Linux for the Average Joe
 

Hi Everyone,
I am rather new to the linux scene. I have read a couple of books , recompiled my kernel and just trying to learn linux from the CLI up. I love Linux, even though it can be daunting and hard to learn. I also plan on joining in on the linux from Scratch scene as well. But enough about me, I want to get to the major issue at hand, Linux for the average joe.
Out of all the things I hate about Windows there is one thing I do like about it, installing software. Now granted i have no problem with the "./configure && make && make install" way, it's just that the average person in a moron when it comes to computers.
I am under no circumstances saying that Linux should be Windows, but I do feel that in order for Linux to compete against Windows it has to make things idiot proof to a certain extent.
For example KDE is a good desktop enviroment to work in. Also It is user-friendly. But in Windows you can do everything within a GUI (not saying that is a positive).
i have no problem using the CLI, but most people don't want to look at a black screen with [root@localhost ~].
So my idea is to somehow create a installer for linux equal to or better then Installshield or Wise for Windows. That way all the "soon to be migraters" would find it just as painless to install software in linux as it is in Windows. plus all the hardcore linux users could still use ./configure etc... or RPM's.
My other idea is this. The way Linux runs is not in question (root, permissions) but the fact that when a moronic computer user installs software in linux you have to know what the exectables are before hand in order to run them. in Windows you just need to click on the start menu and then go to programs to see all of the programs that installed on your ststem.
The average joe does not want to symlink shit or understand cryptic binaries (sol.exe = solitare, ouch my head hurts now), so my idea is for someone like KDE or Gnome to basically make it so you can do everything through the GUI (I know, I know...that's what they are trying to do). But it is not 100%. You have to make it so that the average joe can use Linux without EVER going to the CLI. New Linux users are often afraid because of that aspect. They are usually saying "I cant just click to it".
The best way for Linux to be is point and click easy for the end-user and completely configurable for the hardcore Linux fans that like to run everything under the CLI and when you mention "X" they refer to it as "a letter in the alphabet".

why should linux be made safe for stupid people?

why can't stupid people stick with windows

we have to have at least one thing that the dummies can't come and choke up with requests and law suits ordering the makers of linux to dumb it down so little johnny can use it

no

in an ideal world everyone would be considerate and thoughtful and intelligent

however,
we live in this world

make it hard
scare 'em all away

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

i agree man, the reason that linux should get bigger is that it offers choice, im running on an os x system here with linux installed on my small imac and window$ upstairs, choice is great the bigger the better. installing shit from the CLI is just rank why cant we just have a quick way?? my 2 bobs from a linux n00b :)

Plus, you would have to write an installer which could interrogate the system, know whether it's rpm, deb or whatever, or alternatively would know where things should be installed and how to update the menu.

Since a number of packages do not update the desktop menu, you would be looking at either a bolt-on to do this or a method to force the package to do it.

my £0.02

easy installing? what about the portage system of gentoo?

or apt-get for Debian based systems and rpm based systems.......

Thats what different distros are for.

I agree with you. I'm not a Linux expert or anything, I still have my problems that I want help with, but I don't think people should make it simpler just because I'm having those minor problems. When I first started using Linux I thought there should be an installer, but then I realized that RPM files and deb files were all self installers. Now that I have been using Linux for awhile, i don't even use those. I always install from source. Makes things so much simpler ;) Everyone that wants to have easy installations should stick with Windows.

true,
./configure && make && make install
builds and installs from source which makes it easier for developers by not making them have to build binary packages, and therefore gives them more time to spend on developing their software which makes life better for us the end users as we get a better package, besides making the source available allows the same package to be installed on almost any architecture and distro, not just one as in binary packages

Quote:

I am under no circumstances saying that Linux should be Windows, but I do feel that in order for Linux to compete against Windows it has to make things idiot proof to a certain extent.

Who ever said Linux is only out to compete against Windows? This is not the intent of Linux and the majority of its developers around the world. Its the Commerical Businesses like IBM, Redhat and others that use Linux to try and compete, cause that means more profit for them.

But Linux itself is not out to compete against anyone, its out for others to have a great Operating System and a vital alternative to other Operating Systems that exist.

But don't mention if its ever going to compete against Windows, because that is not why its even here to begin with.

My :twocents:

The only reason I think that Linux should compete with windows is to knock M$ off the monopoly they have. My main point in starting this thread was to see how Linux can become more user-friendly without changing it (for all the hardcore CLI fans) to look or *gasp* act like windows. I would like to see Linux change how people use computers. Also I am a avid gamer, so I would like to see more commercial game publishers join in and create games for linux, and the only way that is going to happen is if it becomes cost-effective for the companies to do so. So in order for it to become profitable for companies is to have Linux take a little piece of M$'s pie.

I greatly agree with the whole M$ thing. M$ has been the "big boy" for way too long now. Their software, although quite simplistic, is really bloated and horribly patched up. Why can they get away with such crap though? Because they are the "big boy" of the software industry. Damn monolopies can sell crap and people will buy it because it's all there is. If this market was more competitive it would defintely increase the stablity and usablity of software.

Just as note, ever notice how M$'s software is getting a bit nicer and less crashy and such as other OS competitors are given them a challange? Namely Linux and OS X.

