

Correction:
To Do in Linux - CLICK OR TYPE
To Do in Windows - CLICK

To get an office package for Windows you can buy one at the megastore when you stop to pickup milk, take it home, put the CD in your drive, enter a code out of the package (if asked) and shortly later be up and running. No downloads. No command prompt codes. No worries about whether it needed to uninstall anything or reboot (these days) or close down everything else (I have never done this since Win 3.1 and haven't had a single problem). How much simpler can you really get than sticking a CD in the drive and clicking "okay"?

Alternately, click on OpenOffice.org in your bookmarks, click to download the latest release as an exe and when asked by your browser tell it you want to run the file after it's downloaded. Once again... no command lines, no shutting things down or rebooting anything. Not exactly the picture that was painted in the original post.

Maybe you should look at it the other way and see how you would install Visio on both systems. The Win side you stick in the CD, it autoruns, you click in a code and it's there. The Linux side... hmmm how many steps are there to getting Wine to work correctly before you make an attempt to "try" to install it? Certainly not a very favorable comparison for Linux, is it?

Installation of packages is MUCH better on Linux than it used to be but this is one area where we need to do some work if we want to appeal to Windows users or mass-market types in general. I know it's easy to do but expecting anybody to actually type anything into a command line these days is really a bit behind the times compared to what they are used to and a lot of people will never take Linux seriously as an alternative if you try to set them back 15 or 20 years to using a command prompt.