reply for cprogrck
 

Your post comes off strange as you complain about the thread being long and off topic and then add similarly wordy post to further very thread your complaining about. I along with many others would argue that Linux is not "easy enough". Neither is Windows in many ways. There is a lot of work to be done to make computers work for the general population. You say that techies don't care about the general population but that is bull, I'm a developer with lots of computer knowledge under my belt and there is nothing that I care more than the gerneral population. I want people to enjoy and use computers because they can be very useful and solve many peoples problems. That being said I think that the current solutions offered on linux distros for installing software is still lacking. I say this as an experienced computer user. You suggest people become smarter instead of tools becoming easier too user. I'm a Computer Science soon-to-be graduate who has recieved many honors for my achievments at University of Michigan. I consider my self an smart person and everybody, even my school buddies and other geeks, rely on me when they have computer problems. Shouldn't this be smart enough? See, the point is that it's not a matter of intelligence. It's a matter of people not having to waste their time working on dependencies and such when an equally as expressive method as the current source code packages with much better dependency handling schemes could exist. I'm looking at this particular gripe as a discussion of the usability problems with Linux as seen from the point of view of a person who wants to efficiently use a computer and not waste time. I'm interested in finding a solution if it exists and if not working on the solution myself.

Actually I'm sure if there was an easier solution that even the techies wouldn't have a problem using it. Actually they may prefer it once the see the time it saves them. You may offer something such as "apt-get install gaim" as an example of how simple linux is but then try to do that same command with a regular setup to get Enlightment, mono, or anything else not in the repositories. Can't you agree that it would be nice to have something as useful as apt-get or yum to use to get these applications too?

I know that I'm being repetitive with my points but people keep on posting and ignoring whats being said. The only people who actually seem like they understand my points are either agreeing with me completely or telling me to use Windows. Why should I go use windows, you go use Multix!

KainHart

its very relevent.
for example... installing the cd-writer k3b.
it depends on many many other programs, programs to build file system images, files to convert compressed audio steams (mp3?) into raw wav's, graphical user environments. kernel version's drivers....

if the program came with all its dependency's then the program would be huge... there would be to much wasted space.

k3b uses the KDE libraries...
half of linux users dont even have KDE installed, they use GNOME. which is why when these gnome users attempt to install it they get the dependency missing QT, then thy have to install the KDE base libraries.

with windows this problem would not arise since users dont have a choise in which GUI they use... sure they have options about skins, and 3 different window decorations, but its not the same

this IS how this is relevant.

so.. you dont like the sheep comparason....
ive come up with a better one !!!!

lets compare operating systems to houses.
in linux, its your house. you choose, choose how big the doors and windows and rooms are,
choose the shape of the windows and doors and rooms.

with windows, the only availabe window is square, and has the size X,Y
the only available rooms are cube, with size X,Y,Z

so if a windows user want to buy a new bed, they get on the phone, and say.. i have a microsoft house, i want a bed. the you will get a bed build to fit in your room, and small enough to fit through the door.

but when you order abed for your linux house, the bed company will NEED you to do a little more work, they will want to ask you... what is the size of yyour bedroom ? how big are your doors so we can get it into your house, ect ect ect.

this IS relevant, and IS the reason why more input is required for a linux program install.

maybe you dont have technical knolegde of operating systems.
but those here who are experianced programmers will tell you why its a very bad idea to statically link all binary's

do you understand now ?

to make ordering a bed as easy in linux as it is in windows, you would have to surrender all choise and let bill gates make all the decisions about your house.

get it ?

As always, Linux users are being very supportive and helpful, which is why it's such a pain to give up on it -- I don't want to! And I don't seriously intend to void it from my system or anything. I'm gonna keep tinkering here and there; I hate total defeat so I hope to pull some sort of satisfaction out of coming back from time to time when my "energy is up" and trying to wring some sense out of the thing.

I just wanted to throw that in to really drive home the perspective of a relatively smart guy that supports the idea of Linux and what Linux stands for, but has really reached the point where the time commitment in mastering it is too overwhelming for the "average" user to justify.

