During the majority of my time working with computers, Windows was the operating system of choice. Reason being, it's all I've known. In 2002, I took a college course titled "Linux Administration" which entitled me to a few cd-roms of Redhat 7.x. While this course was nothing more than a few extra credits for me, I fell in love with Linux and went through the entire textbook a week into the class. It was a nice feeling to use something "different" than what I was used to.
Post a Comment
Linux does need to be made far easier to use for the casual user.
My mum has recently set up a Yahoo email account, (don't laugh) and surfs travel agents sites. She knows how to start the pc, load up ie and surf... Thats all. She does not install software, and don't think she will ever.
I could not imagine her having to search for RPMs or even running Synaptic.
However, this is the type of user that Lindows are targetting Linspire towards. I tried it out and it is really simple to use, and update. I think if my mum ever starts complaining about Windows crashing etc, that I will install Linspire on her pc and let her try that for a while.
It does not have the latest versions, and click n run might not have every package that is available elsewhere... but I think it is just the ticket for joe casual.
For my personal machines, I use mostly Debian because I love Apt-get, but lately my "main" machine has had Mandrake 10 on it. So far I cannot find a fault with Mandrake 10.
good points I suggest you go and try out Linspire...
I currently run Suse 9.1 Mepis beta and Linspire.
I think what you are talking about ease of software install and dependancies is totally covered with CNR in Linspire...
you will find the system slow in current version 4.5 of Linspire compared to Suse 9.1 but it wont be long till a comaprable product will be released from Lindows Inc.
There is nothing that even comes close to CNR for ease of installation and update of software the actual OS itself etc. It even has Isles with the apps you have installed previously (if you do a fresh install of the OS .. which only takes 10 minutes the dfastest OS install bar none)
I am not suggesting that you use Linspire but that you look at the CNR click n run system and comment back..
It is a joy to use
Weell, I aggre in everything of what the author has said.
Linux is diversity and with so many tastes and so many package managers ,Linus will never be a unified os (forget ERMS 
) like BDS. Unless one or two Linux companis like Red Hat or Mandrake make such nice systems and gain all the Linux market share. But that utopic.
...consider other distros like Linspire or XandrOS in your case. Since you call yourself a geek, a geek like me expects you to know that _Linux_ is the kernel ONLY. When you delve into mantioning distros, the headline of your story should reflect a particular subject distro. There are over 100 [Linux] distros todate. When KDE/GNOME and other software(s) are added to the kernel, the result deserves a name. Just my CAD$0.02.
CNR warehouse has over 1800 applications in it and on top of that a bunch of commercial products as well
wont to install the latest Limwire or update from and earlier version.. just 1 click away..
what about Shockwave 7.0 for linux.. just choose it and 1 click and all done.. easy eh even easier than M$ Windows
Hi,
When i started useing RedHat in 1998 RPMs seemed like a perfectly good idea. However, Linux far outgrew the capacity of the RPM system, and requiering new dependencies everyday. One day, i had enough of that - and retired my redhat install infavor of Gentoo - now, Gentoos portage is like apt-get - only, better. However, binary packages are a rarity, but i suspect it will come sooner or later.
My Mother uses Linux, only, she dont know that. Nor would she care, as she only does 3 things on the computer: Play Solitaire, and other card games. Check her webbased email with firefox. And finally browse a few newspapers online - i made a news.html as start page that has the links she wants . When she first got linux, she asked if it was a new windows? I just nodded and said 'Sure, latest and greatest'.
It just runs, and if i need to fix something or upgrade it, i just ssh into it. Its all good now .
I think when a Linux installation is just running, any novice user should be able to just go ahead and use it, everything they need is right there, in the familiar "start-menu". The Admin is the one who installs packages. Not the average user.
But the average user doesn't have a nice admin standing there saying "ill upgrade this" etc.
"Sure, I could use Apt-get to install everything, but what happens if I forget to pay my internet bill?"
as you may know with apt-get u can choose which program(s) u wanna install and apt-get fixes any dependencies involved.
The easiest way is to install new fresh Linux is to install knoppix on the HD and then synaptec (gui for apt-get).
Debian Rocks
people post this kind of article as "Linux Needs etc. etc.".
This article (and those similar to it) has been ranting on and on abou why Linux needs this, Linux lacks that, Linux has too much of this. People tend to forget that Linux is about choice.
You don't have to use Fedora nor do you have to use SuSE. Those distros have their own target groups. Have you even considered that you might not be in said groups? Again, I say again... Linux is about choice, distrowatch.com lists at least a hundred distros to choose from, and at least a dozen of them touts ease of use as their main feature. Have you considered that you have made a wrong choice of distro?
And on the topic of RPMs... you either love it or hate it to the core. I'm from the latter school of though. Hence, I don't use any distro that uses RPMs as its primary method of binary installation. My choice, and I can live with it.
Yet another issue in your article is that you fail to mention that the "usability aspect" you're attempting to dissect is more towards "desktop users". That might make your article seem more consistent with the topic at hand. Because believe it or not, Linux in some areas (servers, gateways, etc.) are much, much more usable and user-friendly than the OSs (and the relevant apps) it replaced.
But since this article is an expression of your opinions, I respect it highly eventhough I might not agree with some of the points you've made. I however, find it mildly irritating that you did not expand your horizons to the more "user-friendly" distros before you claim that the whole of Linuxdom needs a usability facelift.
"I also had to choose from a list of hundreds of programs, to make sure I would have all dependencies resolved."
This is clearly a troll article, SUSE's YaST has dependency resolution and every dependency is included on the CDs/DVD.
Not always and not for all cases. Read my SuSE/Yast reviews for more.
Mandrake has a tool called urpmi which like apt-get does full dependency tracking for RPMs It will go and download them from a web repository (or the original install CD) if necessary to satisfy a dependancy.
Of course other distros have this feature too, eg debian and gentoo. As far as I know, RPM dependency-hell is only a 'feature' of RedHat & SUSE.
link?
I yet have to find one single rpm package on SuSE 9.1 pro that has dependencies that cannot be resolved by using the same dvd.
"on the topic of RPMs... you either love it or hate it to the core. "
Honestly, I don't think I've ever met anyone who "loves" RPMs ;-)
I have to agree with the above poster, go get yourself a Knoppix CD, choose to install it to your HD from the KMenu, and free yourself from the very worst part of Linux: RPM Dependency Hell.
True Debian apt-get is the way forward (not these half-assed rpm-apt thingamabobs in the RPM distros).
my 2 cents...
Sure, ERPM's would seem great. But now, what if we would put three software packages into an ERPM: KDE, LyX and KMPlayer. If you would download them, you would download QT (7 MB) three times. You would download kdebase (23 MB) twice. So all in all, you would download 37 MB extra for a little more ease of use!
And on a CD, ERPM's don't make sense either, as you could just as easily add the dependency-RPM's on it.
I didn't have internet access
but what happens if I forget to pay my internet bill?
Whats so bad about RPMs?
(this question is dead serious)
During the next few years when linux starts making big strides in the desktop market, we'll proably see a dominant distro emerge. Heck I can knock off about 95% of the linux distros out there, since their either not for newbies(pure debian, gentoo, slack,etc), dont have enough finacial backing/(market/mind)share(Ares, Cobrind,etc), or are speciality distros that arent used for desktops.
So were basically seeing a polarization between the newbie distros(with proably about 95%+ linux marketshare) and the people who will stick with their community supported distros.
IMO...
Big Corps ignore community distros -> standardize on newbie distros -> those distro producers collberate on inter-standards -> community distros adopt those inter-standards -> everyones happpy.
Not sure of this.
The dominant distro will not necessarily be the best, or the easiest, or whatever; I think there will be a split in two main segments, Linux workstations/servers perfectly happy with opensource, and workstations/servers in need of commercial software.
For the first segment, almost any distro is ok.
But if you are an engineer and need Autocad or, better, Catia, or Microstation, or whatever Cad will be ported to Linux, then you'll *want* a distro on which it is tested; you'll go to a system integrator and say "I want a Linux machine to run Catia"; he will give you (example) Suse Professional and Catia.
The same applies when other softwares relevant to a large base of users will be ported (medical/commercial/you name it).
And the balance will be influenced also by what distro natively supports more low-level user programs (let's say I want to use something like Bryce, or all the cool programs for windows for which no counterpart exists), be them multimedia/web/games.
Let's say you are a fresh user, and know that AAABBBCCC Linux works flawlessy because you download Sound Editor from the net, and it's ok, then you download a game and it works there "just click", then you download a pirate copy of Photoshop (example) and it works there, you don't really think about going alternative: AAABBBCCC *is* Linux.
Try to offer a different Windows, maybe better, but it doesn't autoconfigure soemthing, and you can't just "click and play", and be sure very few will choose it.
Well, that's my 2c, but consider I'm using windows XPPro right now after 7 years of Linux, and despite having some trouble with it, I'm shocked at how easy it is to work with *if* you are a poweruser (if you are not, God help you)).
Lorenzo
it will be the one *certified* to run commercial high end software software
Whatever you Lin-user says the author is true. I LOVE Linux, even so much that I'm still update the site I created a couple of years ago (LinuxEmu - http://linuxemu.linuxgames.com ) but today I'm using Mac OS X Panther.
I prefer Windows XP over Linux, because Linux got to many quirks that I can't stand to have it as main Desktop OS. It's fun to play around with Linux sometimes but it feals like not much has happened since RH 6.0. The good things since RH6.0 is the new kernel, OO.org, Moz Firebird, KDE3 and some smaller things but the OVERAL FEAL still sucks as Eugina allways tries her readers to understand when she tries to like a distro in her reviews but allways ends up telling us how many bugs there were or how hard it was to install new apps because of the dependecncy hell.
I have noticed latly that many reviews have problems with their hardware detection which is even worse than teh dependency hell!
For now I only use Knoppix, so I can test drive Linux and see how far it has come.
If you don't like any Linux distribution that use rpm, do not use it and ignore it. There are plenty other distro such as Gentoo that can build from sources. Bear in mind there will be some dependancies rpm or not. It becomes very annoying to deal with people who complain for nothing while they have choice.
its been said before and it will be said again, go take a look at autopacakge. its a system for installing user software in linux distros that works more or less like the setup files for windows.
personaly i like the idea of rpms, it makes it easy to see what is what and to upgrade parts of the distro. its years above what windows update does. its even easyer to create a update cd for a distro as you can park the updated rpms on a cd and then tell the distro do do a update from them when your done installing (rpm uvh *).
It seems to me that not only RPM's are problematic, entire model of packaging software by package maintainers working for various distributions is flawed. It simply does not scale well for every possible piece of software that you might need (and for every possible distribution), and of course does not work well if you do not have online access. I guess people working on autopackage http://autopackage.org/ are trying to address these issues, there is also a very good article about Linux software installation problems on their site - see http://autopackage.org/faq.html One very good point is that OSS deveopers shoud be rather spending their time on writing software than on packaging stuff :-) Of that what I remember Inkscape is planning to use it.
