"While the eyes of the IT world have spent years squinting to see Microsoft's slowly unfolding vistas, the companies and individuals that drive open source have been steadily building a case for broader adoption of Linux-based operating systems. Two of the best all-around Linux distributions to emerge from this process are OpenSUSE 10.2 and Ubuntu 6.10, both of which bundle together the best of what open source has to offer into operating systems that merit consideration for desktop and server workloads."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-02
Exactly. The idea that one must always run the latest version is typical of the Windows world. In the Linux world, because versions are often available *before* they are stable or finished, it's often preferable to take the opposite approach and actually wait until the stable version is available.
Note that ordinary users, people who just want things to work, do not have a problem with that. As you say, it's the power users, often addicted to the bleeding edge, who complain about this. Well, if they want to be "power users" on Linux, then they better learn how to "./configure; make; make install" (and not "make; ./configure; make install" as the other poster erroneously indicated). It's not exactly rocket science...
Member since:2006-11-24
"Well, if they want to be "power users" on Linux, then they better learn how to "./configure; make; make install" (and not "make; ./configure; make install" as the other poster erroneously indicated). It's not exactly rocket science..."
And why is it that you have to "./configure; make; make install" on the Linux command line to install the latest version of an application?
Mac OS X can do the exact same thing with a .dmg through simple drag-and-drop, and its also a Unix-like OS, just like Linux!
Yes, I consider myself a power user on Windows (I use Songbird, Democracy Player, other beta stuff), but, unlike most others, I think I can do just as well on Mac OS X (that is, if I had the money for a Mini). And yet, I never, ever have to bother with the command line in order to install beta software. The installation is completely graphical, in any case on either OS.
So if Mac OS X can do it, and its a Unix-like OS, then why not Desktop Linux?
Why can't I graphically install tarballs?
Why is it that tarballs have such dependency issues, while Mac OS X doesn't with its .dmgs?
Why is it that no Linux vendor or FOSS developer, with the exception of GoboLinux, has even considered the idea of graphical front-ends for installing tarballs?
I've searched Google, and I haven't come up with squat to answer the above.
Member since:2005-09-28
What the hell? I'm a veteran of RISCOS, 8 bits, DOS, OS/2, Mac, Amiga and yes, some Windows too. I'd hardly say that I have problems with Linux as I'm only used to Windows. BTW, my first set of Linux install disks say Winter '96 on them and I've been using Linux on and off ever since.
Thanks for the laugh though. It is nice to hear a Linux fanboy admit that you need an 'arsenal of knowledge' to fix dependency problems if you want to install from the source :-)
Member since:2006-12-16
Member since:
2005-07-06
I would really like this version of Linux that some other people seem to have. The one that never messes up somewhere within the make - ./configure - make install cycle.
That is the version used by "veteran" GNU/Linux users. Those users who have used GNU/Linux for as many years as you switchers have used Windows.
Such long years using GNU/Linux tends to give you the arsenal of knowledge that you need to fix dependency problems if you can't wait any longer before you get stable-app-version-+1 on your system.
That is the problem many switchers have. Just because you became a poweruser on Windows over the course of 5+ years, doesn't mean you are a poweruser on GNU/Linux in two afternoons.