Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th May 2009 19:06 UTC
We all know them. We all hate them. They are generally overdone, completely biased, or so vague they border on the edge of pointlessness (or toppled over said edge). Yes, I'm talking about those "Is Linux ready for the desktop" articles. Still, this one is different.
Thread beginning with comment 364223
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: It depends... If it's ready
by lemur2 on Tue 19th May 2009 05:21
in reply to "RE[5]: It depends... If it's ready"
Member since:2007-02-17
A complex process to install even the most stupid Apps, as Linux does it is terrible. If something goes wrong it is a mess, and it goes wrong... You just need a faulty Internet connection, for example.
At the same time, the developer has to work a lot to make the installer do what it has to do. The developer has to deal with installers.
...
It is not the same in Linux. The whole install idea is a terrible approach for casual users. Even to me, that I am an experienced Linux administrator, when Package Manager fails,(faulty connection, servers busy, servers updating ) is a pain to get the system back to its feet. I cannot imagine what a Windows or Mac user would do.
At the same time, the developer has to work a lot to make the installer do what it has to do. The developer has to deal with installers.
...
It is not the same in Linux. The whole install idea is a terrible approach for casual users. Even to me, that I am an experienced Linux administrator, when Package Manager fails,(faulty connection, servers busy, servers updating ) is a pain to get the system back to its feet. I cannot imagine what a Windows or Mac user would do.
FUD. When you use a package manager, it checks the integrity of everything it downloads. Any error on download ... no installation happens.
FUD pure and simple. Disinformation.
The developer does NOT have to do a lot of work to utilise the repositories. Firstly, that task is normally done by the repository maintainers, not the code developers. Secondly, it normally involves just answering a few questions about the package, and then compiling it.
http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/
http://www.openismus.com/documents/linux/automake/automake.shtml
If you are going to pointlessly TRY to criticise Linux, then please at least try keep to the actual truth.
Edited 2009-05-19 05:27 UTC
RE[7]: It depends... If it's ready
by DavidSan on Tue 19th May 2009 16:48
in reply to "RE[6]: It depends... If it's ready"
Member since:2008-11-18
FUD. When you use a package manager, it checks the integrity of everything it downloads. Any error on download ... no installation happens.
FUD pure and simple. Disinformation.
The developer does NOT have to do a lot of work to utilise the repositories. Firstly, that task is normally done by the repository maintainers, not the code developers. Secondly, it normally involves just answering a few questions about the package, and then compiling it.
http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/
http://www.openismus.com/documents/linux/automake/automake.shtml
If you are going to pointlessly TRY to criticise Linux, then please at least try keep to the actual truth.
[/q]
Have you ever seen the application copy process in Mac OS X... with no installation. Then you will understand how the installation process in Linux is terrible. It is completely unnatural.
No wonder why Linux is not used by anyone and is FREE.
Imagine if you had to pay for it...
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2008-11-18
No, it is not easy to install. The install process is really horrible. Click the package manager window and tell it to verbose the process.
Yes, it is that easy to install. You check if off and click apply. If you wish to see the details of what's happening behind the scenes, you can, but you don't have to.
You do not understand me. I am talking about the install process, not if you have to push a button or two, because there is an app that tries to automate things. A complex process to install even the most stupid Apps, as Linux does it is terrible. If something goes wrong it is a mess, and it goes wrong... You just need a faulty Internet connection, for example.
At the same time, the developer has to work a lot to make the installer do what it has to do. The developer has to deal with installers.
Besides there is a lot of dependencies that have to be resolved. Other OSs, like Mac OS X does not have that. If something goes wrong when copying a new App to the Hard Disk, a normal user can repair the thing. Just trash the faulty app and replace it with a new one---Self contained App.
It is not the same in Linux. The whole install idea is a terrible approach for casual users. Even to me, that I am an experienced Linux administrator, when Package Manager fails,(faulty connection, servers busy, servers updating ) is a pain to get the system back to its feet. I cannot imagine what a Windows or Mac user would do.
And the thing gets worse when you try to install something that it is not in the Package Manager. You need to authenticate, give permission execution, and start an installer and it starts asking and asking questions. Do you want feature x, y , z, c? Do you have a C compiler? where is is? Do you want to star experimental feature wuo? Do you want smooth fonts? do you want support for hyug.lib?
Desktop users... Never with that approach.