I think what the author wants is binary packages that dont need to d/l dependecies at all.
Right now even if you d/l a Fedora Core 1 RPM and try to install it, you might run into a problem if you didnt install all 3 CDS(depends on how exotic the lib is).
Why do people still go on about it. Just don't used the distros that still have it, natural selection will kill them off (Which has killed off countless minor distros already). I am using Fedora Core 2. No dependancy hell AT all. Go to
http://www.fedorafaq.org
And learn get all the packages you need. Flash, Java, MP3, you name it, it has it. Also concider using yum rather than apt-get, its a lot more integrated with fedora
GNOME 2.6 is really great too, I switched to it from KDE 3.2 because its so easy to use. In fact, I recommend everyone here to try GNOME 2.6, even if they hated previous versions of GNOME. I am an ex-KDE user literally GNOMEized over night!
As for SuSE, you are using the PROFESSIONAL version, it was DESIGNED for geeks. If you wanted the easy one cd version get the PERSONAL edition.
There ARE easy to use distros out there, but NO. You chose to pick on distros designed for GEEKS and slam them. Hint. Its not their target audience, some people LIKE geek distro. Somebody give this guy a copy of Mandrake or Ark Linux already, or even Fedora Core 2.
If you wanted to talk about REAL usability issues, such as legacy GTK apps that still use the old file dialog then feel free to discuss. No dependancy hell for me since 2001. Thank you to Mandrake, Fedora, Debian and Gentoo which I have used over the years that provide both internet and CD based installs with NO depandancy hell.
The problem with Redhat/Suse is you cant even compile without all those pesky "devel" packages. Otherwise fetching the source and doing a quick:
./configure --prefix=/usr && make && make install
would be no problem. We could even make a bash script called:
./Setup.exe
If ppl so preferred. However, without devel libs its worse than dependency hell. Debian apt-get or gentoo emerge (hopefully with more bin packages soon) is the answer to our problems. Best answers so far, maybe some better will emerge. But really, i find all this "linux would be good, if we had auto bla.bla" is a bad argument. Linux is powerfull because it is not a dumbed down OS, and maybe it will never take over the windows market share, i couldent care less about marketshare. I got what i want, run the apps i need, and im happy. I guess linux will get 20% of the desktop market. Which is plenty enough, if you ask me .
I installed Suse 9.1 last week, and not only did it have 5 cd-roms, I also had to choose from a list of hundreds of programs, to make sure I would have all dependencies resolved.
That's utter nonsense. SuSE Yast does resolve dependencies for you, and has been doing so since prehistoric times. My first SuSE was 4.4 or thereabouts, and even that did it.
As long as you stick with one version of one distribution there's no problem with RPM, it only gets difficult once you start upgrading things or installing RPMs intended for other distributions.
If you don't want to trawl through the packages to decide what you want, just use one of the predefined profiles. And if you do find a particular program is missing you simply use the package search function.
What a stupid article.
Tux needs a facelift more than anything. And fluffy kittens! Everyone needs a fluffy kitten!
(If I could now turn that into ~ 500/1000 words, I could submit it as article. Anyone want to help?)
Maybe it's not the majority, but there are many Windows users who have never installed any software. They let other people do it. Most people have someone who occasionally comes along and "fixes their computer". And the average users with a need for "ease of use" (ie. limiting possibilities) hardly ever need any package that is not on the distribution CD. Therefore it is a lot easier if you give these people something like Mandrake, show them the package manager and say "This is where you can look for Software". It's sorted in categories, and it resolves dependencies automatically. I installed karamba on a mandrake system years ago, and it installed kdelibs and stuff from the distribution CD. automatically.
Personally, i moved to Gentoo because i hate binary packages, but that's another Story.
I also like the way most apps in BeOS are installed: All files are in a zip, just unzip it to anywhere. If there are any shared libraries in it, they make a symlink to the directory and you just have to drag the file on that symlink.
Package Managing in GNU/Linux (yes, that's what the real "geeks" call it) is quite easy and intuitive for people who are new to computers (I tried that out, I don't just claim that it is so). In fact, it is very confuding that every application has its own installer in Windows.
You are not a geek. I have the impression that you are just another one of those who moan if something doesn't work similar to how it is done in Windows. You are a somewhat more experienced computer user, therefore you don't ask where your start button has gone, but you make the same mistake in concept.
The biggest problem of alternative operating systems (GNU/Linux, Mac OS and BeOS, for that instance, others may be lacking some "usability") is not that anything is missing, but that users are thinking microsoft instead of thinking logically (or just trying out).
I'm sick of this pro choice advocacy some Linux users do...
choice is BAD when choice means fragmentation.
I keep reading "Linux is about choice" well let me tell you, Linux is not about choice if it forces users to use a half baked app because all the other half baked apps are worst.
choice is about choice in interaction, choice in looks NOT choice in what app to use. There should be one and only one text editor, one web browser, one instant messenger, one media player, one app not 20.
one app, 20 mods/skins not 20 apps.
choice shoud be painless, I choose a skin, see how the author sees the world... if I like it I use it if not I try another...
choice in Linux world right now is like a normal guy trapped in a masochist world, a continuous struggle to find the app that hurts less.
mandrake use rpms and have urpmi that solves this problem nicely. what i do is to create a folder on my system that i put downloaded rpms in that are set up as a local rpm store in urpmi (i just wish they had a drag and dump or similar in rpmdrake for the gui users/newbies out there). then i run a sync on that store and install the package from urpmi. rh/fedora dont have this ability at all i belive (unless you can do it with apt-get that is). in many ways fedora is quite archaic when it comes to package management out of the box in my view.
the perfect solution would be that every rpms came with not jsut a list of dependencys but allso a url for downloading them if they where not installed. and every system would be able to, when you doubleclick a rpm, hand the rpm to say urpmi or apt-get for checing of dependencys against the database and if they where not found as installed or available in a known store then they would fire up wget if you had a working internet connection or promt you to download the rpms listed with urls and install them first. maybe they could even integrate the system with rpmfind so that any unknown rpms would be run tru that database for checking. and there should be a online rpm checksum database so that you could run any rpm up against it to check if its valid, hell it should happen automaticly if you have a working net connection!
these are small and simple changes to rpms that will help the user without creating big monolithic rpms like the author suggested.
Why do you care whether there are hundreds of apps who do the same thing? You just need to install one.
I don't know what this is like in SuSE, but i heard they are quite bloated, and for the very same reason i don't use KDE.
But in ie. Gentoo, enter "emerge gnome" and you get exactly what you described you want. One file manager, one email client, one media player, one text editor, one pdf viewer, one window manager, and so on. and they all fit and work together. The only exception is that you get one and a half web browsers, because epiphany is based on mozilla.
SuSE 9.1 "personal" is what you want. Comes with KDE only, no GNOME, No XFCE, No WTFwm etc.
I don't get it. What is so difficult in installing rpms?
If you use yum, apt-get or some similar tool its much easier than windows. You don't get asked one single question like where you wan't to install, if you want to customize your installation or to enter a cdrom into something called E:
In Linux the software just gets installed for the user to use no questions asked.
Sure, you need internet to do this, but in my experience many windows installers use internet too. They often asks you to upgrade other programs like internet explorerer so I wouldn't say that Linux is any worse than windows in that respect.
The main problem with software installation in Linux today is not how you do it, but that the software you need may not yet be available for the Linux platform. This is what keeps Linux from expanding on the desktop market. This is where I actually see the problems with RPMS. They are not standardized. If at least the stuff in LSB was packaged in RPMS with standard names and contents, regardless of distro, it would be much easier for venders like Macromedia or Adobe to support Linux
choice is fine as long as you have open standards under it. sure most will use the most wellknown software for that task but that does not mean one should have only one app as that gives the creator way to mutch power! just look at the power microsoft have with its office pack compared the power mirc have vs all the other irc clients out there.
soon (if not allready) koffice and openoffice will be useing the same file formats (that are both based on xml or anyone can create a office suite that reads them)...
a whore in makeup is still a whore. a bad wordprocessor in a skin is still a bad wordprosessor. unless you extend the definition of skin to define what is normaly called a extention or plugin, ie something that adds features and/or abilitys.
The RPM system in linux is alot better then the current windows system.. Its alot easier to double click a RPM to install it.. Anyway, like someone said, there are install systems for linux (install openoffice for instance).
After being blown away by how impressive Entrance is in Enlightenment 17 (www.enlightenment.org), and by news I've heard off the freedesktop team, I'm also convinced the graphics of linux will easily exceed Windows by the beginning of next year (believe me.. u WANT to try entrance, words cant even describe it.. Never seen anything so amazing).
And in terms of Driver Installation, my project, http://driverondemand.sourceforge.net I'm convinced will solve that (PCMCIA and PCI already work in it.. and USB and everything else will work within 2 weeks). I just got a server up for it and after exams, will spend 1 or 2 days dedicated to filling up the database with the most common hardware.
I'd also expect firefox to be stable by the end of this year, and many new things such as gdesklets being integrated into gnome pretty much propelling Linux past windows...
From what I've seen.. Everything is under control
Sure, I could use Apt-get to install everything, but what happens if I forget to pay my internet bill? I can't install anything, then.
This is wrong. You can use apt-get to install from _any_ media, not necessarily from the internet (though that's the most common use -always up-to-date).
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/apt-howto/index.en.html
You sure must hate Windows then, for there are a lot more apps there than in Linuxland !
Anyway, although I agree apps installation is a mess in Linux, I've never had to suffer too much cause I used mandrake's urpmi before and debian's synaptic now.
The thing is that most open source developpers have little incitation to package things for a wide audience, since they DON'T SEEK a wide audience. Those who do, offer statically linked packages (Opera comes to mind).
The situation is down to distros. They have to agree a common package format with a common versionning, that allows packages to be distributed with or without dependencies to a maximum of subscribing distros. That would save them a lot of time and effort.
It is ironic that the main public proponents of open source (the distros) can't do what the mantra says : stick to open standards. They get all worked up about open and completely obliterate the "standard" bit.
So, your issues of usability are purely related to packaging? -1 : More descriptive title needed.
As for your idea of bunding all deps with a package, it's been done. Download some proprietary (and some not) games that use the loki installer. It's just like windows: you pick a directory for the install, click "Go" and that's it. In many cases, the developer includes any used libraries beyond X and GL in this package. Unfortunately, that means:
-Bigger package
-User ends up with several different OpenAL.so or whatever library on their system
-User uses whatever version was around at time of program release (with its bugs).
Mostly, the reason for this lack of dependancy bundling is that it's a great deal more work for the developers. You'll notice that big-biz free software is packaged monolithically. Most free software isn't, because the developer isn't interested in taking responsibility for distribution of other people's packages. Example: A new version of libSDL came out that fixes that fullscreen bug! Should I push out a new version of the package, or wait for that bug in libogg to get fixed? It's a contamination of responsibility, and breaks up the powerful delegation of one bit of code to one project/person.
