After MANY attempts to migrate to Linux, I have become frustrated over the one aspect of Linux that continues to make it Not-Ready-For-Prime-Time still.

There are many flavors of Linux, many of which I have downloaded and tried. Each came with its own selected suite of software. And each worked very well inside their native installations. But when I try to install an outside program, I am befuddled with Compilers, C libraries, Hundreds of switches and choices (none of which I understand due to the overwhelming nature of Linux)...All of which leads me to drop the project and throw my hands up and say "Well, looks like Linux is STILL not ready for the mainstream."

I hate to say this, but the techno-nerds that maintain Linux and the programmers who use it, are alienating themselves into a niche area all their own. I would love to be able to use Linux. I would love to experience the security of Linux. I would love to have a crash-proof experience. But I am stymied every time by the overpowering complexity of an operating system that is not flexible enough to be simple.

And so I wait...and hope that someone will understand and fix the one last thing that is wrong with Linux: Program installation.

I'm still waiting...

Maybe my 13-year olds can help you out. They don't seem to have a problem with 'apt-get install <package-name>' from a terminal or Synaptics on their Ubuntu systems. It's an excuse why Linux is "too hard" for you, not why Linux isn't ready for the mainstream. You'd probably be confused if you tried to build software on Windows too.

I don't want to "build" anything. I never "build" windows programs.

how is installing stuff in linux hard, its in fact easier to install software on linux then it is on windows depending on the distro. all you have to do, is go System>Administration>Synaptic Pakcage manager and check which software you want to install on debian based distros, in fedora you go applications> Add/Remove programs and check which software you want, how is that hard?

From the 3 main distros I've used, here's what I've found:

Slackware:
-Very fast, but hard to use for a newbie
-Programs can be hard, as there is no automation by default
-Uses .tgz files for installation, making the install easy, getting dependencies not

Fedora Core:
-apt-get -install <program_name>
-Easy to get & install programs & dependencies
-No large list of what's available (I'm likely wrong on this)

SuSE:
-Yast/Yast2
-Large list of check-offable programs to install
-Dependencies & actual installation are as simple as checking & hitting install

So, while compiling a package may be difficult (but for the most part, you just need "./configure; make; make install" to install it, no switches needed), package management is far from difficult.

Funny you should mention Suse...that's the one I tried the hardest with.

You're right... dependencies were automated. Installation as simple as checking boxes and hitting install? I think not.

After trying out new programs, other "issues" kept creeping up preventing the programs from running properly. Suffice it to say, I spent weeks trying to figure out how to do it. Weeks that turned out to bear no fruit.

Don't get me wrong. I am no fool. But when it comes to this...well let's just say that it's not as easy as you make it sound.

Judging by your analysis here, I would say a paraphrase of PT Barnum is in order: "No one ever went broke overestimating the intelligence of Windows users."

I can't hear you. Your pedestal is too high...

When do you ever need something so new that you have to grab it from subversion, or whatever you did? Even with pre-alpha software you can usually find a deb or rpm. I agree that compiling can be a pain in the ass, but you should never ever need to compile anything yourself. I'm pretty sure I didn't compile anything in the last 2 years. the last thing was the ardour2 alpha... and that was before I found that there already was a deb package.

Instead of complaining I would start a post asking how to install a certain program. I am 99.5% certain that there is an easier way. If you want many bleeding edge programs, maybe a Debian based distro would be better. (I had my share of broken packages on suse - but then I started with 7.something)

Actually in Fedora it's:
Applications > Add/Remove Software
which iirc, is pretty much the same as MS.
Also, when the option starts up it gives you a menu of SW broken down into a short list by type, eg Office, Databses etc, and you can then drill down into those sub-menus for a complete list (which is indeed extensive) until you pick the one you want.
As an example, the other day I installed the OO Spreadsheet tool to deal with a file. Loaded it just fine (inc all dependencies automatically).
You just have to remember http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm (Linux is not Windows article), so effectivley you've got only ONE MS distro (albeit different versions 95, Me, W2K, XP, W2k3, Vista, which would exhibit similar install issues in some cases)

This article should be required reading for newbies. It really puts the situation in perspective.
0rinoco

Live is so simple: if it does not work for you, use something else.

Get Ubuntu. There's nothing complicated about a few clicks in Synaptic.

You're the one who mentioned compilers and C libraries. Stick with Windows, I don't think freedom suits you.

If things don't work in Linux you can get help here and on other sites but it seems you only registered to complain w/o even asking first which doesn't really helps to improve the credibility of what you are claiming.