Linked by David Adams on Mon 24th Aug 2009 09:21 UTC
Linux A reader asks: Why is Linux still not as user friendly as the two other main OSes with all the people developing for Linux? Is it because it is mainly developed by geeks? My initial feeling when reading this question was that it was kind of a throwaway, kind of a slam in disguise as a genuine question. But the more I thought about it, the more intrigued I felt. There truly are a large amount of resources being dedicated to the development of Linux and its operating system halo (DEs, drivers, apps, etc). Some of these resources are from large companies (IBM, Red Hat, Novell). Why isn't Linux more user-friendly? Is this an inherent limitation with open source software?
Permalink for comment 380263
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by ven-
by ven- on Mon 24th Aug 2009 14:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ven-"
ven-
Member since:
2009-08-24

It doesn't? Strange, I could have sworn that being able to do exactly what you asked for would be a good solution.

I never said it wasn't good. It just doesn't help having a system like that if noone uses it.
To be more precise it's actually just very inconvenient to use for the reasons I stated in my original post.

As opposed to Windows where there are numerous different systems for creating installers (InstallShield, WISE, NSIS etc) not to mention that some companies even roll their own. Yes yes, everyone should use MSI but that's not the case in the real world.

The difference with the Windows installers is that they all work for everyone.

So what? It doesn't matters to Joe user who rarely, if ever, switches between distros.

That's beside the point. All the .deb installers in the world won't help you if you don't run a Debian based system.

Good thing there's no such thing as a package manager (or Add/Remove Sofware), eh?

My whole comment was on installing software that's NOT in the repositories.

Edited 2009-08-24 14:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3