Having said all that, if you're interested in development of installation technology, see http://www.autopackage.org/
No, use Debian NOW. It solves every problem. APT rocks. No, really.
Driver on demmand, I love the idea. I'm gonna be watching this.
The problem also boils down to where the line should be drawn (and if it should be drawn at all) between system components and applications.
Linux distros have so far made the pragmatic choice of not drawing the line and that has satisfied the current user base of linux.
These two applications use a setup program much like the setup of windows applications. So I feel that you moan about RPM's and dependency hell a lot while this is not nescesary but very usefull. It at least keep dll hell away as the dependecy checking of an rpm or deb makes sure that pieces belonging to a different rpm are not deleted.
So as usual linux due to the choice of software can generate every piece of functionality that you would like.
One must also not forget that the dependancy system is also aimed at reducing the size of what one needs to download only download each piece of software once. Think what it would be like if every time you want to play a game kde would automatically be downloaded to as it was included in the game as it was necesarry to play it. Then you would have a nice internet bill.
Therefore I feel that you discussion lacks merit on this point. As it the functionality that you wish is available yet you have not taken the time to look for what you need.
For other people considering who does the user support for the average granny etc.. I believe it the kind (grand)childeren that most often are their first support line. And I think that's great. Those closest to the user knows what he needs and wants and are therefore most capable of helping them.
Most sincerly yours.
"Sure, I could use Apt-get to install everything, but what happens if I forget to pay my internet bill? I can't install anything, then. "
You can have a local apt repository, apt is not just for installing over the internet.
personally i thought the "article" sucked.. He failed to list any VALID usability issues. After reading through a few paragraphs of drible we find
...no matter if I have to compile from source or search for an RPM on Google. My point is, I shouldn't have to...Sure, I could use Apt-get to install everything, but what happens if I forget to pay my internet bill? I can't install anything, then.
If you forget to pay your internet bill you cant install anything on Windows either (unless you pay for it, but if you cant afford to pay for your internet how can you afford to pay for software?)... or any OS for that matter
One of the things that makes Windows so popular is that if you download a setup program and activate it, it installs your new software without a hitch, providing the developer made it compatible with your system.
How can you download it without internet access? Also, this can be done with apt-get which is even easier imo. No searching google to find the website, etc, just apt-get install package.
In my opinion, the way RPM's are handled is excuseless. Why should I search for a dependency, then search for a dependency for that dependency? It's annoying. I think there should be a "new" kind of RPM (Maybe call it "Enhanced RPM", or ERPM or along those lines) that contains all the dependencies you may need for that program. If the dependencies in the package are necessary, the system installs them. I may be behind the times, but I don't think this exists yet, and it's unfortunate.
apt-get, next.
While KDE improved on the GUI, it doesn't seem like anything was done on the "ease of use" feature, to install a program
KDE is a desktop manager, its meant to manage your desktop, next.
I installed Suse 9.1 last week, and not only did it have 5 cd-roms, I also had to choose from a list of hundreds of programs, to make sure I would have all dependencies resolved. I would like much better a one cd Linux distribution, that contained nothing but the core OS and a Window Manager
Most likely you dont need ALL of the CD's.. The reason for multiple CD's are because they include packages that Windows DOESNT provide for you, for ex: openoffice.org, etc, etc.
Upgrading software in Linux is another thing that could use a facelift, back when I was using Fedora Core 1, installing KDE 3.2 was almost a rite of passage, but I did get it installed, but not without totally destroying my Gnome configuration.
apt-get (this is getting repetitive)
This article was not about usability so much as it is about "downloading and installing packages" which is addressed(and is, imo, handled better than it is in Windows for the most part).
Although I have no direct experience with it ( I'm a cheapskate and like you I like the termoil that goes along with the different distro's ) Anyway I have been recieving Michaels minutes and do think they have the total answer as far as usability.
I installed Suse 9.1 last week, and not only did it have 5 cd-roms, I also had to choose from a list of hundreds of programs, to make sure I would have all dependencies resolved. I would like much better a one cd Linux distribution, that contained nothing but the core OS and a Window Manager
Most likely you dont need ALL of the CD's.. The reason for multiple CD's are because they include packages that Windows DOESNT provide for you, for ex: openoffice.org, etc. etc.
Very true. And again: SuSE's yast does resolve dependencies for you, and I for one can't remember it otherwise.
I wonder whether the author of this "article" ever actually tried it. Looks like a stupid piece of FUD to me.
"...Microsoft's ease of use plus Linux, equals the best Operating System the world has ever seen..."
This aleady exists. It's called Mac OS X.
ok, one last time. the purpose of linux is NOT to "thwart microsoft", the purpose of linux is to write good software using an open development model.
once you understand that, other things fall into place too. microsoft is irrelivent, this is a UNIX clone. if you are a UNIX user, linux is extremely user friendly. serviceing the windows crowd is a relatively new thing, desktop linux is an extremely new thing. look at it from that light, and suddenly its no longer a barely usable desktop os, but an extremely usable enterprise grade server os.
If you forget to pay your internet bill you cant install anything on Windows either (unless you pay for it, but if you cant afford to pay for your internet how can you afford to pay for software?)... or any OS for that matter
Either the software came on installation media or it was put onto such media by the user after downloading it on another machine somewhere else or by copying it from someone else who already has it. My Windows XP installation has no connection to any network at all and I have no problems installing things. No need to waste resources on security crap. I also don't have to fool with command line nonsense, either, but that goes without saying on Windows.
I have rarely ever had to download any libraries for Windows software. The installers include all that is needed or the software relies on what the OS has in it. I rarely ever use shareware or freeware. Freeware is typically crap and requires the download of all kinds of stupid VB libs, which I have no desire to mess with. In fact, freeware on Windows isn't too far removed from freeware on Linux.
Linux is interesting and sometimes cool. Definitely attractive in several ways. Still, it's things like this article and ALL of the "No, MY way is better" (or "No, you're doing it wrong") comments that follow it up that keep me from even testing it on my own. I just have zero interest in geeking anything any more.
The article could have had more meat to it, but it didn't offend me.
"True Debian apt-get is the way forward"
Well, possibly, once it gets fixed. RPM handles upgrading to a new release better. Nothing like typing "apt-get install kde" after changing your apt repository and watching your system get uninstalled. Not a troll, just my experience. For all I know I did something wrong, but it is repeatable even after following all steps/directions in the documentation.
Seeing the existing comments and the original post, I think some issues have been overlooked. Yes, choice is good and there are distros around that make package installation pretty easy, and even recognize most hardware. But if Linux is really going to open up the desktop OS sector there are still some obstacles.
It works very well for casual users who don't try to administer or install much, and it's fine for geeks who love command lines and config files. It is not so good for "power users" who have managed to be fairly adroit with what Windows gives them now and can't READILY gain the same capability in most Linux distros. This may seem weak, but these people spend the bucks on consumer PCs and apps and drive widespread adoption.
Windows is also helped by the vast array of vendors who sell and PROMOTE their apps for the Windows OS...CNR is fine if you like the subscription bit, but most consumers are used to buying anything on a shelf that says Windows, taking it home, and being able to run it.
In enterprises, especially small ones, they also have to have their PCs interact with Windows over networks, and although Samba, Wine, and Winbind have come a long way they still are not easy to set up well for full rights in a Windows domain (Xandros excepted...great job there). Yes there are good ways to network Linux, but users will not GIVE UP their Windows capabilities and resources to switch or add in Linux.
I've almost given up on Linux ever producing a decent distribution for the casual user. I think that the sign of a good operating system is that you forget that it's there, it just does what you need without fuss.
The first thing that needs to be done is for Linux to reach a maturity level where a user can be confident that all of the functions we expect from a modern computer system will work out of the box. In rough order of priority I'd say these are: a useable gui, internet connection, printing capability, easy access to all other partitions on the computer, working sound, cd burning capability, digital camera compatibility.
The Linux distros I've tried in the last 3 years include Red Hat, Mandrake, Caldera, Lycoris, Gentoo, Knoppix, Buffalo Linux, Debian, and Xandros. They've all failed on one of these basics. While the goal of "just working" does seem to be getting closer, I have yet to find any distro that will meet these very basic requirements. Of course you can tweak it to work, but I think tweaking should be something to improve performance, not to just make it useable. With every distro I've tried I have also tried the next update that came out, hoping that the problems I was having would be fixed. More often, the new release will have additional bugs that actually make it less useable. I'm now using Fedora Core2, it's the closest I've come on my system to something that "just works".
I believe the future of innovation in computers is in the OS community, probably with Linux. I refuse to use MS or Apple products any more than I have to. But it's frustrating that the OS community can't come close to the elegance exhibited by BeOS 4 years ago on processors that were 20% as powerful.
I agreed with the author of the article.
From what I could understand, (by reading between the lines), the author is someone who uses another os like windows or mac os, he is not a total linux or unix user.
He was looking for a way to get what he wanted/needed from linux so he could have the same degree of use that he does with his current system.
Redhat and Suse... not my choices, but they are the two most popular distros that Joe Public will have heard of. They are the ones that are being sold in PC World etc.
So if a casual Windows user sees a packaged version of Linux with a manual he would buy that if he wanted a quick introduction to Linux.
This is where Linux fails more than any other reason.
Linspire and Xandros and possible even Lycoris are not what most Linux users would call excellent systems, they are pretty basic. However, they are just what Joe Public needs.
If any of the above distros manages to start selling through PC World, in a box, with a manual, then things will be different. There will be a much bigger uptake of Linux.
I think if the author had tried any of the three distros I mentioned, then his whole article would have been a completely different story.
This is how I update my operating system and applications:
urpmi.update -a
urpmi --auto-select
that's it.. and I do it about once a week (not always anything to update though).
"True Debian apt-get is the way forward"
Is there a conceptual difference between the .rpm and .deb formats? As far as I'm aware all either of them does is combine program binaries and dependency information into one file.
All is fine with either of them as long as all the packages adhere to a single naming and versioning scheme.
Confusion only starts once packages for separate distrubutions get mixed, because they tend to name or version the same things differently.
Doesn't the .rpm format unfairly get blamed for problems that are really caused by the divergence of distributions (Redhat/SuSE/Mandrake/...)? Isn't .deb spared those problems only because there's only one major source of .deb packages, i.e. Debian itself?
Sounds like you need FreeBSD...
FreeBSD has a huge online repository of precompiled applications & has no problem resolving dependencies. It's as simple as selecting them from the list and pressing install.
You can also compile things yr self using the BSD ports system which also resolves dependencies during the build...
So you have a choice of selecting things from an online repository or using the onboard ports tree. Either way dependency problem solved...
FeeBSD 4.10 just came out, give it a try...
