I read a lot of reviews comparing GNU/Linux and Microsoft Windows, and inevitably the topic of installing software comes up. Most reviews indicate that installing software in Windows is much easier than that of the desktop GNU/Linux world. I decided to do my own comparison based on my desktop usage to see the difference. The following are my results. Those of you that come from the Windows world may be a tad bit surprised at the ease in which software can be installed.Note: This article is the personal opinion of the author and not necessarily that of OSNews’.
The Windows box I used for this test consisted of 500 MHZ Intel P3 processor with 384 megs of RAM. The Debian box is an old AMD K6-2 366Mhz processor with 128 Megs of RAM. I have a broadband DSL connection that gets a 1.5 megabit a second download speed.
There are several ways to install software on a GNU/Linux distribution. One of the ways is to get a source “tar ball” unpack it, and issue the commands “./configure” “make ” “su -c ‘make install’ ” this will work on every GNU/Linux distro available. However there is a problem with this method: it’s called “dependency hell.” The program that you are trying to install may depend on other libraries that are not installed on your system, and this will prevent the program from installing cleanly or even operating until the dependencies are met. The additional libraries that are needed may also depend on even more libraries hence the term dependency hell.
One of the ways around this is to pick a distro that has an excellent package management system, such as Debian, which uses the apt-get package management system, or Vidalinux, which is based on Gentoo but designed for the desktop, and uses the Portage source tree. Package managers must be linked to a repository. A repository is simply an FTP or HTTP server that has the software configured for a particular distro. For example: Vidalinux is linked to the Gentoo’s Portgage tree which contains over 8000 packages. Debian is set up to link to either the stable, testing or unstable branch of their repository.
Debian, as stated above, uses the apt-get package management system that is shared by several distros that are based upon Debian, including, Ubuntu, Libranet, Mepis ,and Xandros, to name only a very few. The Debian repository also has thousands of titles to its credit. Installing software is as simple as opening a terminal and typing “apt-get install [ package name ]”. The package managers listed not only install the desired package but also install any dependencies that the package may have, effectively eliminating dependency hell. Other distros, Linspire, for exmple, are making the installation of software even easer by placing icons on the desktop that link to the distro’s repository. Simply click the icon, which opens your browser and directs you to the site, then click the desired software that you wish to install. Another way to install software on a GNU/Linux system is by getting a precompiled package in the form of an RPM. Distros such as RedHat, Suse and Mandrake use this format as well as their own individual package managers. Don’t be confused, however; not all distros are RPM based. With an RPM based system, installing software can be as simple as typing the command “rpm -ivh [ package name ]”. Providing that all dependencies are met, and you have a broadband connection, your software will be installed in a matter of only a few seconds.
Virtually any package made can be installed on a Gentoo system right after its release, once it’s added to the Portage tree. Because it is a source-based distro, their repository changes daily as new source packages are added, unlike the other methods where you may have to wait for a package compiled for your distro. One other problem with source-based installs is long compile times, as you will see. It can take hours to install a program by source, even on modern equipment.
I needed a program for this demonstration that was cross-platform to be fair, so I choose the Word Processor Abiword. This a an excellent word Processor and, as stated earlier, is available for multiple platforms including the Macintosh. This article assumes that you know what program you are looking for.
Let’s start out with doing the installation on the Debian based computer first
Step 1 Open terminal
Step 2 type “su -” to gain root privileges
Step 3 enter password
Step 4 type “apt-get install abiword” hit enter
Step 5 type “y” for yes when prompted whether or not you want to install the package.
15 seconds later I was opening Abiword and it was ready for use.
I executed the install procedure once again this time using Vidalinux. Vidalinux is a distribution that is installed with pre-compiled packages for a particular processor or i686 architecture and is designed to be used as a Desktop OS. It uses Gentoo’s Portage tree to gain access to additional packages. It installs the software by compiling the source code. I issued the command “emerge abiword”. Approx 34 minutes later on a system consisting of a Celeron 2.8 Ghz processor with 256MB of RAM, abiword was ready to go. Although installing the program on Vidalinux was time consuming, it is still shorter in steps and an easier process than installing software on Windows.
Now for the Windows installation.
Step 1 open web browser
Step 2 navigate to abisource.com The home page of abiword
Step 3 find and click the download link
Step 4 find and click the Windows Link
Step 5 click OK to save when the dialog box opens
Step 6 wait approx 45 seconds for download
Step 7 close browser and all other running programs.
Step 8 navigate to the setup icon and double click it
step 9 select Language click OK
Step 10 click next when the setup wizard appears.
Step 11 agree to license, click next
Step 12 choose file associations, click next
Step 13 choose Location for installation, click next
Step 14 choose start menu folder options, click next
Wait for installation, approx 35 seconds, click next when completed
Step 15 click finish.
As this plainly shows, I believe that GNU/Linux distros such as Vidalinux and Debian have the upper hand at installing the average desktop users software. I know some will complain about a 34 minute compile time, but if you do you are missing the point. Installing software on a GNU/Linux system does not have to be a tedious task for a desktop user, as thousands of programs are only a very short command away. This may not be a typical procedure for all of GNU/Linux, but there are many excellent desktop distros available today that use apt-get as their package manager making software installation just as easy as above. It is also worth noting that these are not the only two packagers managers available. Fedora uses YUM by default and it can be linked to several different repositories allowing access to thousands of additional packages with the same ease of use.
Score:
GNU/Linux 5
Windows 15
It’s like Golf the lower score wins. However I know some will dispute this and still stick by the notion that installing software in Windows is still easier, but let go of your preconceptions, and give Linux a try, and you’ll see.
Step 16, Windows: reboot
Not necessarily the case with Abiword, but it is with most Windows programs I install.
Try it with an ISA sound card on your K6-333 debian setup, or an off the shelf wireless network adapter.
Windows annoyance: the most trivial software installations require a reboot. Absolutely ridiculous. Only kernel updates require a reboot in most linuxes. Even most driver modules can be build and inserted in a running kernel.
And what about knowing that you need to update said package and its dependencies. On windows, it may notify me when I run it that there is a new version or I have to watch version tracker or some other thing. Using fink/mac osx (which is similiar to debian based linux distros), I just use the finkcommander to do a selfupdate and see what has new versions available all in one place.
e.g. fink selfupdate, python 2.4.1 available today, select outdated python, click install, do some work while it compiles, then its done and ready to use.
-kurt
bias warning: I am one of the many fink package writer s
Whatever. Apparently linux makes your network connection infinitely fast, because there are no “wait” steps involved. Did anyone else notice this?
And somehow, I am not convinced that # of steps = relatively complexity. There is a whole host of visual cues with a graphical installation step–guiding you. I don’t believe that an instruction booklet “i.e. type this and then this and then this” is as intuitive as an interactive interface that can give you hints, cues, and choices….
Whatever happened to that argument, anyway? Linux people used to jump up and down and shout about “choice” and “configurability” and now, a few extra choices are supplied by a GUI command set up, and it’s unconquerable complexity?
