Why do people piss and moan about linux being hard to install?
 

I'm a Red Hat user. When I started trying to move to Linux from windows, I really didn't even know what a partition is. I got some help and a copy of partition magic. After I made some free space on my hard drive, Red Hat's installer did everything all by itself. I didn't really even have to customize the packages that got installed. It did all that for me and I was happy with the end result.

So why are people so careful to defend linux when it comes to installing it? Red Hat is easier to install than any version of Windows. You click next a bunch of times and have to type in a root password rather than a CD Key.

The only difference is that I had to do some partitioning because I wanted to duel boot. If my computer would have come with Linux and I was installing Windows as the second OS, I would have had to do it for Windows too.

If you got installation issues, download Red Hat Linux 9.

And now the part that will strike anger into the hearts of all:

Now all we have to do is make software installation easier! All ya have to do is double-click on the installer in Windows and click next buttons. In Linux, I often have to read a document that tells me how to go though the compile process!

Why can't all installers be like the ones Sun Microsystems uses? Bin files that work as easy as installers under Windows.

}=-)

it is easy.... how hard is it to type "apt-get install gaim".... certainly beats any possibly windows equivalent. if you don't want to install from source.... don't.

There's a lot more linux os's than red hat that do require a bit more experience.

newbies shouldn't use them
 

...and newbies shouldn't use systems that are hard to install. Just use Red Hat. It's really that easy.

I don't agree versaulis. When I was new to linux i started out with Red Hat which imho did all the work for me rendering me not having a clue about how the system worked or how i could alter it. Then I tried slackware, first i was worried If I would be able to handle such a "complicated" and "hard to learn" distribution. How totally wrong I was. Sure there have been some times where I didn't know what to do. But the net and friends has always sorted me out and I have learned and understand the system in a way that RedHat never would have let me.

I dare you, try a "hard" dist. You won't regret it!

No Linux installs (at least the ones I've tried) were hard. Debian and Slackware way "boring" but not necessarily hard. Jamd was pretty neat and fast :)

the only thing that could possibly be hard, if you even want to consider it that, is distros that you have to manually partition...
other than that, you are a complete idiot for saying its hard, cause its the exact same as windows and you click your little mouse button on the little thing that says "next"...
so if you at least know what a partition is, and you read for five minutes about paritioning a disk, that is if you never did it before, then it will be a breeze....
so with 5 minutes of effort (if you have to partition manually having little knowledge) you will have no problems installing...and if you do piss and complain about it being hard, then you are just trying to find something to vent about cause you got nothing else better to do.... my :twocents:

Yeah, I couldn't believe how easy slackware was to install when I actually tried. I mean, once you understand the terminology, it's E-A-S-Y.

Also..it helps if you have a partition gui like diskdrake ;)

Try out the Debian/sarge installers and then tell me its easy :D J/K.

Easy if it all works....:D

I just got started with debian and it was pretty easy on the first computer I installed it on, the other was not so easy. I learned a whole lot doing it though and I don't think it was a bad thing to start with debian for that reason.

But as someone new to linux I had no idea what would be an easier or harder install.

People probably 'piss and moan' because their install didn't go so smoothly. ie) x doesn't start, video card driver problems etc. If you're brand new to linux that can be pretty difficult to sort out.

It's not hard at all to type apt-get install anything but if you don't know that's what you need to type...

Re: newbies shouldn't use them
 

this is why my first distro was Slackware, I did not want something easy, if I wanted easy I would have stayed with windows. I wanted to Learn Linux, not just use Linux.

Re: Re: newbies shouldn't use them
 

My concern isn't for people like you and I who know a whole lot about computers... it's for the guys who said to the tech support, "I know I typed it in good... right-click."

I really think Linux is ready for the general public's use. The guy who pointed out how easy apt-get is to use was right. All I really need to do is install apt-get and the Synaptic gui for it and any computer user will be thrilled with Linux! I can't wait to set it up on some people's computers and see what they think. (I'm at college, so I'll call it an experiment ;).

I think the reason it is hard is that manufacturers do not make drivers for linux and if they do they do not always have the same QA as the WQHL does.
My Abit KD7-S install with Gentoo is fine except the sound driver from abits site does not work.
with windows a double click on the sound driver gets me sound.
That is why I think linux installs are harder
thank you for your time and have a good day

Nah the installs are pretty easy.
Sure you still get people who think windows is hard - lots and lots of them every bleed'in day.

My install went like silk. The only problem I had was a good few years back [before I was a tech] I tried to install a really early version of red hat - it did not have a nic driver and I would have had to alter the tulip driver. Well that would have been ok I would have slogged it out the hard way - I had no sense to check up places like this, plus I had no friends at all who were into Linux [which helps]. So anyway I went back to windows after I could not determine the horizontal and vertical frequencies of the cheapo old monitor [manufacture long out of business] and found nothing after scouring the net and all these monitor speciality sites etc. All these monitor specialists emailed me back saying they had'nt a clue. Boo. Nowadaze it's really really so simple.