This is hell indeed. Just a little story with mandrake 10. I wanted to compile winecvs and each time I tried to compile, I had an error message saying I needed a given library. So, using urpmi, I installed the missing library. Finally, all required libs were installed and still, could not compile (some said it was a bug...) Anyway, after, I wanted to remove those libs from my system (didn't need thems afterall). I clicked on a library (one I just installed) and boom a dependency check showed a list of 15-20 packages which requries this packaged to run like XFree. Remember the system worked fine before this library was installed. Install : ok, Uninstall : no can do. Well, this is what I call dependency hell.
Well, I agree with the athor about a ERPM package and a less bloated out of the box system.
I agree with some people about a simple linux. Less choice. 1 desktop, 1 browser, 1 media player..
Another thing, why everything (buttons, fonts) are so big under linux and why no-aa fonts looks like crap (unless you reompile Freetype with the bytecode stuff. ? One thing I really like about windows is small buttons and clear non-aa fonts. It is hard to setup linux like this (for personal usage...)
Thanks
Sounds like you need FreeBSD...
FreeBSD has a huge online repository of precompiled applications & has no problem resolving dependencies. It's as simple as selecting them from the list and pressing install.
Why do people keep touting alternatives when RPM distributions deal with dependencies just fine, as long as you stick with RPMs for one distribution.
If the commercial distributions had adopted .deb, different .deb trees would be just as incompatible as different RPM trees.
And yes, the same problems would probably arise if there were a RedHat FreeBSD, a SuSE FreeBSD, a Mandrake FreeBSD, ... .
The problem isn't with the package format or the package tools, it's with the missing standard for the actual packages.
This is true apt, urpmi and other works fine when I install stuff. But, what happen when I try to install something which is not atp/urpmi list ? A way harder...
YALHUPA = "Yet Another Linux-Has-Usability-Problems Article"
Some people seem to agree with you, so maybe you do have a point. Personally, I think this article was garbage. You had a problem with software management of a distro. So an article was written and posted on here? This isn't Windows. If you see a problem, do something about it (maybe some of you think writing an article on a website is doing something about it). If you really want something done though, email this article to Red Hat. Or whatever distro you're using. Maybe nothing will be done about it. But I would still think that would be a more effective use of your (and our) time.
So, using urpmi, I installed the missing library. Finally, all required libs were installed and still, could not compile (some said it was a bug...) Anyway, after, I wanted to remove those libs from my system (didn't need thems afterall). I clicked on a library (one I just installed) and boom a dependency check showed a list of 15-20 packages which requries this packaged to run like XFree. Remember the system worked fine before this library was installed. Install : ok, Uninstall : no can do. Well, this is what I call dependency hell.
And what exactly was that mystery library? If it is required by XFree, perhaps it actually was installed already? Or it's one of two alternatives, and you already deleted the other one?
Just a thought, but usually when you're missing stuff for a compile what you have to install are *-devel packages...
Meanwhile, you can easily remove a RPM you know you don't need by using the rpm -e --nodeps command.
However, it is possible that the library in question (which one is it, exactly?) was already on your system, and that you installed a newer one instead. Were you installing stuff from cooker, from community or from official?
BTW, what you're doing no newbie would do (at most, they would install the Wine rpms, not compile the cvs version...), so as such it's not a valid argument for making the system more newbie friendly...
"BTW, what you're doing no newbie would do (at most, they would install the Wine rpms, not compile the cvs version...), so as such it's not a valid argument for making the system more newbie friendly..."
Well, I installed the Winex RPM first, but my fonts were not rendered with Counter-strike. A friend told me he ran CS successfully with cvswinex...
This article cannot have been written by any sort of self-respecting (or real??) Linux (or *NIX) geek. With Fedora, the delicious utility called "yum" solves all these pesky RPM problems. And it's been around for a while, so there's no excuse to NOT be using it.
Same for urpmi, YaST, apt-blah blah blah.
I think it comes down to this: you can spend time on Windows installing virus scanners and trying desperately to close wide open ports and trying to figure out if program xyztrojan.dll should really be running.... Or you can spend your time learning about the machine itself and different OS's you can use to get the thing running.
Choose the latter, rtfm, love the life you choose.
Cheers.
Mandrake has a tool called urpmi which like apt-get does full dependency tracking for RPMs It will go and download them from a web repository (or the original install CD) if necessary to satisfy a dependancy.
Of course other distros have this feature too, eg debian and gentoo. As far as I know, RPM dependency-hell is only a 'feature' of RedHat & SUSE.
Arrgh, more disinformation.
Again: SuSE yast does resolve dependencies. In X and in text mode. Anyone who still wants to claim otherwise please take a look here:
http://www.suse.de/~sh/YaST2-Package-Manager/
I haven't tried RedHat or Fedora, but I would be shocked if they didn't have something similar.
I can't believe there is a single defense of the current crap state of software installs on Linux.
Seriously the apt-get, yum, whathaveyou way of getting the software into the computer and managing it is just so "mi programz iz pastede on yay!"
And that's the kind of user experience that really needs to get rooted out of *any* os.
---
(Of course, in XP, it's "mi sukurity iz pastede on yay!")
---
So, a program needs an installer that you click next next next through so it doesn't seem hackish to you? Or what are you trying to say. The solutions you point out work, so what's the problem?
I like the idea of RPM files with dependancies included. This is one of my bigger gripes with linux software. I feel the dependancy system is abused by Software developers who instead of finding out what versions of a library will work with the software, require the one specific version the software was built against. That's easy for them but a real pain in the behind for users. I think fixing that would solve a hole bunch of the dependancy hell that is out there.
Also, Fedora has a nice Add/Remove software menu option that lets you install software from the original CD/DVD. Very slick and very easy.
I think the author needs to take into account the huge improvements, and motion towards, Linux on the desktop that came with kernel 2.6. Package management and the Linux kernel are separate entities, and thus should be considered that way. While there isn't a foolproof way of installing software, lets also take into consideration the security drawbacks that Windows has along with it's ease of use. You don't see spyware showing up on Linux. Why? Sure, it's not exactly a target, but it's also more secure. These things take time, and I know for a fact that YaST, APT, and Red-Carpet all do this "ERPM" package management mentioned. I have my computer illiterate family (3 people, 3 computers) all running Suse 9.1 and they're fanatic about it. It takes 5 CD's because it offers all of the software that Windows doesn't give you, and if you have a DVD-rom, it's only one CD.
If you ask me, Linux is closer to that "perfect OS" than it's ever been. I wouldn't sweat too much about Longhorn doing a terrible amount of damage.
Have you tried SuSE 9.1 personal or Ark Linux? They excel in all your crieteria that you have specified. While I use Fedora Core 2 as well (read http://www.fedorafaq.org to get the most out of it), These distros make Linux so easy you would think it was MacOS X ported to the PC!
I feel the dependancy system is abused by Software developers who instead of finding out what versions of a library will work with the software, require the one specific version the software was built against. That's easy for them but a real pain in the behind for users.
That's where the real problem is: bad packaging, not a bad package format.
The solution is: better packaging and a package naming and versioning standard to give developers a single target.
The RPM format and tools like yast and urpmi have all the necessary mechanisms in place.
That ERPM idea would just lead to bloated packages and unnecessary installation of slightly different versions of libraries.
WTF! why does everyone keep saying debian, slack ,etc aren't for newbies. Do you think newbie = DUMB?? My first linux distro ever was slackware. I was a linux newbie. I failed my first install cause I was lacking some disks, and my 2nd install was fine. And so I learned how to USE linux, not how to try to emulate my comfortable windows environment in a different system that _should_ be different.
Do you think newbie = DUMB??
Of course they think that. Ever read a discussion about Linux usability (well, just like this one)? At around post 5 to 6, the mythical creature "Joe Average" pops up, who is too dumb to turn his PC on if it does not have a big, red "push me to get to the pr0n" button on it. It is totally ridiculous and yet used all the time, mostly to bash something you have no other argument against otherwise.
"the perfect solution would be that every rpms came with not jsut a list of dependencys but allso a url for downloading them if they where not installed. and every system would be able to, when you"
Actually thats what autopackage will have.
from www.autopackage.org FAQ:
Does it do automatic dependency resolution like apt and emerge?
Yes, but in a slightly different way. Currently, maintainers are expected to host a small XML file that describes what packages are available, what mirrors are available, and optionally what interface versions the packages fulfil. The skeleton files which encapsulate a dependency contain the URL to this XML files, therefore the "bootstrap" info needed to locate a dependency is built into the package. These XML files are a part of the luau project. The idea is that project maintainers themselves build and host the packages, rather than have huge FTP servers with them all on.
It's almost political, the way we view Linux, with a split between conservatives and progressives. Call me a progressive. Linux is good enough for me to use every day, but that doesn't mean I don't want to see improvements. Apt and synaptic and so on, and so forth, are all nice and nifty, but that doesn't mean there couldn't be yet an easier and more versatile way of installing software. Maybe it will be autopackage or zero install, or something else entirely, I dunno; whatever it is, I look forward to it. Choice is good for many things, and maybe it's helpful for development of the best way to do things, but sooner or later, a standardized form of software management WILL happen, and that will be a great day.
"I wouldn't sweat too much about Longhorn doing a terrible amount of damage."
Me either... They don't appeal to the same user group. The Linux crowd is going to run Linux, and the Windows crowd despite a slew of issues still has very little incentive to change. Lornhorn isn't going to find it's way onto every desktop, and Linux isn't either. Leaves things pretty much where they stand today.
Just because I may have said that the current solutions work, doesn't mean that I don't think there is room for improvement. And I'm sure that the majority of people that oppose certain ideas would say the same.
I find some of the current package managers easier to use than Windows installers. The majority of people who complain about package management seem to want something Windows like though. This, I think is where the conflict is arising.
Unless someone is suggesting a solution that will make everyone happy, then it's just a waste of time.
I would like to see a system similar to the following:
KARPM (Kickass RPM) - If it's missing a dependancy, it checks an online database of common dependancies. It downloads the one(s) you need. If it cannot find it, it checks to see if the maker of the RPM provided any links to download dependancies of the software.
This way the RPM wouldn't be bigger than it is now.
This way you can get an RPM that YUM/Symaptic doesn't have, yet have those dependancies solved as if you used them
<.<
nah pal, you have got it wrong. We don't class Joe Average, Joe User, Joe Public or Joe anything as DUMB.
There will always be noobs, whether they move to Linux from Windows, or just go to the shop and buy a PC.
We was all noobs once upon a time, and people like me, with my experience, are always around to lend a helping hand to point them straight. If you look at any of my posts, I always include an email address if anyone wants help that much.
Todays newbie might be tomorrows expert. Depending on their experience with whatever they are trying to do.