Please. This is such a tired debate. Please give up trying to convince us all.
these package managers don’t work well with commercial software. You can’t apt-get install oracle or apt-get install matlab. Commercial software runs into the problem of what package manager to use, and no matter which one they choose they leave out the other distributions. This is where your 15 step installer comes in, it doesn’t care what distro you are using and is better suited for non IT people.
Don’t forget about FreeBSD ports and ZeroInstall…both very cool!
Nice, what a broad and comprehensive comparison. I’m no Windows fanboy, but this is a bit reduntant and pointless.
Who cares how many more seconds the Windows install takes, what I care about is a uniform way of installation of software across the board in Linux, only THEN will it want to compare it to Windows. Sure you can compare debian to Windows, but what about the likes of Gentoo? “Step 1: emerge abiword”, “Step 2: go cook dinner while it compiles”.
I want to download any software out there for any Linux distro and install it on any version of Linux that I have installed here at home, without any hassles or workarounds, until then, don’t tell me Windows’ software installation is bad.
Just because you can type “apt-get install abiword” does not mean that the application will appear in the GUI menus, nor does it place the binary in default location most of the time, ie “Program Files”. Its easy for a experienced user to install and maintain software on a linux machine.
What you should say is “It easy for a novice linux user to install software with apt-get”. And to keep the comparison similar you should have tried the same process of obtaining the application for both platforms. Not using apt-get, and then using IE on windows…..
[off topic]Not to mention….but if someone wanted to
creat a apt-get like system for windows that downloaded and installed common GPL software…it really wouldnt take that long. Like: win-get install abiword[/off topic]
This whole “comparison” was lame.
He should have reviewed installing software under Arch Linux. People who have tried it say that writing your own PKGBUILD scripts is dead easy. :-p
Uhm, I don’t mean to flame, but you have no clue about the real-world user.
If you think that someone is going to grasp ANY Linux installation procedure other than “double-click this icon”, you’re on crack.
However you want to detail it out on “paper”, Windows is just simply easier to install applications on for the average user.
An average user’s brain is going to explode when you ask them to su and use apt-get. And all of this is assuming they:
1. Give two sh*ts about Abiword (they don’t.)
2. Are capable of maintaining a properly updated Linux desktop to ANY degree. (nearly all aren’t).
And lastly, this is all pointless, because MSI packages could be used on Windows, and then it’s often just a double-click.
The other commenter’s words about drivers ring especially true.
I do agree that gnu/linux softwares are easier to install these days, but I never seen a comparison so subjective.
1) There’s also a command line install, (xxx.exe) with switchs that allow you to skip the boring dialogs, for most softs I’ve seen under windows (provided that you have the software already downloaded)
2) you could have said for the linux install:
Step 1 – right click you GUI
Step 2 – open console
Step 3 – type s
Step 4 – type u
Step 5 – wait for the password prompt
Step 6 – enter your password
Step 7 – Search the net for the correct cmdline
Step 8 – type apt-get
Step 9 – type install
Step 10 – type abiword
Step 11 – type [Enter]
Step 12 – wait for the prompt
Step 13 – type y
Step 14 – wait for the install to be completed
Step 15 – Make a sandwich
Step 15 – logoff your su
Step 16 – close your console
…
Anyway I’m not suggesting that windows is easier or that gnu/linux are hard.. but you see my point….
🙂
Actually most of the time reboots aren’t required. The reason for the reboot usually boils down to whoever created the installer covering their ass.
The ease of installing software under Windows is the number one reason why Windows is such a sweet target platform for virus/trojan/worm/malware/adware/etc.
No, in windows 2000 or newer, there is no need to reboot the computer after installing 99% of all of the applications. This review is a bit biased. For one step 7 on the windows is NOT necessary. You do NOT have to close anything to install an application unless you are updating a program that you are running.
Another thing that this article doesn’t take into account is what if you don’t know what application you want? What if you just know what you want the application to do? In windows you go to download.com. In linux you have to go to debian’s site and search the package list descriptions which is much more of a pain.
Personally I think that the mac’s install process beats the both of them. Insert cd or download application, open cd image, drag application to /Applications, drop. (Granted not all applications are like this but most are).
P.S. I’ve seen way to many people using gentoo (myself included) that had programs in portage that would not compile on their system making it impossible to get the application you want.
Completely one sided and everybody’s pretty much said what has needed to be said.
TRUTH: there is NO, ONE UNIVERSAL procedure for installing programs in Linux PERIOD!!!!
Until Linux gets this right there is no way the AVERAGE COMPUTER USER [NOT AVERAGE (*cough* novice) LINUX user] will get the process of installing programs down.
Apt-Get….NO WAIT
RPM’s…NO WAIT
tar balls…NO WAIT
Click N’ Run….NO WAIT
OH F&CK IT JUST COMPILE IT YOUR DAMN SELF!
Oh, come on – don’t complain about Gentoo. If you don’t like a source based distro, that’s one thing, but it also has nothing to do with it’s package manager; Portage could be all-binary if someone wanted to make a Lindows-like distro.
The argument in this article is silly, I agree – but I also have to say I haven’t really had any problems installing software on either platform – and I own finicky hardware like a Radeon 9600.
In linux you have to go to debian’s site and search the package list descriptions which is much more of a pain.
I am pretty sure all package managers allow searching in their local package lists, the tools based on APT definitely do.
Most trivial software installations dont really need a reboot but they assume you are running windows 98 so they ask you to. Most of the last steps also assume that you want to put things other than in their default places which a lot of people I know don’t. So the steps are excaggerated.
The comparison with GNU/Linux assumes that you are using a distro with apt-get and you know the commands (including the exact name of the program) to use it. so for those people who don’t you could excaggerate and add in lots of other steps as well like “open web browser” “navigate to the web page of the distro you are using or other linux help site” “look up commands” “search repository for the name of the program you are wanting to use if you don’t know the right name to put in to get it” “If your app is not in the repository then you are SOL” “do additional steps if it fails”, etc. etc.
It’s kind of like, not everyone knows the commands to use apt-get but they do know how to double click on an icon and hit next, next, next to install a program.
That being said I do agree that using something like apt-get or emerge is pretty easy in ideal circumstances. But sometimes you have to put yourself in other people’s shoes. But I guess that could go both ways like the steps and problems that might arrise that you might think are trivial aren’t trivial to some people.
First off, installing software on Windows is pretty damn consistent, in most cases, if you are installing off a removable device autorun will take care of running setup for you, if that isn’t the case then all you have to do is browse for the setup.exe or install.exe, run it and boom…the majority of the time you’ll have functioning software with icons in the appropriate places.