Linux itself (or better most of its distributions ;) ) is not hard to install.

But have you ever tried to get a seldom piece of hardware working under it?

I have tried a couple of seldom WLAN cards and I'm still puzzled. But the rest of the software works perfectly.

The configuration in general is not that easy. Though that varies from distro to distro.

yes but-t'is'nt it fun!!! Config this - config that!!
heh heh - actually it kinda is fun if and when you finally crack it.

The BBC recently reportedfindings that one in seven computer users have difficulty switching their computers on and off. Given that, it is inevitable that a number of people will find Linux hard to install.

The main reason Linux is "harder" to install than Windows is that what works on my Linux setup won't necessarily work on yours (different kernel, different libraries, etc, etc) without configuring and/or compiling from scratch, whereas basically all Windows machines are identical (predictable kernel, standard known libraries, etc). Click-to-install new software won't therefore work consistently well on Linux - but if you have (say) Red Hat and use RPM packages from Red Hat you should generally not have too many problems. OTOH, you won't have a tweaked high performance system, but maybe you don't need that.

Euan

installation would be a snap EXCEPT redhat didn't send me a quality product and installation won't recongnize disk 2. if it did, i'd be using linux by now.

Ouch!

If they think that so many people don't know how to push one little button to turn on their computer, I'd say they're full of it and don't know what they're talking about anyway!

And about the high perforance computer idea... you going to get a high performance computer with Windows? You got to have a few million billion dollars to afford one! Software companies rob you blind! Look at Macromedia's stuff! $400 for Dreamweaver? YA RIGHT!! I'll just use Mozilla's editor if I need a GUI interface for web pages THAT bad!

mossy
even you have to admit that it takes more time to get all the hardware running on a Linux box(seven supported stuff).
IDE cd burners- add scsi emulation to the kernel and then modify grub. With windows I just put it in and run the install CD.
This isn't a contest to see who can figure things out.
Some hardware just is not supported.

When I want to boot of of a raid array, I just press F6, stick the floppy in when the Windows installer asks and then it goes on its way.
It can be done under linux it is just more time and effort.

badgers

yeah there are benefits to Windows and there are benefits to Linux. Windows is universally compatible. I'll give it it's dues. Everything mainstream is written for it. [edit - it sucked the general population into using computers - for this reason I respect ms].

However with Linux you need to configure it. Once it is configured you usually have less problems and it is usually efficient in it's tasks. The kernel itself is the key. How many times have you gotten worried when you start getting blue screens [ha ha ha ha ha]. Or how about when explorer.exe starts crapping out - even after reinstalling ie. Format and recover. I am free of that. FREEEEEE!!!

not to mention all that you learn when working on linux.

The reason we are all here is that we agree with you.
But the point is Learning is hard for some people. My dad is a crabby oaf. I love him and he is a good dad, but just don't bother him with why it works. He wants to sit down and follow along by clicking next.
Everyone has their opinion.

yeah I know - I was agree it can be tiresome. I will not deny it. I am still not confident buring cd's in linux at the moment - I am going to try some software called gear. hopefully it will instill some confidence in my burning - what prog do you use?

none yet, I am going to try the OSS drivers for my sound card.
I have an old Mistumi burner. I was hoping to play with the ATAPI over IDE so that I could do away with SCSI emulation.

I don't burn much, I have little data that is backup critical.
I have a second hard drive and I copy data over when ever I remember to, (not as often as I would like) I was going to play with a script and a cron job to copy things to the second drive.
K3B seems to be a nice GUI front end to cdrtools

you asked why is linux considered to be difficult to install and then say you use redhat 9, one of the most user friendly distros when it comes to installation besides like Suse or Mandrake.

maybe not installation itself but post-installations is a mess. getting your moniter,soundcard,videocard, modem,etc configured can be a hassle. especially if your not using a non-user friendly distro.

h1tman are you talking to me? I use gentoo no RH

It pretty much depends of your hardware too. There're so many exotic win-stuff around. Inbuilt modem, inbuilt soundcard, graphics card. I have an ex-girlfriend who works as analyst for an Internet Provider(mostly phone support for customers). From time to time she comes to me and say so, so many odd modem names that makes me laugh. I mean, it's impossible to make all this to work in Linux without pain. If you buy nice stuff, as Nvidia, SoundBlaster and US Robotics, you are all set. In fact, you should buy nice stuff. If it was a car, you'd buy the best tires you can afford for security reasons, but peoples don't do the same with hardware :)

yeah - and people often loose scope of the fact that MS has their drivers written for them all the time by the h/w Co's.. MS is a multibillion corp that can fund their developement, test and research. Wheras ordinary people research and create linux drivers from their own time mostly. Tough competition for Ms eh?
heh heh heh :)