ALTHOUGH what you said seems to be the crux of the problem. A noob installs Linux and finds it too hard to make the transition straight away. They ask a few questions on boards and the "L33T" tell them to rtfm, and so the newbie gives up, feeling stupid and ignored. It is this culture that the Linux userbase.. (note, not a community, coz there are loads of muppet "l33ts" in there).. need to destroy before Linux will take off properly and get up to the top where it belongs. Well in my opinion anyway :^)
My offer is open, anyone who wants help with Linux on their machine, gimme a shout at that email address up there, I will of course try to help without making you feel dim,
nah pal, you have got it wrong. We don't class Joe Average, Joe User, Joe Public or Joe anything as DUMB.
Well, to me it seems so. In almost every Linux-usability thread, there are at least a dozen references to "mum", "Joe Average", "grandma" who want to do simple stuff like working with a cam (which has a manual, btw) and they are expected to be able to do everything without at least simple knowledge. I do not like that mindset (it expects people to be braindead and in turn they become braindead), but I guess I am in the minority.
And in my newb-time (1 1/2 years ago) I did not get told to rtfm at all, although I don't know if that was atypical. It depends on the question, though.
Thanks, I'll keep those distros in mind. My point is that this kind of out-of-the-box performance should be the norm, not the exception.
RPM-distros need a central repository where to install packages & their dependencies from. Pkgsrc and Pacman are great package management systems but they need a GUI frontend (don't know if there exists a GUI for Portage). APT has aptitude and synaptic, and I've found both to be very helpful in browsing the available packages. In FreeBSD I always use portsman.
A good GUI frontend to a package management system shows the available packages in clear categories and gives a short description of each package (and possibly also shows dependencies). Equipped with this kind of GUI installing, upgrading and uninstalling packages shouldn't be too difficult even for a complete newbie.
Well, to me it seems so. In almost every Linux-usability thread, there are at least a dozen references to "mum", "Joe Average", "grandma"
It's called putting the user in the drivers seat.
who want to do simple stuff like working with a cam (which has a manual, btw) and they are expected to be able to do everything without at least simple knowledge.
And why is this bad? hint, it isn't!
The user should be in the drivers seat within ten minutes of using a simple desktop, or when trying out a new application. (see, the ten minute rule)
And when it comes to a cam/webcam, it should just work as expected, i.e when plugged in it must be readily availible to the vfs layer, so that the desktop applications who can source the information have it availible in a easy to locate location.
The easiest way of downloading images from my cybershot to date is to plug it into my ibook. it just works.
I do not like that mindset (it expects people to be braindead and in turn they become braindead), but I guess I am in the minority.
The computer is a tool, not a fusion PowerPlant.
And in my newb-time (1 1/2 years ago) I did not get told to rtfm at all, although I don't know if that was atypical. It depends on the question, though.
Urban Legend. perpetuated by "the other side of the fence"
"Sure, I could use Apt-get to install everything, but what happens if I forget to pay my internet bill?"
as you may know with apt-get u can choose which program(s) u wanna install and apt-get fixes any dependencies involved.
The easiest way is to install new fresh Linux is to install knoppix on the HD and then synaptec (gui for apt-get).
Debian Rocks
If you're so afraid you forget to pay your Internet bill and are dependant on this then how many times a year does it happen? Perhaps you'd rather want to automate that process? Or you download the Debian CD's and use these as repository for your packages instead.
"It's fun to play around with Linux sometimes but it feals like not much has happened since RH 6.0."
uHmmm well "much" is highly relative isn't it? I ran RedHat 6.0 and it used GNOME 1.x, KDE 1.x, Netscape, no Office suite, RPM 3.x, Linux 2.x. In the meanwhile, actually a LOT happened. WINE, WineX, CrossOver, many office suits, improvements in DE's, improvements in package management, gaming is flourisihing -- Those are all IMO lots and lots of happenings (and we're only discussing desktop here).
I never liked RPM very much though. It's one of the reasons why i prefer Debian which comes with APT.
"The good things since RH6.0 is the new kernel, OO.org, Moz Firebird, KDE3 and some smaller things but the OVERAL FEAL still sucks"
You're entitled in having the feeling it sucks, but without any arguments why (except "not much happened") it doesn't make sense to me.
"as Eugina allways tries her readers to understand when she tries to like a distro in her reviews but allways ends up telling us how many bugs there were or how hard it was to install new apps because of the dependecncy hell."
Yep. And those are all individual reviews, not necessarily related to every Linux distribution.
Tis very unlikely you as end-desktop-user will find bugs in Debian GNU/Linux Woody. I am not experiencing any outstanding bugs in Debian GNU/Linux Sarge either and as always and as explained before i am not experiencing any dependancy hell in Debian. Please do not generalize. Thank you.
"Installing packages is my biggest gripe about Linux. Sure, I could use Apt-get to install everything, but what happens if I forget to pay my internet bill? I can't install anything, then. One of the things that makes Windows so popular is that if you download a setup program and activate it, it installs your new software without a hitch, providing the developer made it compatible with your system."
Right. So you go from "what do I do when I can't access the internet?" (answer - get your packages from the distro CD) to "look what happens when I download software on Windows!" What? How does that even come within spitting distance of making sense?
what needs to happen is the three major RPM based distros (RH,Man,SUSE) need to come together and set up a dependancy base line. It's really simple all you do is make a list of the basic packages contained in all three distros. When you make an RPM you check that if the package has dependancies other than the base line list you add the RPM's in a big Tar, then whenever you post a package it comes with everything you need!
They ask a few questions on boards and the "L33T" tell them to rtfm, and so the newbie gives up, feeling stupid and ignored. It is this culture that the Linux userbase.. (note, not a community, coz there are loads of muppet "l33ts" in there).. need to destroy before Linux will take off properly and get up to the top where it belongs. Well in my opinion anyway :^)
raver, while I agree that such L337s are annoying, they hardly represent the majority of the community. I've usually found that asking for help in the proper manner results in useful help. Yes, there is a *proper* way to ask that's based on simple courtesy and not expecting a stranger to immediately, deus ex machina, solve all of your problems. Sometimes RTFM is appropriate because the answers are already available and time is a limited resource.
However, in any internet conversation there is one general rule-of-thumb: wear a thick skin 
The weakness of all the Red Hat Linux releases up to and including Red Hat 9 wasn't the RPM format, it was the lack of a dependency resolver shipped as standard. Fedora Core 1 and 2 have now solved this, with support for yum, which resolves and downloads any dependencies you might need.
What's this stuff about not paying your Internet bill? If I did that, I wouldn't even bother switching my PC on, cos a home PC is pretty useless without a Net connection!
One big advantage that RPMs (and other packaging formats like .deb) have is that you can roll out the same package to hundreds of machines easily and completely non-interactively - it's exactly why I don't version chase OpenOffice.org because it's very difficult to roll out their binary release automatically to multiple Linux desktops (I just wait for an RPM to turn up, but it can be a long wait...).
Many of the things you are mentioning are strengths of Linux. Your solutions I heartily disagree with. I DO, however, believe ease of use is key to the future of Linux. We need to come up with good solutions, however, rather than looking to Windows as an example.
If you use yum, just like apt-get or urpmi, you can achieve just about anything... plus with all the great "third-party" repos, you can get almost *any* linux software out there. Heck, I just found out that I could get Scorched3D, wesnoth, and Mozilla FireFox using it (three programs that I had yet to date gotten working on any other system becuase of failed dependencies).
Given the way that Linux is growing, and at a rapid rate too, in 2-3 years (maybe less) you will see as much if not more functionality than that of M$ Wind0ws.
Also, with the current release of FC2 (whiich is amazing) and the way that Fedora has been progressing over the past year, it should be almost completely stable with the next two releases or so. Personally, I can't wait for FC3.
Package management is probably the problem that will slow down Linux adoption because from my point of view Linux is now robust enough to replace Windows in many places but lack some big commercial applications. Software companies will have to choose which package management they will support (RPM, APT, ...) and consumers will have to choose a distro depending on the software they want to use ... for instance CATIA with Fedora/RPM, Photoshop on APT/Debian and SAP on Suse.
The lack of standard make Linux distro huge (at list 4 CD) because every distro create its own binary for sotfware. Big distro will become a de facto choice if you don't want to recompile source code.
Autopackage is really interesting and hope more developpers and people will invest in it.
I agree that dpkg is no better than rpm as a format. Perhaps a little better, but not in any significant way.
Real strength of Debian -- what makes the difference -- is the fanatical devotion of Debian maintainers. Keeping a top notch distribution is a labor intensive process.
Everybody should thank to them.
I have to agree with the article. Users want ease.
There's a misconception out there about exactly what Joe, Mum and Grandma are capable of. The short of it is that a lot of them are capable of very, very little! Joe Grandmas have trouble using cut and paste, and are hardly able to install any Windows software let alone install the OS. Essentially there's a whole world of people out there who struggle with computers every day, and they rely heavily on friends and family to help them out whenever something goes wrong or needs installing. It's unreasonable to expect Linux distributions to be so usuable that Joe Grandma can fully administer it, either today or in ten years' time.
To reduce stress levels in the Linux computing environment please use one of the following:
Debian - General Users (I just want it to work)
Gentoo - Power Users (I want it my way)
Slackware - Control Freaks (My way is the correct way)
There's a misconception out there about exactly what Joe, Mum and Grandma are capable of. The short of it is that a lot of them are capable of very, very little! Joe Grandmas have trouble using cut and paste, and are hardly able to install any Windows software let alone install the OS. Essentially there's a whole world of people out there who struggle with computers every day,
The misconception is that they should be able to do these things without a shred of knowledge which I find absolutetly horrible and impossible to make reality.
and they rely heavily on friends and family to help them out whenever something goes wrong or needs installing. It's unreasonable to expect Linux distributions to be so usuable that Joe Grandma can fully administer it, either today or in ten years' time.
Damn right. If Windows and OS X cannot do it because these people are incapable of learning the concepts and commands, then leave it at that and make it easier for those who administer the systems to dumb them down for them. These unrealistic expectations of "But my grandma wants to print out her taxes and she has to push more than two buttons, confoozing! Linux/Windows/OSX/BeOS/Whatever is just not there yet for the desktop!!!!" are so nuts.
Linux will be ready for desktop use by average users when a full-featured, powerful distribution is offered with a set of tools allowing for complete command-line-free use and administration.
Linux will be ready for desktop use by average users when a full-featured, powerful distribution is offered with a set of tools allowing for complete command-line-free use and administration.
You are spot on, dave. I could not have said it better myself.
I never liked RPM very much though. It's one of
the reasons why i prefer Debian which comes with APT.
That's just ignorant.
The .rpm and .deb formats do the SAME thing: they combine program files and dependency information into a single file.
The Debian equivalent of the 'rpm' tool is 'dpkg'. Both install and uninstall packages, but neither can automatically resolve dependencies.
'apt' uses the lower-level services of dpkg to provide access to local and remote package repositories and automatically resolve dependencies. As do SuSE's yast, nd Mandrake's pmi/rpmdrake, and Fedora's yum.
After reading over this article ant the appended comments I at least feel that I have a better understanding of some of the same problems I've been having with Linux. A lot of people seem to be bashing Mr. LaCroix for posting his oppinion about the state of Linux usablity but I must say that his points as some have already mentioned are at the heart of GNU/Linux being widely adopted as a Desktop OS.