In GNU/Linux you could install from compiling…which could take ages depending on the size of the program and the speed of the computer, there could be a script that installs a binary, you might have a binary package (i.e. rpm), you could have a packaging system such as apt-get, or you may have this new autoinstall (?), which does look promising. Regardless it’s much less consistent than the Windows option. Also there’s the whole problem with getting new software, packaging systems like apt-get use repositories which need to be kept updated, you can’t simply go to site xyz on the internet and download a program without having to take into account your packaging system and distribution…this is much harder for the average user to deal with then double clicking on install.exe or setup.exe, no if ands or buts about it, sorry. There’s way too many different ways of installing all software on linux, if there was just one way, and I don’t mean compiling, to install every piece of software imaginable on linux that was as easy as a double click on a setup.exe there would not be a problem, this is not to say that users should be able to have the choice of whether they want to compile or whatnot…however this is not the issue, the issue is making it easy for the masses.
Just a few thoughts about this comparison, mainly because I’m a using both Windows and Linux and I know these installation problems all too well. Probably good to note here is that I’m biased towards Linux when it comes to stability and performance and I’m biased towards Windows when it comes to user-friendliness.
First: it’s not worth much if you compare the installation procedures of only one single piece of software. To get a good picture, you’d have to compare the installations of about a dozen different programs which the “ordinary desktop user” uses.
Second: While Linux program installations can range from very easy & straightforward (using a package management system) to really scary (downloading source code & compiling & dependency hell), all Windows program installations are about equally complex (or easy) for the user.
Third: If you count mouse clicks in the Windows installation, you have to count key presses in the Linux installation as well
No, I’m serious here: If you really want to make such a comparison, try to be a bit more scientific and a bit less biased. Otherwise, just forget about it.
You have got to be kidding me. There is no way any sane person can claim linux installation is easier than Windows. I download a file in Windows, double click it, and install it. I don’t even know where to begin in Linux. If installing was so easy in linux then why does every package have their own system: apt, yum, red carpet, click-n-run, and now this whole autopackage deal… it may be easier for a developer, but not for joe six pack.
since when is an ATI 9600 finickey? Try it with windows xp, sp2 and see how finickey it is, or ISA sound cards for that matter.
I would have agreed with the windows installation is easier a year ago myself but more and more windows is getting harder and harder to install and linux is getting easier and easier. And this of course is not taking into account other os installations such as osx.
One of the biggest issues with windows being “easier” up until now was in fact the supposed ease of use of the installation process. But windows installers are getting so arcane that at lest for some programs linux installers are in fact easer.
Also while many programs in windows dont require rebooting MANY MANY do including internal windows programs. In fact theres a few programs i think a driver installer that even if you cancel out of the darn thing it forces you to reboot.
But linux has really come along with here and personally i like the idea of knowing exactly whats being installed on my computer meaning depdencies and whatnot in linux as oppoed to not knowing at all what the windows installer is doing.
Oh and because windows 2000 is getting old many windows programs wont even work on it anymore. Which is a real pain. And lest we forget the internet explorer depdnecy on windows.
1. Click on Smart Package Manager
2. Type root password
3. Search for ‘abiword’
4. Select the package
5. Commit
I first want to mention that people who say that normal users are afraid of the command line or that they will never understand how to use it are completely wrong.
I have seen many normal users use the command line with success.
That said…
portage and apt-get also have graphical user interfaces.
And one of the biggest advantages of apt-get and portage is something like this:
emerge -uD world
or
emerge -uD system
1 single line!!!
Yes, 1 !!!!
Don’t tell me that a normal user can not remember such a command.
Can Windows do something like this?
Not yet, but Microsoft is going to do something similar in their next windows update (although in a graphical ui way)
I think portage is a “copy” of porthole on a bsd system?
Not sure.
But it’s one of the best ways to install software.
A real comparison would be to give a windows user a pre-installed debian system with either KDE or Gnome and see if he can figure it out. He will probably find synaptic and do his best at guessing what’s going on.
I’ve been a linux user since 2002 and think it’s come a very long way since then in terms of applications getting better and KDE and Gnome and IceWM both getting much better. Ubuntu is very nice and has great potential. Hopefully easier to install drivers will be developed, especially for laptop computers.
OK, so you ran apt-get, portage, rpm, compiled, whatever, and now you’re ready to run your shiny new software. How does the newbie do this?
1. Hmmm, it isn’t listed ANYWHERE in the KDE or Gnome menus. I know, some package managers do place menu items, but some don’t. EVERY Windows software DOES! This is a big point!
2. So the user opens a terminal window and types in the name of the program. Nothing happens. Sometimes it does but not always. Then he goes looking for the program and can’t find it. Is it in /usr, /usr/local, /usr/bin, /opt, where? There is NO standardization of that either. This process can add hours to an install process. I know, I’ve been there and have programs “installed” in my Linux machine that I’ve never been able to find!
the gui package managers like synaptic, or lindows click and run make linux installing very easy.
also windows style installers vary between programs which makes them a bit awkward.
and dont forget licence numbers. i was asked to reinstall some comercial software for someone, and had forgotten the hassle of having to search through draws for the original cd case to find a 20 digit code that was required.
everything in your post is vague and incorrect.
Quote:
“1. Hmmm, it isn’t listed ANYWHERE in the KDE or Gnome menus. I know, some package managers do place menu items, but some don’t. EVERY Windows software DOES! This is a big point! ”
Come on, that’s just fiction.
I do:
emerge xchat
and what do I see in my KDE start menu?
That’s right, xchat. And to say that it’s not even a native kde program or even using any kde library at all.
And in the event that the desktop file of a prog is not found by kde, you can let it search for installed software and list it in your startmenu with one or two mouse clicks.
People, please, do not consider years of experience with a windows system, and just starting out with a linux system, as a similar thing.
Windows is easier because you are used to it.
Agreed
I issued the command “emerge abiword”. Approx 34 minutes later on a system consisting of a Celeron 2.8 Ghz processor with 256MB of RAM, abiword was ready to go. Although installing the program on Vidalinux was time consuming, it is still shorter in steps and an easier process than installing software on Windows.
Now for the Windows installation.
Step 1 open web browser
Step 2 navigate to abisource.com The home page of abiword
Step 3 find and click the download link
Step 4 find and click the Windows Link
Step 5 click OK to save when the dialog box opens
Step 6 wait approx 45 seconds for download
Step 7 close browser and all other running programs.
Step 8 navigate to the setup icon and double click it
step 9 select Language click OK
Step 10 click next when the setup wizard appears.
Step 11 agree to license, click next
Step 12 choose file associations, click next
Step 13 choose Location for installation, click next
Step 14 choose start menu folder options, click next
Wait for installation, approx 35 seconds, click next when completed
Step 15 click finish.
So what, I would still choose a windows install over a linux on, beside when you compile does it not ask many quastions about your system?
With linux base system and autopackage ,everything is getting better and easier to the ‘economic detriment’ of the ‘easy’ linux’s like linspire and other $$$ easy linux os’ .