I think it's great that people work with this and keep improving it every day just for the love of it, and it burns me that I can't seem to get a handle on it...hopefully, given more time and experience, I'll get back on it with a vengeance.

But for now, I just want to remind you of the folks that really think Linux is a great idea, but can't handle the scope of it. It's easy when you know how, true, but getting there is much much less than half the fun.

- Matt

@qwijibow
 

To me the analogy is more like the following.

Linux Bed Company: Bed? what do you need a bed for only people who live in microsoft houses need beds.
Newbie: But what will I sleep on?
Linux Bed Company: Well, we have something else you can sleep on ... I guess you could call it a bed, but you have to build it your self.
Newbie: Ok well I guess thats not that bad since this Linux bed is cheeper.
Linux Bed Company: Ok, well in order to build the Linux bed you will need screws, a mat, some thingamajigs, and varnish. To get the screws you have to hunt around the country to find where to attain them. The varnish isn't as flexible in use as the one microsoft uses so you may have to research what moisture levels are in your your home before you choose one. The mat is your choice maybe you should build the bed about 10 different times using different combinations of these cheap mats until you find something you can live with.
Newbie: Ok, that seems like a lot of work isn't there just some good generic one that I can get or buy? I just wish I could get a bed that is like the microsoft bed but will fit my linux house. And what the heck is a thingamajig?
Linux Bed Company: You don't know what a thingamajig is?! Well maybe if you don't want to spend a month making your own bed you should call up Microsoft. [hang up]
...


If the mythical Linux bed company did actually ask you the customizations you wanted and then make the bed for you this would be more like what the Windows installers usually do. A Linux installer could ask you, do you want to use this or this graphical engine. We noticed that you have this installed do you want to use this or the default one? If you want this one then click here to download that additional dependency.

Do you know that Windows programs are somewhat modular just as Linux ones are. I know about this because I've been involved in development work for both. When I use an API for windows, many different programs can use that same dll without downloading or reinstalling the package again. Yes, this makes programs bigger for download but most people don't seem to mind. The thing with Linux is that even if you do have all the packages, rpms for example, downloaded to cover the dependencies of a particular application the order in which the install should occurr is still complicated and non-automated. Did you know that Microsoft had been doing very similar download only what needs to be installed types of update packs? So the benifit of not putting everything into each package is obvious to most people who know anything about software. it would be ridiculous to include the java vm in every java application download but if it's a matter of adding a few killobytes and save people some time, I don't see a problem with offering at least the option to download a slightly bloated package. Actually a dependency checking web app of sorts would probably at least make it easier to facilitate downloads and installation of the needed packages and it could entirely be tailored to the custom system.

@Kainhart. did you read my post or just skim through it (sorry i know i ramble a bit)

you dont seem to understand at all.

Linux uses its own version of what windows calls DLL's
Unix i believe was the forst OS to use the idea of dynamically linking ibraries.

Let me put it to you in YET ANOUTHER WAY.. which explains why choise means more steps in installing a new program...

Windows hyperthetical situation.
I AM A programmer.....
I wrote an installation program.
the installation progam puts a shortcut in the start menu.
all users use the same GUI, NO choise !
to do this... use the windows API to add a shortcut in the folder C:\documents\blah/blah/users/star-menu\programs\my-program\SHORTCUT
DONE


Linux hyperthetical situation.
I AM A programmer.....
I wrote an installation program.
the installation progam puts a shortcut in the main Menu.
The user has a choise of hundreds of GUI's LOTS of CHOISE !!!!!
to do this....
IF the user chose KDE, use KDE API to add the link
IF the user chose GNOME use the GNOME API to add a LINK
IF the user chose IceWM add the link to the file $HOME/.icewm/.config
IF the user chose fluxbox....
IF the suer chose blackbox.....
IF the suer chose TWM.....
IF the suer chose FVM95....
IF the user chose enlightenment....
IF the user chose one of the other many available GUI's
IF the user is using a GUI not created at the time this porgram was written......
IF the has NO GUI

as you can see.... Choise means more has to be taken into account, more has to be auto-detected.
not ever possiblility can be auto detected so users will have to learn to make shortcuts themselvs.

do you understand NOW why choise and freedom requires more knoledge ???

i hope you get it this time, cos i dont think i can put it any simpler.