The fact is that Linux, at least the distributions that I've tried, are much to difficult to use at the level that I and other experenced windows users can use windows and still be satisfied. The point is that if I want to install some new piece of software to do a particular task, I learn about it and then I download it or retrieve from somewhere and then follow the quickest possible proceedure to get it up and running. Where it seems Linux fails is in the last part, because knowing about dependencies and using the command line shouldn't be nessecary however it seems that some distros it still is with the default configuration. I should note too that I'm talking about any software made for linux, not just the binaries that are avialable for your particular distribution. Gaim for instance disn't have an updated package I needed, so I tried to build from source only to find I needed to satisfy a dependency first... ok so now I have to go look for that too? what if that one also has a dependency? The reason why windows users complain about this is because they are not used to the task of installing software to be a chore but instead quick, painless, and rewarding. This doesn't mean Linux couldn't have something better than Windows in the future or that some distribution that is hidden under a rock doesn't already have it.
Another gripe is that I think goes along with the comment made that Linux doesn't have a place for the Windows Power User, is that once something goes wrong it's all man pages and command lines. In all my days of using Windows, there hasn't been one time I could fix problems with my computer and it almost never required use of the command line no matter how screwed up things were. Now to compare that to Linux, if one thing goes wrong it's time to read a book long man page, sift through a flat organization commands, and memorize a buch of cryptic options and switches just praying that something goes right.
Now don't get me wrong, I love the OSS movement and Linux however anybody who can't understand and respect the value simplicity and clarity in OS (or should I say distro) usability may be doing more damage to the community that good.
Thanks everybody for all the great info in this discussion and thanks Jeremy for bringing up this topic before I had to.
I agree with your aricle that RPM sucks, which it does suck. I cannot believe redhat or fedora cannot improve their package management and system management tools.
One suggestion is to switch too Gentoo Linux. One everything is built by source and you can customize your system to your needs. Another clear advantage is Emerge. Emerge tool is awesome for package management and system management. If there are dependencies for a certain package emerge will download them and then build them before building the initial package. Also, you can keep your system updated by using emerge as well. I will not go into detail you can check out www.gentoo.org. One downfall is the installation of gentoo. check out www.najatech.com for an installation script written in python and using xml it is open so you can get the code and play around with it
Thank you guys for reading my article and for your comments, you guys are great!
i have had to use the commandline in win2k a lot lately. for some reason i got some screwed up files while trying to download them and windows refused to delete em as explorer was blocking. the only way to delete them was for me to boot into safe mode with commandline and delete them that way...
allso, i love the man files. atleast they cover every last bit of a command or file if its in there, and you can access it all from the commandline (and its a godsend if xfree figures out that its lockup time). atleast one have something to fall back on as the entire os can be configured from the commandline. from what i recall, if the gui in windows gets messed up its reinstall time. in fact windows users are so used to doing reinstalls that you will find them reinstalling linux over and over if they mess up something small at times...
like i stated before in this post, the only thing rpms are missing are url info about their dependencys when and if the cds or ftp servers dont contain the needed files. other then that i would love to see rpmdrake/urpmi in mandrake have the ability to be deliverd a rpm that is outside of the known packages, like say "urpmi -if (install file) somefile-1.2.3.rpm" and a browse to file function in rpmdrake. maybe you can even link rpm files to rpmdrake in kde/gnome that way so that when a user doubleclick on the rpm they get a friendly installer that requests the root password (alltho it would be interesting to use these kinds of programs via sudo)...
I just wanted to answer jeff's comment. It doesn't seem like many people are bashing the OP. They are giving helpfull comments. You should know the difference and learn to deal with some criticism.
Second of all, why is it such a pain to use a command line? The command line is the reason linux and other unices are much more powerfull and in the end usable. If you want to learn how to use linux, learn how to use the command line. That's just how it works.
It seems that everytime you hear somebody bashing linux he is a "windows power user" who apparently expects linux to behave exactly the way his windows system does. If that is the way you feel, go back to your windows system. You will be more happy. If you want to use something that is completely (well, not entirely, but a bit) different you should take the time to learn a bit about it. I haven't met one windows power user that hasn't formatted his drive at least 12 times in the past year, or that has never messed around in the windows registry, or doesn't know how a batch file works. But apparently windows is so much easier to use.
I especially agree with the person's (intentional?) misspelling of this sentence: "n all my days of using Windows, there hasn't been one time I could fix problems with my computer ". That's what I know about windows. Mostly you just end up reinstalling the damn thing. DLL hell is ten times worse than dependency hell. Mostly because dependency hell is something only the noobies have to go through.
I think there should be a "new" kind of RPM (Maybe call it "Enhanced RPM", or ERPM or along those lines) that contains all the dependencies you may need for that program.
The problem with this is that the dependencies go all the way down to the kernel. You're going to end up with HUGE packages. For example, kbiff, a cool little system tray applet, needs kdelibs. kdelibs needs qt, xml2, gettext, and lots of other stuff. qt needs xlibs, png, and other stuff. xlibs needs fontconfig. Etc. So a tiny 100k program suddenly gets stuffed into 100Mb package! That's overkill!
man i hate that term. power users tend to people who are self-taught and computer literate. what that means is someone with huge holes in their knowledge base, and alot of rote memorization. linux is a hell of alot easier to a newbie then a windows power user, because a windows power user expects things to look and work a certain way, and if they dont then everything else they know about computers falls apart.
here is where the difference is. a linux "poweruser" learns how and why things work the way they do. a windows "poweruser" learns how. very big difference. if you dont understand why doing something in windows does what it does, then when faced with a similar thing in linux, you will be totally lost and without a clue. if you learn why something does what it does, along with how to operate it, you immediately grasp the underling concept behind any implementation you will ever run accross.
#1 golden rule for all microsoft power users who wish to learn linux. linux is different then windows. windows is built from the gui down, linux is built from the commandline up. that means you can do everything on the commandline, and you can do most things with the gui, rather then the other way around like in windows.
this means invest the time and learn bash. thats the first thing you need to do. ignore stuff like nautilus and konquorer, do all your file management in bash. when you mess up a config file in x, go to runlevel 3 and fix it, dont reinstall the os cause the gui is broken.
as for dependancy hell, please, for the love of god, dont use an rpm based system. compiling from source is a billion times easier and you have will alwas have access to the latest versions of everything. just how hard is ./configure && make && make install? i mean honestly? it works 95% of the time, which is more then i can say for rpm -i. if tarballs are too much, use a debian based system, the debian repositories contain everything you will ever need, and it is far easier to install stuff then windows. fire up synaptic and you have a list of hundreds of applications that are freely available to install with just a double click.
linux is a mess from a usability point of view. windows is a mess from a usability point of view. the only people i have ever seen come close are apple and be, and look where it got them?
as for the whole "erpm" thing, its impossible. you would have to include the dependancy chain all the way down to glibc and then the kernel, which needless to say is wildly impractical. what you want is what windows does, static compilation and mass duplication of code that is extremely similar, both in ram, and on the hd. theres a reason you need the kind of ram you do to run windows... personally, i am happy to sacrifice ~10 minutes to install a new app. i make tgzs of what i want to keep, and afterwords its a matter of an installpkg *.tgz to install the app. how is this hard? how is it harder then windows? it sure is different, it requires knowledge of a very different os, but that doesnt mean hard.
Ok, guys. Look at the following statements from the opinion article:
Opening line:
Linux In 2004 - Usability Needs A Facelift
Closing statement:
That's what Desktop Linux needs to focus on, the "casual User". In order to thwart Microsoft, we need a Linux version that does everything it does and better. Microsoft's ease of use plus Linux, equals the best Operating System the world has ever seen, but unfortunately, I don't think it's in development yet.
Now, read this:
kromagg said: Second of all, why is it such a pain to use a command line?
Obviously this guy is not being truly heard. I bet if you stop some people on the street and ask them what a command line is you will probably get a response from most of them like, "uh, isn't that like a term they use in English class or something?" Only IT geeks like us and and the most adventurous home user would know what the command line is. Much less use it. And "DLL hell" and "dependency hell?" Once again, only those in the same category I just mentioned will know or care what those phrases mean.
To be a direct competitor with microsoft, linux needs to be more usable for the home user, period. Since that is the market we have to corner in order to take microsoft. That is the market share that microsoft owns like 90-something percent of, and the vast majority of that market are users who know crap about dynamic link library, or dependencies, much less care to know. For the most part windows has been able to leave the use of the console to a very small minimum.
In my opinion, we need a distro that rivals and exceeds the usability of microsoft, (i.e. - NO command line, no manual editing of files, and maximum gui use for maximum ease) so we can appeal to and corner that part of the market and win it. And still have our bread and butter distros for those that truly know and love linux.
I agree wholeheartedly with what dave said about 10 posts back:
Linux will be ready for desktop use by average users when a full-featured, powerful distribution is offered with a set of tools allowing for complete command-line-free use and administration.
Exactomundo.
Okay, everyone repeat after me: you don't have to use the command line to install software in Linux! There are GUI tools to install software and automatically solve dependencies on all major distributions.
Someone has remarked that you don't always find the software you need in a distro's repository. Well, tough luck. There are over 7,000 packages in the Mandrake repositories, and over 10,000 in Debian's. If you really, really need to use the latest, unstable version of a particular software and can't wait the couple of days it usually takes for it to get to the software repositories, then you are not considered a "normal user" but rather a power user...
The problem is that Windows Power User want all the experience they've acquired on Windows to carry over in Linux. I know, I was one myself a couple of years ago. Now, I'm all for making Linux easier to use for newbies (in fact, my very non-geek gf uses Linux at home now, and finds it as easy as Windows). But we certainly don't have a responsibility towards power-users. They're bright enough to have figured out Windows, they can figure out Linux.
Newbies will never have to use the Command Line in Linux. Power Users, however, should consider learning the basics as they will find that it is an extremely powerful tool. I'm a GUI person myself (I remember my unabated excitment the first time I saw a Lisa, oh so many years ago), but I regularly use the command line at home - just because it's convenient for particular tasks. In fact, I've installed Cygwin on my work computer so I can use it on Windows as well.
That's not to say that the command line is not newbie-friendly either. Remember, there was a time when newbies didn't have a choice - all PCs used a cli of some sort. And you know what? They managed to learn it pretty quickly. However, you don't have to use it in Linux - there are GUI tools for all newbie tasks.
Someone said:
In my opinion, we need a distro that rivals and exceeds the usability of microsoft, (i.e. - NO command line, no manual editing of files, and maximum gui use for maximum ease) so we can appeal to and corner that part of the market and win it.
We have those distros already: Lindows, Xandros, Lycoris. Heck, even regular distros you can use without ever going to the CLI (my GF has no problem using Mandrake 10, and she's as newbie as they get). Usability is not an issue anymore - and in fact, the Mac shows that superior usability is not that effective in gaining over market share.