I have a friend who has been using *nix systems for at least 5 years, has a lot of experience with development and still doesn’t know the difference between “su” and “su -“. Doesn’t know that the DISPLAY variable needs to be set to launch an X app or that xhosts needs to be set to allow access to other users on their machine before launching those apps. He does know how to use synaptic, but doesn’t know which packages to get.
But the same can be said about any user for any platform, windows included. If you use a platform for 5 years you usually get pretty good with it. Everyone has been using Windows for the last 5 years, so of course they’ve learned how to install software. They may not know what software is available or how to use it, but they probably know how to double click on the icon and click Next until it is installed.
We could very easily give them the same stupid interface for Linux. But, of course, apt-get style package managment is so much nicer. So they’ll have to learn something new. This will take them another 5 years, after we convert them over to using Linux. So maybe 10 years?
By then Microsoft will be selling a package manager for Windows for only $150. Well worth it, for these people who have a problem with learning new things. They are much happier when they can blame someone else for their ignorance.
quote:
“beside when you compile does it not ask many quastions about your system?”
Some programs do ask for user input, but most programs use the configure tool to do it automatically.
Uninstall Procedure for Firefox
On Windows:
1. Go to Control Panel
2. Click on Add/Remove Software
3. Select Mozilla Firefox
4. Click on Uninstall/Remove
On Linux (using command line):
1. su root -c ‘apt-get remove firefox’
2. Type root password
On Linux (using package manager):
1. Start package manager
2. Type root password
3. Select ‘firefox’ package
4. Commit
On MacOSX:
1. Drag the firefox icon to the trash
I think that a great way to install/uninstall software would be drag an drop aplications to “aplications menu” or window and from this location to trash. Ask for root or administrator password is a good thing, this means that only a user with suficient permissions can install softwares. A little sacrifice for security.
Well i must have learned how to post comments from you.
🙂
Also as far as the others persons rant about how much easier it is to install programs on windows for “the average user”, other then a browser and email client what other applications will the average user be installing that would make windows so much eaiser to install on???
I know for some more complex applications installing on windows was at one time MUCH easer to install then on linux largely because of depdnecy hell.
But linux installers are becoming so much easier to use these days that now the opposite is really becoming the case.
you all people make an assumption that is wrong: you assume that it is always present a broadband network connection. this isn’t the case for many countries, and even when a network connection is present it may be an old 56k modem.
so think about this: how can you install an application under linux _without_ a network connection ? how can you do apt-get or similar without the network? you can’t.
instead if you are using windows you usually get the app from a cover cd from magazines or from a friend or (sometimes) you download it. then you double click and you’ve done. yes maybe you have to reboot, so ? all users know how to rebbot windows. and then the app is installed.
think about it. the vast majority of the world thinks that this is the only way to install applications, so linux distros should come up with a similar way of doing installations. or simply be prepared to loose a _big_ share of users in the world.
peace.
Quote:
“how can you install an application under linux _without_ a network connection ?”
How can you on Windows?
You still need to get the program from somewhere.
Or not?
Gentoo, Debian, etc… all release cd versions too.
//Come on, that’s just fiction.
I do:
emerge xchat
and what do I see in my KDE start menu?
That’s right, xchat.//
And, that will happen in every single Linux distro?
Now, *THAT’S* fiction. Big time.
My personal experience it totally opposite – installation of new programs in Linux is terrible, and it is one of main reasons why I finally gave up Linux and returned to Windows XP.
In most cases newly installed programs in Linux, neither appears in menu, nor properly integrates with environment.
For example:
Even FireFox didn’t add itself to start menu. So I had to go thru mess of subfolders to find it (it is also not clear what to look for, there are several files in different places with name “FireFox”). Then there is another problem to add it to menu/quick start bar (of course drag and drop doesn’t work).
Divx codecks – after installation nothing happens at all. Video player still can’t play divx/mpeg4 files. Of course I could find out how to update configuration files, etc, but this is no way user friendly.
The author listed “Agree to License” as an installation step on Windows. That means on Linux, I can get away with ignoring the license? Actually that would stand up in court when you think about it.
what if you want to install something which is not a standard applciation. Say the lastest Doom 3 ?
that would require some configuration of apt files, which you did not include in your “steps”.
and not to mention the biggest issue: your example require user to *KNOW* commands, and to use a terminal.
So sorry, but Windows is much easier.
I think there are always cases you can find to say any of these systems are better at installing then others. It all depdends on what your use and ability is i guess. One of the issues also as i stated in my previous comment is that ive noticed that the windows installers are getting more complicated.
I tried to install something recently, sorry i simply cant remember what it was, and it had simply the most arcane installer i have ever seen, akin to the windows office installer with drop downs and select deselct and whatnots. I literally got a headache trying to figure it out.
Now if thats where windows is going then while its easier to just double click if doing so gets you into clicking hell then what the point?
Buit as with everything linux windows and osx realted im sure this will all flip flop many times.
>How can you on Windows?
>You still need to get the program from somewhere.
>Or not?
read my previous post: you often get the app from a cover cd from a magazine or from a friend (oh you have ms office xp! could you make me a copy?) it’s more common than you think.
>Gentoo, Debian, etc… all release cd versions too
yes but I’m talking about new applications not included in the original cd of the distro. how can you easily install a _new_ version of xine without network? it’s doable, but a newbie will never be able to do it.
Quote:
“and not to mention the biggest issue: your example require user to *KNOW* commands, and to use a terminal.
So sorry, but Windows is much easier. ”
your example require the user to *KNOW* to double click a file to install it, and to use a browser or downloadmanager to get it.
So sorry, but your comparison is flawed
Please do not compare years of experience with one way of doing something with no experience in doing it another way.
I use portage for a year now, and all I can say is that it is equally as easy as double clicking a file in windows. Not easier, not harder.
Please, if the command line is so scary and evil for normal computer uses, can somebody then please explain me how I was able to teach this:
$ ls
…
$ emacs filename.tex
$ latex filename.tex
$ xdvi filename.dvi
in a language I didn’t know well, in very short time, to someone who only knew Windows 3.1 and Microsoft Word?
I can’t believe that yum was not mentioned. I use yum with Fedora 3 and it is COOL!
OK, so you ran apt-get, portage, rpm, compiled, whatever, and now you’re ready to run your shiny new software. How does the newbie do this?
1. Hmmm, it isn’t listed ANYWHERE in the KDE or Gnome menus. I know, some package managers do place menu items, but some don’t. EVERY Windows software DOES! This is a big point!
2. So the user opens a terminal window and types in the name of the program. Nothing happens. Sometimes it does but not always. Then he goes looking for the program and can’t find it. Is it in /usr, /usr/local, /usr/bin, /opt, where? There is NO standardization of that either. This process can add hours to an install process. I know, I’ve been there and have programs “installed” in my Linux machine that I’ve never been able to find!
Agreed. There should be a standard directory/folder just for application executables. Mac OS X has the best system in place, where you drag a new application to the Applications folder.