I couldnt have said it better myself. Nice job! :D
much love,
nikki

Yeah I understood the first time actually. I'm not so worried about shortcut/link creation and placement as I am about actualling getting the software working the the machine. See, using standards or protocals to do such things such as placing shortcuts or least how to interface with the desktop environment's api to create a shortcut would make a lot of sense. A simple solution for developers looking to install into these environments is to create some intermediate program which creates shortcuts in any popular desktop environment. This intermediate program could reside on common distros or be included inside an optional installer that comes with the software. The point is that yes I can see there is a lot of choice when it comes to how you do things on Linux but eventually natural selection will probably kill off the less efficient or desirable ways of doing things leaving a more narrow but tried and true selection of options.

There are probably about 10 other ways I could probably think of that could help simplify the problem you just brought up so, I guess I'd like to make the point that just because you have choice doesn't mean things have to be chatoic and uninteroperable. This is how drag and drop, copy/paste, IME, networking, and the web work. All I'm asking for the same to happen for application installation. I don't think somebody would agrue that the web doesn't offer choice. However it is built on standards so, you don't have the case where someobody has to use a different application to access each website.

You mentioned dynamically linked libararies. Such constructs are used on a variety of systems so it's really not any reason that holds back innovations that look to simplify installations. The truth is that software for Linux is spread out in a very distributed fashion in the form of many packages. I personally like this idea however there should still be a simple way of linking these together during installation to make things smoother for the person trying to attain all of the nessecesary parts and no more.

I will say that I'm glad you are getting into more of the specifics of Linux software and installation though because this is what I have been trying to discuss. I'm still not sure if there is already solutions or partial solutions out there for what I'm looking for but it's exactly discussions such as this which will lead me to my answer. I'm actually feeling a little bit like a hijacker because of the length of this thread so maybe I'll start a new one under development and refference this one.

Thank you everybody for contributing their thoughts thus far.

autopackage
 

Just so that people can see that there is a demand for what I've been ranting about please check out autopackage.org. What they are trying to solve overlaps a lot of what I've been talking about.

standardising is always a good thing.

the way i see it, you pay for linux in time to learn.

i think that RPM is a good way of installing software.
you download what you want in RPM form, and install it with a progam called RPM.
RPM will then either insall your program, or ask you to download anouther RPM.
you repeat this process untill all dependency's are installed./
it tells you in plain english what do download,
most of the time you can get rpm's from rpmfind.net or google.com/linux

and if you are lazy, there are programs like yum which do the downloading automatically.

the only down side to rpm, is when a new user gets there hands on a Server distro, and wants to use it as a multimedia OS... the base distro doesnt have the right library's and so the user gets into a long dependency chain of A requires B requires C requires D and gets fed up and gives up on linux.

maybe in the future, Distro's will be custom built..
when you buy a new pc you will be asked to fill out a form...
do you want any servers ???
do you want multimedia
do you want gameing
do you want... blah blah blah,

and the staff will custom build you a distro, with all the programs you need are on the CD's
you wont have to go oon the net to download a specific program your general distro is missing.

all installing / removing will be done in a one click like Lindows, or redhat Redhat-config-packages, or fedora2's system-config-packages.

that would be one solution to your problem.

WindowsXP was on sale where i live for £80 when it was newish...
i cant see a custom burned linux cd set costing any more than that !!!

ofcourse the distro wouldnt be completely custom, maybe built on redhat but with all the package dependency's pre calculated and solved by the local instore super computer ;)

I don't know Mr.Parr if you will get this Far :)
 

Lots of posts.
But I don't know if anyone pointed out the REAL problem
Why his experience has been so frustrating.