(BTW, removing the CLI and text files would be pretty stupid - the important thing is to have GUI tools that can modify the text files and perform command-line action, and most current Linux distros have those.)
Anyway, at the risk of repeating myself, it's not newbies that complain about Linux ease-of-use, but power users. Just like someone who's come to know everything about a particular app won't like to change to another app that does the same thing, but differently - whereas a newcomer will be a lot more receptive.
I've seen linux work of the computer illiterate and I've seen it work for the techno geek. But you say it doesn't work for the windows power user?
Let me tell you, I was a windows power user! I knew all the tricks and trades to keep windows safe, secure and stable. But guess what even with all the knowledge in the world its nothing compared to the stability, security and ease of use that linux is on the desktop just because there is no 'tweeking' involved. The biggest windows power user is the people that play games. Well I never play games on a pc and to the I always say go with a concole. Its thousands of dollars cheeper and you don't have to worry about security and stability issues!
Does anyone know if there's in Windows something similar with "dmesg" in Linux (& *BSDs). In other words, is there a way to show the boot messages afterwards in Windows?
Okay, nun.
I use Xandros OS Version 2 BE, and to say that one never has to go to the command line in that version, despite how easy it claims to be, is a blatantly wrong statement.
Now, I have said this on a topic prior to this one, mainly to debunk what Solaris up there was stating on that topic: if one installs a linux distro as easy as xandros with the many default apps and NEVER installs any other software on it, then of course, no one will have to go to the command line. But what if someone plunks money down on a distro, decides he/she wants to install some new hardware, i.e.- ati video card, and needs to install the drivers for it. Then configure it, which I guarantee, requires some command line intervention, because I have had to do it, with the very distro that you claim doesn't require it. And logitech quickcam usability, which I also have, and am trying to get working with xandros. Oh, a driver (phillips, if I remember correctly) is available, but it requires a friggin kernel recompile, which requires guess what? Right. It is little things like these that can potentially have a huge impact on the use of linux on the desktop.
The problem is that Windows Power User want all the experience they've acquired on Windows to carry over in Linux. I know, I was one myself a couple of years ago. Now, I'm all for making Linux easier to use for newbies (in fact, my very non-geek gf uses Linux at home now, and finds it as easy as Windows). But we certainly don't have a responsibility towards power-users. They're bright enough to have figured out Windows, they can figure out Linux.
What the hell are you getting at there? We certainly don't have a responsibility towards power-users? No one's asking you. And this is about linux' success on the home desktop. If linux wants to succeed in that realm, changes in ease of use must occur. It doesn't matter if it's the windows newbie, casual user, or power user.
Actually the control file for .deb format has more (useful) information than .rpm format, in particular Conflicts, Recommends, Suggests, Replaces and Priority fields. dpkg also has special config file handling. All these allow for the *possibility* of seamless installs/upgrades, though if one is tracking testing/unstable it may be a problem.
Another thing is that although rpm does have a "provides" thing, it does not make extensive use of it. Debian uses it for virtual packages and then in dependencies; e.g. package xyz requires mail-transport-agent and exim/sendmail/postfix... all provide mail-transport-agent. Similiarly, debian makes extensive use of installation scripts to provide alternatives/menu/mime/debconf/defoma ... systems.
Someone mentioned about many freebsd's would have the same problems; but there are already commercial debians (xandros, linspire) and these problems are not there. It is because the distribution model debian (and BSD's) followed from the start: that of online repositories which allow dependency tracking. So the commercial debians at least try to be compatible in package names and dependency etc. (their problems are different, that current versions track testing to provide latest/greatest) I agree that the problem of debian for *desktop* users is the long release cycle and tracking testing/unstable may not be pleasant always.
I think this problem will also disappear soon as the desktop has matured enough, and one would not feel the need for latest/greatest; after all there are better things to do than downloading/installing packages or latest versions of distributions.
Debian has an open Debian Policy for packages, ... and the commercial debians try to follow it. Linux world would have been much better if Redhat had followed the distribution model of Debian/BSD, an open policy regarding packaging and community based repository since the very beginning.
While it's a good idea in general to solve the dependency issues, the solution offered by the author isn't. If you would have to bundle all dependencies with each download, they would grow 2;3 or up to 100 x their normal sizes. It would only make the whole network slower (and more expensive).
The ERPM should be based on the 'bittorrent'-principle, but instead of looking for several parts of the file it should look for each dependency. I don't know how familiar you are with bittorrent but here 's the main principle: the torrent cuts up a file/folder in several pieces. It then gives each piece a checksum. The bittorrent itself is about 2 or 3 kb. If you open it with a bittorrent client it will read the info: how many pieces there are, how large, their checksum and the checksum of the complete file (hash). Applied to ERPM: instead of cutting it up into pieces cut it up into dependencies. Each 'dependency' has an unique ID-number. The ERPM managing client should 'construct' the file combining all dependencies and packages, so it would 'build' the installation for you. But you would still have larger downloadfiles I hear you say. Therefor it would be better to keep the '5-cd distribution'. In most distro's you already have a package manager. If the ERPM management software would also look in that database first for the needed dependencies it would differ alot in downloadsize/speed. For packages not included on the cd's it then could connect to a main database, looking up the Id of the needed package and rederecting the software to the apropriate downloadpage where the ERPM software would get the package from.
The result should be an executable file that would install like a normal installation file in windows.
Kind regards,
Sjaaksken
I use Xandros OS Version 2 BE, and to say that one never has to go to the command line in that version, despite how easy it claims to be, is a blatantly wrong statement.
Okay, truth be told I haven't used Xandros, so I shouldn't have talked about that particular distro.
However, I still stand by the fact that a newbie will never have to use the command line if he doesn't want to. Of course, if he adds hardware, he should make sure that it's supported by Linux first. That's only common sense. If the hardware is supported, then it won't be necessary to install drivers.
The exception, of course, is video cards. I can't talk for ATI, because I have a NVIDIA card. If you want utmost performance from a NVIDIA card, you will have to use the command line to run their installer (you don't have to, the nv driver is set up by default, on Mandrake at least, so you still boot up to a GUI).
However, installing new hardware such as video cards (I'm not talking about plugging in a USB device, here) is not something which newbies will tend to do - rather, that's what I'd classify as "power user" activity, even on Windows.
Let's compare apples with apples here: when people buy a computer, Windows is already installed and configured. Newbies don't install and configure OSes (I can't tell you how many times I've installed Windows for people...). Let's compare that with a PC with Linux pre-installed and configured. In that scenario, why would a newbie ever need to use the command line?
if one installs a linux distro as easy as xandros with the many default apps and NEVER installs any other software on it, then of course
Uh...why do you talk about software, then immediately after give an example about hardware? In fact, a newbie can install tons of software on a Linux system without resorting to the command line. As I've said before, there are plenty of GUI tools to install software that resolve dependencies. Additionally, autopackage.org is starting to make its way among developers (though still slowly...)
Please, if you're going to make an argument, don't confuse the issues.
What the hell are you getting at there? We certainly don't have a responsibility towards power-users? No one's asking you.
Power users don't want to change their habits - i.e. many seem to want Linux to behave in a way identical to Windows. If that was the case, why bother switching anyway?
And there's no need to be all uppity about it. I gave you my opinion, that's all. My point is that Linux is a different OS than Windows. Newbies don't have much problems using it, as my experiment with my girlfriend has proven to me. It's power users that complain.
And this is about linux' success on the home desktop. If linux wants to succeed in that realm, changes in ease of use must occur.
If that was true, then Mac OS X would be taking away market share from Windows, as it is much superior in ease of use. However, this isn't happening. Another good example is BeOS. It was better and easier to use than Windows, and yet it withered away.
What Linux needs to succeed on the home desktop is a) preinstalled machines; b) more people using Linux at work, so they bring it home (which is how the PC won over the home market in the first place); c) more marketing presence.
It doesn't matter if it's the windows newbie, casual user, or power user.
Listen, I'm not saying that ease of use isn't important - it is. And in fact, great progress has been made in this area, and more will be made. But ease of use is mostly important for newbies and casual users. Power users will always have to unlearn a few things before they can learn new ones.
Okay, first things first. I am not getting uppity, moo. I was responding to the fact that you more or less stated that windows power users are to be ignored in the effort to simplify linux for the masses.
Power users optimize an OS to it's maximum performance and usability. I consider myself one. And I use windows still (for gaming and stuff that I can't yet readily do in linux, i.e.-webcam use with MSN messenger), but I have steadily used linux for a little over a year. So, power users can change and many want to.
However, I still stand by the fact that a newbie will never have to use the command line if he doesn't want to. Of course, if he adds hardware, he should make sure that it's supported by Linux first. That's only common sense. If the hardware is supported, then it won't be necessary to install drivers.
Cool, stand by it. And if a newbie downloads or purchases a distro based on the fact that his hardware is supported and/or newer drivers are available for it, but he has to download the drivers and install them, then what? Well, I thought my hardware was supported? Yeah, it is. Now, open up a terminal dude, and get to it. Oh, shoot.
Uh...why do you talk about software, then immediately after give an example about hardware?
Obviously you didn't get that I was trying to give credibility to the huge linux software base included with the majority of distros. One may not need to install anything else on a system with all the apps that linux provides. And that installing apps without command line is possible in Xandros and Lindows, etc. But, search the Xandros forums and see what it is taking for many to get UT2004 running in Xandros.
I am mainly talking about installing drivers and configuring hardware which presents many a headache. Easily getting full functionality out of the hardware they already have (and enjoyed with windows) when switching to linux is what I am talking about. And even "newbies" who've been using windows for a while upgrade hardware on the fly using windows, not worrying about why the X server doesn't fire up after installing a new GFX card for example. This is something that many prospective linux "newbies" have been able to do with ease in windows. And to get much of that same functionality requires what some have said is not necessary, the console.
If that was true, then Mac OS X would be taking away market share from Windows, as it is much superior in ease of use. However, this isn't happening. Another good example is BeOS. It was better and easier to use than Windows, and yet it withered away.
OS X was pretty proprietary last time I checked and Apple has focused alot on education and in multimedia. To me, that doesn't leave much option into any lack of ease. It works and works well with the hardware and software made for it. And one doesn't have to worry about hitting the terminal because there is really no choice unless someone wants to mess around and config themselves. Hence, part of the reason it's not taking away market share from windows, IMHO.
What Linux needs to succeed on the home desktop is a) preinstalled machines; b) more people using Linux at work, so they bring it home (which is how the PC won over the home market in the first place); c) more marketing presence.
I agree with you there. It can help push linux to succeed. But not in it's current state.
Power users optimize an OS to it's maximum performance and usability. I consider myself one. And I use windows still (for gaming and stuff that I can't yet readily do in linux, i.e.-webcam use with MSN messenger), but I have steadily used linux for a little over a year. So, power users can change and many want to.