How can Windows users *possibly* defend a mechanism that requires extensive user intervention, and involves two seperate programs (web browser, installer). Especially considering that the Linux alternative is a few clicks in a single application, and no confusing questions.* It seems to me that most people are so used to doing things one way, they cannot possibly concieve that there might be an easier way. Of course, the points about commercial apps are valid, but here is where people who actually use Linux, and those who just bitch about it on OSNews differ. Most people *don’t* use commercial apps on Linux. Those who do run stuff like SoftImage or Oracle, and those apps are hard to install on any OS.
* For those who doubt the questions are confusing: have a newbie install Windows. My dad, having used computers for two decades (started on a UNIX dumb terminal), still has trouble installing software on Windows. He’ll call me up and say “it asked me about the path it should install to, what do I do?” I end up saying “just hit OK or NEXT until it gives you a button that says FINISH”. This, of course, is less than optimal, because the user indiscriminantly clicking “OK” is a sure fire way to get a porn toolbar installed on your computer…
1. Hmmm, it isn’t listed ANYWHERE in the KDE or Gnome menus. I know, some package managers do place menu items, but some don’t.
This is a strawman argument. The major desktop package managers do place menu items. If you’re not using one of these distros (Fedora, Ubuntu, Linspire), that’s your own damn fault, you knew what you were getting into.
1. It is no easier or harder to install software on Linux than on Windows. The determinate factor is, and always has been, how familiar the user is with how the operating system works. It has not a lot to do with the operating system itself. This argument was beaten into the ground well over two years ago. Enough already.
2. Kevin Russo, you very much need to take both spelling and grammar classes. Your writing is, to be blunt, awful.
See you all in another year. I just like to poke my head in here every now and then and see if anything has changed.
Ok, this is dumb. Next time you compare, use two applications bundled with each OS. Windows : Add/Remove, Components, Check the component and click OK. Otherwise choose an application like oracle and install it on both OSes … it will take much more time on linux considering you have to configure some parts of it yourself. I am a Linux user and I love it but I think this article was very unfair and pointless.
just some thoughts. i provide phone-based technical support as my job and i’m sorry, but you cannot take for granted that somebody knows how to use a wizard. more often than not, when assisting somebody they’ll ask me if they should click Next on the first wizard screen (usually a blank screen). while i am here assisting them and they may feel a bit helpless, these people truly do not know what to do next.
wizards are not very user-friendly. yes, they give us power-users some assistance in deciding options and locations, but they are overly complex with many unnecessary steps/screens.
windows programs are not always consistent regarding shortcut location. while the majority of programs do install correctly to the Programs list, some put themselves in the root of the Programs list, some put themselves under a nested company name folder. i’m sorry, but if a user knows they are installing Mcafee, they are not going to think it is installed under Network Associates unless they know that company. my ubuntu install has always but the programs in the logical location.
as far as rebooting goes. if you install the latest version of Eudora it asks you to reboot. its a mail program! its a bigger issue than you windows fanatics will admit.
— i use windows, mac, and linux.
The problem with apt emerge urpmi ect is your at the mercy of the distro. lets say a new version of abiword is released that fixes some major problem so you open a term type apt-get install abiword only to see its not updated in the repository yet, so you wait a few days and it still isn’t updated. Weeks and months may pass before the repository is updated then what do you do, download the source compile and hope you dint just hose your system.
You also have to deal with the repo not having the program at all. Also have to deal with the problem of incompatible libs apt wanting to remove totally unrelated software to install something..Once upon a time a few years ago I tryed to install frozen bubble (I think that what it was) on my freshly installed libranet system without thinking I hit Y to uninstalling every single gnome app on my system including gdm and gnome itself just to install a game. Admittedly that was my own fault but why on earth should that even happen
Quote:
“Otherwise choose an application like oracle and install it on both OSes … it will take much more time on linux considering you have to configure some parts of it yourself.”
Although I never installed Oracle before on any system, I seriously doubt that it’s just a double click on Windows.
And if it was… I would certainly prefer Linux above Windows because I was able to configure it.
You dummys. yum install mplayer. how much easier could it be?
Quote:
“The problem with apt emerge urpmi ect is your at the mercy of the distro. lets say a new version of abiword is released that fixes some major problem so you open a term type apt-get install abiword only to see its not updated in the repository yet, so you wait a few days and it still isn’t updated. Weeks and months may pass before the repository is updated then what do you do, download the source compile and hope you dint just hose your system.”
That is sometimes a problem indeed.
quote:
“Once upon a time a few years ago I tryed to install frozen bubble (I think that what it was) on my freshly installed libranet system without thinking I hit Y to uninstalling every single gnome app on my system including gdm and gnome itself just to install a game. Admittedly that was my own fault but why on earth should that even happen”
Once upon a time I put a gun against my head, and without thinking, I pulled the trigger. Admittedly, that was my own fault, but it should not happen ?
Golden rule:
Think before you do!
You’re at the mercy of the software vendor no matter what you do. They’re writing your OS, they should be able to write your packages. In any case, if you use something like Fedora or Ubuntu, things should stay quite up to date. Again, if you’re using a smaller distro, either stop using it, or don’t complain about it. With regards to Debian uninstalling software — apt-get doesn’t uninstall software when you install something new. There is something more to this story…
Let’s see, what’s easier and less confusing to the average computer user? Typing a bunch of commands in to a terminal window or downloading a file and clicking on it? You are definitely not looking at this through the eyes of most computer users. Whether people like it or not, Linux will not take any real market share on the desktop until the average user never has to use the terminal.
I hate Linux, but I hate Microsoft even more.
So what about this scenario. dialup.. yes some… lots of people still have dialup. try ap-getting openoffice and waiting 4 days for the download to complete. or the other scenario… cover cds on magazines, or cds your friends give you. where is apt-get emerge or portage then?
At least Windows, and Mac make it easy to install and uninstall software when the fast, unlimited broadband connection isn’t certain!
I thought that Windows did not have a standard means of installing software? Don’t all the applications have to bundle their own install/uninstall programs? Sure there are some common ones ‘InstallShield?’ and they all look similar by convention. I don’t see the difference between that and the new Linux Autopackage tool. These have their uses but they’re no comparison to the slickness of having a well built package management system (apt, yum, emerge, pacman, etc).
I’m suprised there’s not a more widely available ‘fink’ system for Windows yet.
Michael
The point I was trying to make is that software installation should never ask you to uninstall unrelated software. yet its a somewhat common problem with apt
Didn’t know that apt-get will do that, and I doubt it will, but it’s possible of course.
At least with portage I’m warned that the program I’m going to install does not work with other installed software (so called blockers).
“Well i must have learned how to post comments from you.
🙂
Also as far as the others persons rant about how much easier it is to install programs on windows for “the average user”, other then a browser and email client what other applications will the average user be installing that would make windows so much eaiser to install on???
I know for some more complex applications installing on windows was at one time MUCH easer to install then on linux largely because of depdnecy hell.