I say give them another 5 - 10 years at the top and things will start to change. I'm, although not much of a mac fan, truly hoping that OS X takes off.

Okay, lets not let this become a Anti-M$ thread. We already have plenty of those floating around. Stick to the topic or this thread will be closed.

Regards.

im installing gentoo right now but from what i know so far, i have to agree with chup, portage fairly easy to use but like most package managers, it's not perfect. it beats rpm by far and i love the fact that you can download, compile and install from source with custom optimizations but it's made easy and it handles depedancies pretty well.

maybe my next distro will use apt-get....havent tried that one yet but i hear it's nice also.

im not too familiar with mac os x, but im assumming you can install software from gui as well as commandline?

I cant imagine that it would take the developers all that much time to make an rpm of their packages.

BTW in response to the "people who want installers should stick to windows" Why? Why not have installers since when does making something simpler neccesarily have to be a bad thing>?

yeah you can, but (except in the case of gift) ive never had to build anything from source

there are installers. rpms, shell scripts, what not. i'd fathom a guess that in this instance developers may not feel the need for strict binary installers ala windows. one, how would you handle dependancies? put them in one package for install on every program that uses that dependancy? this is open source. developers are free to use someone else's library/work,etc. so they do. also, some people want to see the source before installing anything. remember *nix/linux is made by programmers for programmers. plus developers may feel that i've already packaged the source, now you want me to make a binary installer? just conjecture. but if you want binary installers, stick with a distro that uses them.

i have nothing against windows, it can can/should continue to be installed on 90% of the PC's
there's absolutely nothing wrong with that - a bunch of pepole is getting some money, because they did a good job (ECONOMICALLY speaking, of course), so good for them!
linux should be there to provide FREEDOM and CHOICE, not to become "the most popular os in the world" - who cares about that?!? that's the commercial stuff
so, everyone who wants to use windows is free to do it (well, not EXACTLY free - you have to buy the os first ;) ), where not here to do the linux-prophet stuff !!!

Most all new users go through a phase where they wish "Linux did this" or "Linux did that". It is indeed wishing Linux was like Windows rather than realizing it is something different.
I used Suse 6.4 for 6 months or more using GUI tools for most all purposes and did just fine.
For anyone that cares to go further, command line offers more oprions.
IMO
.

Quote from megaspaz : now you want me to make a binary installer? just conjecture. but if you want binary installers, stick with a distro that uses them.

I gues ./configure had to be invented too at some point.. did you refuse to use it ? no.. why ? because it's easier to compile source files..
why don't you write C++ or better yet... in assembler, pure machinecode ?

why is the kernel improved all the time ?? to make it easier for the user, to help prevent bugs.. if there were no improvements or new ways of doing things, we might as well use kernel 1.0 instead of 2.6...
If you are a true hero, try to use kernel 1.0 and run KDE on it.. :-)

why not have things of both worlds .. the guys from debian have created APT.. which will find dependencies for an distro upgrade or program installation.

of course I like to do it the hard way, because it's fun to try to find all the dependencies yourself and when finally the program is compiled you get more satisfaction, I'm sure.

But not all of us are programmers !! I don't understand sourcecode myself.. so, if anything goes wrong with ./configure (and it does go wrong lots of times)
what should I do.. I try to compile a program for 20 minutes to find out that it doesn't even works !

I drive a car, but it doesn't mean that I know how to build one !
I compile software, but it doesn't mean I know how to fix the source code if something doesn't work...

But I am willing to learn.. so please, all is not lost. I like linux alot..
Bill G. has stolen dos from cp/m .. in fact he has stolen everything to create winblows..
that's why there are so many bugs, because it hasn't been written from scratch.. it's crap
..
Please don't get me wrong.. I'll stick with linux, eventually I will understand.
One thing is for sure, it stimulates your mind... In windoze you just click, install.. run..
In linux you are able to see the source, change it, finding out how to install it.. this is very stimulating.. and I am happy that I changed from windows (loosedows) to linux..
Because I'm learning everyday...

The point I'm trying to make is that not all of us are whizkidz.. just to say "stick with a distro that uses binary installers" is easier to tell then to explain how things work.

look nard bucket, i was only conjecturing on why there's no straight out of the barrel setup.exe type installers in linux. if you want to only take a little part of what i posted and try to twist it around to make you feel better, then go ahead. but the fact of the matter is that many of these developers do this stuff in their free time. they have regular jobs that they work at. so time sure as hell can be a mitigating factor. but if you want to get real stupid, how's this... you've been driving an automatic car for your whole life and want to try stick, so you get a hold of a manual car. now you cry and moan about how driving the stick shift is different from driving an automatic. is that the gist of it? sheesh.

i could try to tell how something works, but you people are always to busy crying about how linux is different than windows. so what other response are you looking for besides stick to the distro that is binary install friendly?

Okay, I see your point.
I am willing to accept your point of view and I believe you are right as well.
So, I am sorry to upset things. It's just hard sometimes. But I am willing to learn.
I spent hours on the net to read doc files and I am really trying to figure out how stuff is done on linux.
I apologize to you Megaspaz for being rude. I didn't mean to be a nard bucket as I am.
I really do see your point of view, forgive my harsh response and the fact that I did just took a little part of your view on the matter.

cheers mate, I hope you are not angry at me ! :-)