Of course. I was a Windows power user myself before coming to Linux. I'm not saying power users won't be able to learn Linux, and that we shouldn't support documentation efforts. But power users, however, have to accept that Linux and Windows are similar on some aspects, but fundamentally different in others. The Linux world is certainly more chaotic, which can be unsettling for some.
Take text config files, which normally you shouldn't have to edit (but may have to, especially if - like any good power users - you want to tweak your system). Some see this as archaic, or not user-friendly. On the other hand, a lot of config file (especially for common apps) are not that complicated, and some contain basic instructions inserted as comments. Most importantly, as text files, it's pretty easy to program GUIs for, which is why there are GUI tools to set most things up...
Cool, stand by it. And if a newbie downloads or purchases a distro based on the fact that his hardware is supported and/or newer drivers are available for it, but he has to download the drivers and install them, then what? Well, I thought my hardware was supported? Yeah, it is. Now, open up a terminal dude, and get to it. Oh, shoot.
Unless they are proprietary drivers, there's no need to download them - simply upgrading the kernel will do for kernel drivers. Upgrading a kernel can be done from withing such advanced package managers as rpmdrake, a GUI frontend for urpmi.
For proprietary drivers, well then it's really up to the hardware vendor to provide packages or GUI installers, isn't it? It would be illegal to distribute them along with the kernel for free distros (although I think that commercial kernel rpms with nvidia drivers are available to Mandrake Club members).
In other words, while this is valid criticism, it's not up to the community or distro makers, but rather the hardware ventdors, to remedy the situation.
(That said, the command-line nvidia installer is a charm to use - I don't see why they don't make a GUI version...)
I am mainly talking about installing drivers and configuring hardware which presents many a headache.
Well, it depends on the hardware. As I've said, the best is to make sure that it's supported. If it is, installing the vast majority of hardware is a breeze, especially USB peripherals. Note that hardware detection and support has increased dramatically for Linux over the past two years. Graphic cards are a special case, for the reason I've given above.
And even "newbies" who've been using windows for a while upgrade hardware on the fly using windows,
Uh, no. I think it's been a while since you've dealt with newbies. Except for USB peripherals (which by and large are as easy to use with Linux as they are with Windows), other peripherals can be a headache to install, especially since so many people are still using Win98 or (the horror!) WinMe. Hardware detection has improved with Win2K and XP, but it's still not a walk in the park for a lot of newbies...
not worrying about why the X server doesn't fire up after installing a new GFX card for example.
Graphics card are definitely a sore point. However, I haven't had much problems on that front. I don't know how fickle ATI's modules are, but I know that NVIDIA's haven't failed me yet.
This is something that many prospective linux "newbies" have been able to do with ease in windows.
Then again, many others have had hard times installing stuff for Windows as well. You make it sound as if installing stuff on Windows always works on the first try - which is often not the case.
Heck, even as a Power User, I couldn't succeed in installing the supplied Windows drivers for my MSI GeForce4 Ti4400 cards on Win98. Every time I've tried to install them I've corrupted the system (it would crash during boot, the only recourse being the dreaded Safe Mode.) I've also struggled to install such simple things as Network cards...
And to get much of that same functionality requires what some have said is not necessary, the console.
Okay, we agree that there should be graphical installers for proprietary drivers, since they can't automatically be installed by the distro. Do you agree that it's the
vendor's responsibility?
OS X was pretty proprietary last time I checked
I don't see what this has to do with anything.
and Apple has focused alot on education and in multimedia. To me, that doesn't leave much option into any lack of ease. It works and works well with the hardware and software made for it. And one doesn't have to worry about hitting the terminal because there is really no choice unless someone wants to mess around and config themselves. Hence, part of the reason it's not taking away market share from windows, IMHO.
I'm not sure how the fact that you don't have to worry about not hitting the terminal is part of the reason it's not taking away Windows market share. Unless you've made a typo, that paragraph apparently contradicts the argument you've been making so far...
I agree with you there. It can help push linux to succeed. But not in it's current state.
So we kind of agree. I just think it's ready enough for quite a few desktop. Working on ease of use is always good, but to me that's not the most important aspect of the equation right now.
And, really, ATI and NVIDIA should distribute graphical installers for their drivers...maybe someone could send them a link to autopackage.org... :-)
Editor- how about requiring your submitters to run a simple spell check on submissions? I mean seriously- 'abosolutely'! It's bad enough the authors that you accept can barely write cohesive thoughts; you could at least police the stuff you approve by seeing to it that it contains proper spelling. Please! What a stinky article.
Ok, I just read the editor's bit about being Greek and not having English as the first language, sorry about spelling, blah blah. Ok, understood, but there really is no excuse for not using a spell check, even if you do a site "for fun" (while taking advertising revenue from some significant advertisers).
Dunno, from what I recall from me windows days, this usability is in some ways a myth. Don't remember for which programme exactly, but I had to install a newer version of msi, which was a pain in the *** cause I first had to find it etc. Kinda like dependency surfing now... ;-)
Also, I once installed Win2000 and SuSE 9.0 on the same box. Win2000 took about 7 CDs and a marvelous total of 14 (roughly) reboots. Whole process took some 2 hours. SuSE needed 30 mins, one reboot, and then it worked. Office, Email, Browsers, everything was there.
To me, that was far easier to install. :-)
Anyway, I sometimes think Windows usability is a myth. Tried to fix a friend's CD burner problems once (XP). Turned out that her user account didn't have the rights to burn, but couldn't find where to do that. Now, with KDE I know there's KUser, which is fairly easy to use. XP? Dunno...
Malte
!@@#%$@#^$@#
"Linux could be better"
<snip>
"...RPMS suck..." (paraphrase>
<snip>
RPMs suck. Yes. I agree. RPM = RedHat Package Manager. Therefore, if you used a different (and not RH based) distro, you wouldn't be using RPMs. And most anything is better than RPMs.
I don't understand this article... If you want ease of installation, there's so many package managers to choose from. It's been done to death in the comments, so I won't go into that.
But the other point is configuration. I can spend hours upon hours looking for a menu item linking to a dialog, and that having infinite tabs, just to configure one single setting in Windows. Often, in most distros, the config. tools are so centralized, that you can make these changes from a single place. And if you're like me, and prefer text files in /etc (or wherever), you can go edit them by hand. Configuration of every distro I've used is far easier than in Windows.
That 3 or 5 CD SuSE you tried using? You do realise that you'd have more than that number to get a complete Windows system up and running, don't you? I'll enumerate: Windows - 1 CD. Office - 2 CDs (yikes! Oo.O is 79 MB, last I checked). Photoshop is on another CD. Winzip, the same. And then, you've got to go on the net to get an IM program (if you don't use MSN), update your system (don't forget to install the blaster and sasser patches in XP) and so on.
I use Gentoo, so there's no comparison for CDs. But Debian, which I'm going to build for a friend, is 2 CDs to get it completely up and running, and one more for some other programs he might want. That's it. One shot.
And you're claiming that Windows is "easier" to setup? Hahahahaha!
You ranted about dependancies. Well, every installer in recent times resolves dependancies beautifully. Also, like others have mentioned, dependencies in the package are going to be bloat worse than XP!
So, there you go. All the reasons why you're not talking sense! :-)
So here is my approach: Desktop Linux needs a set of standard applications and libraries that are used in many apps (call this the "core system"). It would for example include the Kernel, system libraries, and kdebase. This "core system" should be agreed upon, released yearly, and be available in all distros. The "core system" would be installed in the usual Unix filesystem hierarchy (e. g. /etc, /bin etc.)
Now, all additional components should come in "self-containing app directories, or AppFolders", that is folders that contain everything thae application needs to run on the base system, including libraries, sounds, etc.
An AppFolder would not have to be "installed". It would just be copied anywhere to _any_ distro that contains the "core system" and would just run. No apt or rpm needed, no "dependencies" other than the "core system".
And stop, before you say "impossible": Apple has this with .app folders, Rox does something similar on Linux and finally, on klik.berlios.de you can download AppDirs for Knoppix (which in this case serves as the "core system").
In fact, it would be quite easy to change to this system for Linux globally. Small "core systems" (like Windows), and self-containing AppDirs.
The problem with Linux is that the filesystem layout is designed for the programmer, not for the user. "Package managers" are just a crude hack around this.
Mac OS 1985 had it this way: A "System folder" where eyerything was what the system needed to run. And "Application folders", e. g. "MacPaint", where the MacPaint application resided, along with all what it needed to run.
That's the way to go. Not make it more complicated, make it easier! "Installers", "autopackage" and the like are the exact wrong way because they do not remove, just hide the real mess.
Linux 2004 should learn simplicity from Mac OS 1985.
Why should I care where my apps are? I'd rather have an integrated package and update manager. Also, what about multiuser systems (increasingly common, even for home desktops)? If I want to install some apps for everyone, and other apps just for some users?
"Hiding the mess" is what operating systems do, even the classic Mac OSes. What Linux does is that, instead of "bolting the hood shut", it lets you look inside if you want. Most people won't, but some do. Choice, in other words.
Also, having apps as folders is not efficient when programs share libraries - let's say there's a vulnerability in a certain library. If each program uses its own version of the library in their own folder, how do you go about updating all of them easily?
There's nothing wrong with the current package systems, as long as we have intelligent package managers to resolve dependencies and such.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it...
Get redcarpet. It deals with all the dependency
issues u have - just select a package and press
install.
Btw. windows servicepacks and not the same as
linux packages. Servicepacks only contain software
from one company. Software based on multiple rpms
usually depend on work by many different independent
programmers og companies. Windows has nothing to
offer the kind of service that redcarpet has.
Remember what ur mathteacher told u -
u cant compare apples and peares.
It must be possible for each app to have its own version of the libs it needs. If appA needs libC-0.96 and appB needs libC-0.97-fzg and both libs are incompatible - there _must_ be a way to have both installed!
And 3rd party software packages must be binary compatible between _all_ distros (this can only be achieved by not relying on package managers...).
It must be possible for each app to have its own version of the libs it needs. If appA needs libC-0.96 and appB needs libC-0.97-fzg and both libs are incompatible - there _must_ be a way to have both installed!
It is possible. In fact, on my system, I have both KDE 3.2.2 (for everyone) and KDE 3.1 installed (for a single user). I didn't use a package manager in the second case - it's not because you have a package manager that you're forced to use it, you know...
And 3rd party software packages must be binary compatible between _all_ distros (this can only be achieved by not relying on package managers...).
You mean, like OpenOffice.org? Or various software that use the Loki installer? These are compatible with package managers, in the sense that one can have both type of software installed on their Linux box.
However, I disagree with you when you say "it must". It "must" do diddly squat. If distro makers want to package a third party software for their distro, they're free to do it. Personally, I like the package system a lot - it takes a lot less time, and lets me easily track what's installed on my PC. I know it's different from how they do things in Windows or Mac, but that doesn't mean that it's not good.