But linux installers are becoming so much easier to use these days that now the opposite is really becoming the case.”
How about drivers?
Apt-get install ISA_support doesn’t seem to work.
For those who use OSX this whole debate must be humorous to them they have the best implementation of software installation and removal.
linux geeks are always harping on about choice, but to me that choice is nullified when you apt-get, emerge or rpm etc. You install the package and it (if it works) installs wherever the hell it likes.. there is no choice for the user (and often no clue as to where its’ been hidden)
This isn’t a linux issue altogether, as some games and install scripts (Openoffice 1.0 springs to mind) gives you an install wizard and a choice of where to install to!
Let’s see, what’s easier and less confusing to the average computer user? Typing a bunch of commands in to a terminal window or downloading a file and clicking on it?
Except it’s nothing like you just described. Both systems can use GUI tools to install packages. It’s just that Linux’s GUI tool requires fewer clicks than Windows’s. More importantly, Linux actually has a GUI to install software, while Windows’s system is kind of ad-hoc (web-browser is the “search” interface, some random installer program actually puts the program on the drive, and Add/Remove removes the software, but only if you were lucky enough to get an installer that updated its database correctly).
Let’s see, what’s easier and less confusing to the average computer user? Typing a bunch of commands in to a terminal window or downloading a file and clicking on it? You are definitely not looking at this through the eyes of most computer users. Whether people like it or not, Linux will not take any real market share on the desktop until the average user never has to use the terminal.
Two words: Linspire. Xandros.
So what about this scenario. dialup.. yes some… lots of people still have dialup. try ap-getting openoffice and waiting 4 days for the download to complete. or the other scenario… cover cds on magazines, or cds your friends give you. where is apt-get emerge or portage then?
OpenOffice is often included on the CD set. If you live in an area where you don’t have broadband, or have a friend or library with broadband, you can actually order those shiny disks with the information already on them. Need the latest OO.o or firefox? Order it! Windows users in the same situation who need an MS Office update or IE update often have to go through Windows Update. Microsoft doesn’t often offer updates via CD order.
linux geeks are always harping on about choice, but to me that choice is nullified when you apt-get, emerge or rpm etc. You install the package and it (if it works) installs wherever the hell it likes.. there is no choice for the user (and often no clue as to where its’ been hidden)
This isn’t a linux issue altogether, as some games and install scripts (Openoffice 1.0 springs to mind) gives you an install wizard and a choice of where to install to!
This “choice” is choice of what to (and what not to) install on your system. And this choice even applies to what you said, if you just take a second and think about it.
I have a choice to use apt-get or to compile from source.
See? Despite your attempt to make it look otherwise, you still have full choice in Linux.
Quote:
“How about drivers?
Apt-get install ISA_support doesn’t seem to work.”
For portage, you can do for example:
emerge ati-drivers
see: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1&chap=…
re: Mark Jenson (above) so the answer to poor installation system that requires a fast unlimited internet connection is find a place where you can buy CDs and will ship to your country or location? Or you could just use another OS (Windows or Mac)!!!
Correct.
If you live in 90-somthing percent of the internet-connected world, you can order CDs. In the rest, where you haev no broadband, and receive mail by donkey at some point, you can use MS, but not OSX (because I doubt Apple will have an outlet there)
Jeedee: Ok, this is dumb. Next time you compare, use two applications bundled with each OS. Windows : Add/Remove, Components, Check the component and click OK.
This will allow you to install about three mostly useless extra features. What if you want to install, say, a decent IM client, or music player?
Otherwise choose an application like oracle and install it on both OSes … it will take much more time on linux considering you have to configure some parts of it yourself.
Have you ever actually installed Oracle for Windows? It certainly requires you to “configure some parts of it yourself”!
Oracle is far from a sensible example; the article was talking about ease of installation of software packages, which simply doesn’t matter with Oracle. If a company is spending tens of thousands of dollars on Oracle they’ll get someone who knows what they’re doing to install it!
netean: So what about this scenario. dialup.. yes some… lots of people still have dialup. try ap-getting openoffice and waiting 4 days for the download to complete. or the other scenario… cover cds on magazines, or cds your friends give you. where is apt-get emerge or portage then?
So for these people on dial-up, how did they get OOo so easily under Windows? The download time will be the same, apt-get/portage just automates the process.
You’ve got a point with the cover cd’s, but note most cover cds will have Windows binaries which aren’t going to do a lot of good on a Linux box anyway…
At least Windows, and Mac make it easy to install and uninstall software when the fast, unlimited broadband connection isn’t certain!
Installing: They’re no different. Obviously if you don’t have a net connection handy, you have to have the package first. This is the same on any system!
Uninstalling: At least with Portage, I’m in control – if I tell it to remove a program, it does so. In Windows, it’s just a wrapper to kick off the various proprietary uninstall systems – try “uninstalling”, say, Nortons. The amount of crap left on your system is astronomic.
And what’s broadband got to do with uninstalling programs anyway…?
You’re at the mercy of the software vendor no matter what you do. They’re writing your OS, they should be able to write your packages. In any case, if you use something like Fedora or Ubuntu, things should stay quite up to date. Again, if you’re using a smaller distro, either stop using it, or don’t complain about it. With regards to Debian uninstalling software — apt-get doesn’t uninstall software when you install something new. There is something more to this story…
Why should I expect the distro to handle all of my software last I checked they didn’t write any of it, redhat, ubuntu, debian etc doesn’t write software they just bundle it. and yes apt-get does ask to uninstall software at times this is mostly do to packages not being updated to support new libs. in that case apt poped up and said something along the lines of the following new software will be installed frozenbubble perl the following programs will be removed and a huge ass list, and I hit yes without thinking and it killed the system
Knoppix did. Mandrake did.
As for ease of application installation: This is all baloney. The ease with which an application can be installed depends on which installation tool you use, Linux or Windows. That depends on the whims of the packager. If it’s an MSI package, great. If not, you follow instructions, or hope the packager’s choice of installers is smart enough to do everything right. Same goes for Linux distro’s.
Don’t forget: Microsoft will *still* provide you with instructions on how to install software by hand. That’s in case you have a really oddball setup that doesn’t like the standard tools.
Reboots:
Linux needs to be rebooted in certain circumstances. Windows 2000 and Windows XP will need to be if the software packager is still using an old installer.
One more point:
In this day of viruses, trojans, and spyware, do I *really* want it to be super-easy to install software on my computer? Maybe I’d like the operating system to *force* software installations to be really talkative and to require lots of user intervention…….