Red Hat 9.0 is not for the newbie.
It's very counter-productive to have (or trying to install) a distro which is not for you.

Mind you I started off with Red Hat, and played with it - as a toy rather than using it as a full OS.
I couldn't even get to play CD's! Or get into my Windows shares - the solution always being some cryptic command line
that seemed to only work on sunny days.

Mr Parr get a distro which is for the *complete* beginner and your experience will be a much better one.
I am not being arrogant, I'd wished I did the same back then!

I went in circles and found Mandrake suited me best tho: easy and complete if you have a tiny bit of IT/Admin experience.

Anyway here is a list (hope its right, please add more folks!):

Easiest distros: Lycoris, Xandros, Linspire.

Medium-Easy distros: Mandrake, Suse.

Medium-Hard distros: RedHat, Fedora, Libranet ..

Hard distros: Gentoo, Slackware, Debian, etc

i started with redhat9, then fedora core, then fedora core 2.
i found the whole experiance quite easy.

the only trouble i had was finding programs..
for example i would search the internet for an mp3 player, only to find i alrready had one... its just that "XMMS" isnt as self explanitary as "windows media player", or "winAMP"

i had no trouble migrating...
however, having never used Mandrake or suSE, i cant compare between distro's, maybe suSE is super easy ;)

anyways, at first, linux is a steep learning vurve, but its worth it.
i have a dual boot machine, linux for me, windows for the family. after upgfrading to windowsXP and finding my cd-burning software doesnt work, i have to buy a new one !!!!
where as with linux... well. you get the idea, ITS ALL FREEEEEEEE. (in every sence of the word)

I'm still pretty new to linux, a couple a months experience only. I dont find linux that hard. Ok you have to learn a few basic operation. But once you can find you way around in a Terminal, the rest of the learning is more fun than work. I installed Slackware 9.1. The installation was MORE than EASY. Just choosed the full installation option and that was it.... It even detected my video card without selecting it or configuring it wich is fine cause a computer should'nt do anything unless you tell it to.(Espicially when you got 2 video card) As for installing software i sometime encounter problem, mainly an "All recursive Error" during the make( Wich i dont know what it means yet :? ) but more than likely somehow, somewhere, someone will have made a pkg for your distribution. I found Linux MORE user friendly than W$. If u have a problem with W$, your F$$$. Here you have (I don't know how many) human taht will help you if they can. And cause they want to not cause they're getting $$$. If someone does'nt have such a good experience i'd say: "Research, there's a penguin for everyone out there!!!)

hi guys

(sorry i didnt read all post's just typing in my opinion)

i been dazzling around with the install issues for 3 days now i am truly having the hardest time
but i can somehow smell the reward in the end of this, i believe most of my problem is low knowledge or no knowledge if u like, people is used too the non need of knowledge from win
and that im fed up with, everything is so automated that we dont need to do anything
and just follow what the win producers think we should do, basicly win users is following
there directions.
I never tried Linux, i started a couple of days ago, i have no intentions whatsoever on giving up on it, its time too break free i see win as chains i allways did but was too noob to do anything else, and i still am but im going to fight my way out of this :)
just to stay on topic wheter or not its easier i cant say anything about im not in it yet :)

Regards Deagle

now imagine actually putting in the time to build that bed, the trouble you go through, the things you learn...and the first time that you have a young lady over and she notices this marvelous bed and exclaims, "wow, what a wonderful bed! i've never seen one like it." and you can proudly reply, "oh that? i made it."

just to further your example...

and besides, now you know what a thingamajig is.

I remember this thread when I started trying to play with Linux. :) Linux has been a steep learning curve but so was DOS when I learned that. Resently, my company is making a big push to have a Linux OS option open for every platform by 2006. So, I have taken the responsibility to gain compotency for our department.

We are using Redhat 9. I downloaded the 2.6.6 kernel and recompiled, which was a major acomplishment, but I am still such a :newbie: Light bulbs are come on every day. :D

Cheers Everyone