…and to let me know if the application can be *trusted.*
Don’t know where you are Archangel, but in the UK there are several cover cds that have linux binaries with them and several dedicated linux mags with dedicated cds/dvds..
before I got Broadband I tried to use them all the time, but they suffered from the same dependency hell as everything else I’ve tried to install in linux (that didn’t come on the distro cd).
compiling from source has never worked – I always seem to have the wrong missing header library or no compiling apps installed (i.e. the version of Mepis I have installed now! can’t build my adsl modem drivers)
linux geeks are always harping on about choice, but to me that choice is nullified when you apt-get, emerge or rpm etc. You install the package and it (if it works) installs wherever the hell it likes.. there is no choice for the user (and often no clue as to where its’ been hidden)
Ah.. This bugged me to no end when I started using Linux. I was used to the Microsoft way of asking where I wanted to install every time. To me, the Linux way of “the package manager will take care of it” seemed messy. But then I realized how much superior it is.
Why should you have to care about where your programs go? You don’t! The package manager will put them in some place, and keep track of where they are. There is absolutely no reason why you should be specifying where to install things, aside from habit.
This lack of choice is actually a good thing in this case, because it keeps the system consistent. You don’t have some idiot installing software to 10 different folders, just because they can. It also enables me to do things like hit WIN-R and type in the name of any program on my system and it will start. This renders the start menu obsolete since it is much faster to start applications that way than to hunt through the start menu.
In addition, with a package manager taking care of things, there is one central place to update your software. On windows, getting new versions is a painful process of visiting the website of each piece of softare, checking for a new version, downloading it, possibly uninstalling the old version, installing the new version. The alternative is for each program to roll their own update manager, which is a waste of coding time and still not nearly as easy as a central method.
Well this comment has gone on entirely too long.. I think it comes down to, if you put in a few minutes to learn the system, it will be far more convenient and simple than windows software installation. To a new user, it may be more complicated than windows, but new users aren’t everything.
So it seems the only bad thing about OSX is that Apple seems to be even less open then windows in many cases.
If this is the case could linux adopt the same type of installer that osx uses???
Also ive seen mentioned about driver installtion and by the way I never mentioned anything about my having difficulties with them, that was “?” and not me. But i understand thats more of a manufacturers issue then a linux installation issue. I understand though its getting better all the time.
so the answer to poor installation system that requires a fast unlimited internet connection is find a place where you can buy CDs and will ship to your country or location?
I don’t even know what you’re getting at. You can download linux packages to cd and install them with the package manager! It works great. In either case, you need to get the software first. Either the package manager downloads it for you, or you get it on a CD!
Same deal as Windows. I think you have no idea about how these systems work.
It’s not that it’s any harder to install software, it’s just a differn’t proccess your going to have to get used to. Debian’s apt-get is an amazingly simple way of not only installing your software, but keeping it all as up-to-date as you want as well.
In the end, I think its about the same amount of effort to install software on any of the major desktop platforms. Linux however (debian anways, haven’t tried anything else in a long time) is much easier to keep everything installed up-to-date (if you want to, that is)
apt-get oracle-server
not found? Ups!
1- click the browser window
2 – navigate to oracle site
…
I though unix users where smart and could come up with good arguments. I was wrong.
I hate MS as much as the next guy, but the view presented in this article is naive and seriously flawed.
The point is, which approach is easier for newbies to figure out by themselves. Put a complete newbie in front of a Windows machine, and she’ll be able to browse the web, google for ‘Abiword’, get to that website and install it. Sure, it’ll take half an hour.
But, how long will it take the same newbie to figure out that she needs to login as root and run the cryptic ‘apt-get’ command? Probably the same time it’ll take the infinite monkeys to reproduce Shakespeare.
If this is the case could linux adopt the same type of installer that osx uses???
Yes. In fact, check out ZeroInstall ( http://zero-install.sourceforge.net/ )
It’s even easier than the OS X method. It just hasn’t taken off yet (which is not a minor problem).
I don’t really like the OS X method though. Yes it makes it easier to install applications, but apps don’t have any way to integrate into the system. Drag an app to Applications and you will be able to start that application from there. However, you don’t get a desktop icon, you don’t get a dock shortcut, you don’t get the option of perhaps starting at boot time, or as a service, or associate with file types. Many times an application will want to do other things when it is installed, and this just doesn’t happen with the OS X method. Works great for installing TextPad (or something equally simple) but breaks down for more complex apps.
Also, you will notice that an increasing number of mac applications have Windows-like installers now. Precisely because they need to do external things when they are installed.
I wouldn’t be so sure. First of all, if you’re talking a complete newbie, they wouldn’t even know the concept of installing a program, or why one might find it on google.
A complete newbie will have the same amount of trouble going to the website, then downloading and installing the software on windows, as they would opening the package manager, and clicking install on abiword.
The advantage of the linux system is that the package manager presents the user with known working software in a simple list. On windows, you have to find the software on the internet, where every website is different, and some websites are malicious. (I am reminded of my little sister installing Kazaa by searching on Google, and then installing it from the first website she found. It turned out to be spyware, which was incredibly labour intensive to remove and basically destroyed the system).
The advantage of Windows is that any software you may want to install is probably available on the vendor’s site and packaged in a way somewhat resembling a standard installer.
But, how long will it take the same newbie to figure out that she needs to login as root and run the cryptic ‘apt-get’ command?
Who cares? All they need to figure out is to run Synaptic…
You’re also a prime example of how Windows users seem to think it’s natural to run a seperate program just to install a program. Try this little experiment — unless they’ve used Windows, they will have absolutely no clue how to do this. I know I didn’t, when I first started using Windows (somebody had to show me), and I guarantee you that if I put my mom in front of a Windows machine, and say “install AbiWord”, she’ll be like “what is install?”
This article is ridiculous, utterly and totally. I wouldnt let the author manage my dogs desktop.
[i]re: Mark Jenson (above) so the answer to poor installation system that requires a fast unlimited internet connection is find a place where you can buy CDs and will ship to your country or location? Or you could just use another OS (Windows or Mac)!!!</ii>
Windows and Mac have a way to install software that involves neither downloading it, or ordering a CD? How does it work, then, somebody reads you the raw bits over the phone, and you type it into Notepad?
The fact you all are missing is the existence in the world of “pringaos”(spanish word).
The pringao is somebody who makes what nobody do neither wants to know how to do.
Yes, in windows, we all know more than five, we have the pringao that installs or helps installing stuff to their parents, neighbours, friends, girlfriend/boyfriend, etc.
These people wouldn’t buy a computer if they don’t know a pringao.
They ask you for doing things and you feel important installing this and that for their windows machine.
Sometimes they give you something to eat, too.
Have you ever seen a novice user buying an installing Microsoft Office without the supervision of a pringao?
No way.
Pringaos come from the win95 and pentium I era, and they feel important showing their knowledge on how to click: Next>Next>Next>Next>OK.
Moreover, they love when you call them desperatedly saying:
I switched off the firewall thing you installed me because it told me I cannot reach a webpage and know the computer is blue!!!
(Respect deeply Pringaos because I was one of them but not anymore!!!)
I am leaving my “clients” one by one saying things like: you shouldn’t have to buy an Antivirus Software if you where using Linux. Or: I am not going to install you any pirated software, there is a free choice if you install Openoffice, Audacity, Firefox, Thunderbird, Filezilla, Klamav, Gimp, Inkscape, Kmeleon, Virtualdub, Mplayer, or
Mandrake, Ubuntu, Connectiva, Suse, etc, I will gladly help
you
.
To sum up, windows wouldn’t exist everywhere without the help of pringaos.
For further information in English (translation):
http://pinsa.escomposlinux.org/sromero/linux/pringao/techslacky.htm…
For further information in Spanish (original document): http://pinsa.escomposlinux.org/sromero/linux/pringao/Pringao_Howto….
Windows software works after you install it. Linux software on the other hand often needs some help in the way of configuration files… Also notice that the windows install is all point and click, no commands to memorize. I think that linux is much harder to install software on.
But, how long will it take the same newbie to figure out that she needs to login as root and run the cryptic ‘apt-get’ command? Probably the same time it’ll take the infinite monkeys to reproduce Shakespeare.
Yes, you’d first need to run “apt-cache search keyword”, and maybe even “apt-cache show packagename”, but I’d prefer to just launch aptitude. You see, aptitude sorts packages under several categories that help you to search the program you’re looking for.
There is the initial “learning curve”, yes, but that won’t take more than 15-30 minutes and after that installing software on any Debian-compatible system is a piece of cake.
One feature that I haven’t found on any other package management system than Debian’s APT is the “apt-listbugs” utility, which you can install and after that it will automatically warn you whenever you attempt to install a package that has a problem report filed against it. And it will print a short description of what the reported bug is about, so you can decide yourself if this bug will affect your system or not.
Now, that is something that I can honestly call VERY COOL. 😉
I didn’t even bother reading the other post because I simply can’t wait to say what I have to say.
ARE YOU INSANE?
let me explain…
Fewer steps IS NOT EQUAL to easier.
Exactly how many “USERS” will even know what a terminal window is? And if you honestly think they are going to type -su you have completely lost your mind. The first 2 hour help session with thier nephew in CA will put an end to them logging on as anything but ROOT.
And seriously, “type “apt-get install abiword”” you may as well have said “EGFN jnfdmkL()( dnkl; afjkhP WDdm;0K NDSL” as far as most “USERS” are concerned.
Let me say this as straight as I can. DOUBLECLICK
It doesn’t get much easier.
But seriously, it was nice to laugh for a change.
P.S. I don’t hate linux, just users….
Again, there is no commands to memorize in Linux either, unless you want to use a command. Some Linux software does require configuration — that’s true. That’s the fault of the software, though, there is really nothing that the OS could do about it.
While I’m at it, you cheated BIG TIME.
How did you know the command line to use?
Following that logic I could have known the exact url for the download of a .msi package on windows.
It would go like this
1: select start–>run
2: type fulldownloadpath of application to install.
3: click “run” on dialog.
4: answer yes to everyhting it ask.
DONE
Windows and OS X do not have the concept of a package manager. Windows and OS X use software installers. They are not package managers. Package managers are an order of magnitude more sophisticated than ordinary installers. A package manager manages software packages, not just installs them.
I’m sorry, but that’s what I thought, that Linux was a kernel, and that M$, Debian, Fedora, were distributions. So You lump All distro’s into one, then try to say that Linux is easier than windows? Not a good way to promote Linux. An average user doesn’t even know what the heck Linux is, and most can’t figure out why they need to switch to it. The fact is, you’d have to compare how each of the main distro’s do it. How do they install software. Compare how you’d install some of the more popular software titles that you can run on both side of the fence. I think if you looked at ALL Linux distro’s, then I’d have to say that windows is easier. But only because you have one way for win , and many ways to do the same thing in Linux.
Everybody has a favorite distro, and I’ve tried probably every one. I’ve burnt hundreds of cd’s and dvd’s, and love to monkey around for hours just trying to figure things out. Some of these have been realy great, and others have a long way to go, but all are improving. I use Debian based ones mainly, and try out the source and rpm one’s from time to time. After 6 years of using them, I still get stumped from time to time.
I’d love to read an article like this one that is far less biased, because the idea is a good one. Perhaps take several users and have them try to install a list of software that works on all the main ditro’s. The standard stuff, like Gaim, Gimp, Mplayer,ect. Yhen have them do a review of how hard, and successfull they were, and make sure that there is a good cross section of user’s from all the distro’s, and relatively equal time on each. Then throw in 10 mom’s, 10grandma’s ,and 10 dad’s, all with no experience. Then we’d have a good idea which is easier. And don’t think for a minute that M$ and Aplle don’t do this already, it’s a healthy way to find out which way you need to go.
And seriously, “type “apt-get install abiword”” you may as well have said “EGFN jnfdmkL()( dnkl; afjkhP WDdm;0K NDSL” as far as most “USERS” are concerned.
Let me say this as straight as I can. DOUBLECLICK
It doesn’t get much easier.
Ah, but WHAT to double-click? Where are you supposed to find these programs that you can just download and double-click to install? In my experience, you need to make extensive Google-searches to find the appropriate programs that you want — the ones that won’t expire after one month or won’t turn your machine into a bot that is programmed from some other address. (I could tell you stories about this. ;-))
That was a very biased article. It’s next to impossible to get an average user to run the command prompt on windows, much less linux. Ease of use is graphical instruction.
Score:
Linux – 50
Windows – 10
I love unix (Mac prefered, but linux second) and hate microsoft. I feel that getting more pople out of the microsoft trap is a very positive thing, but simply stating that you can install some programs in fewer steps does not make it easier.
Good packages cerianly even the playing field as can bee seen with Apple debian based packages. However, the following goals must be adopted by the linux community if you want to end microsoft dominance:
1. Users must be the target, not programmers. This means simple binary distributions of program (source selectable, but defualted off). No one who is not a programmer should ever have to type make. This is a deal breaker for most users. Sure programmers love it – we can tweak and improve as much as we want, but users will run back to microsoft 9 time out of 10 at their first “make” experiance.
2. Package manages must handle all the dependancies. This should include putting all the needed binaries in the package. You should not depend on the customers internet connection to get what you need.
3. Pretty graphical configuration scripts. Again the command line scared most users – I know every “unix geek” I know prefers these scripts because in a lot of ways they are better and faster. But users want a pretty box with well though out choices presented in small doses.
4. Include uninstall scripts as well. User do stupid things like install every thing they see … they eventually have to remove all the crap they should not have installed anyway.
Linux is very powerful, but it can be made user friendly (as Apple has shown). Linux is very programmer friendly, but we are a small segment of the overall market. Linux has to choose to change or remain a backoffice server OS.
Graphical is not easy; it’s easy for those who are used to it. Some of us can’t understand graphical as easy as we read man pages. It’s all in what you’re used to/afraid of.
You can’t get users to open the windows terminal because you can’t do anything from it in daily tasks. In Linux/BSD/Mac/Solaris you can do everything from an xterm.