Loading applications
 

The only application I've managed to download and get running is the admittedly very useful Firefox. I can't understand why there appears to be no common standard on these. Firefox was simple - in Windows terms, unzip then point and click at an obvious icon. Done. Why can't all downloads work to that template? AMSN and Limewire are driving me berserk!!

With genuine apologies to the technical experts, I am looking at Linux as an alternative to Windows. I don't ever want to open terminals and type in code!

The standard on most UNIX like platforms is
$./configure
$make
#make install

Linux distros have their own package formats and due to the diversity in opensource, these are not the same from distro to distro and probably never will. You have to understand your distros package management system. As for packages such as Limewire, they come with their own installers, so you should read up on how to install them before actually attempting the install so that you make sure you know what you are doing.

Anyway whats the exact problem you are having and post any errors.

Maybe you should read few of the many the threads with the subject "Windows vs. Linux".
Although Linux expects from you, in order to run properly, some supplimentary knowledge compared to Windows, don't think at it like many others do, that it's an experts-aimed OS. Not to mention that the additional knowledge doesn't regard ultra-technical specifications like voltages, rpms...or programming skills...you name it. You just need to know what you computer actually IS and how it WORKS. And that won't hurt, guaranteed. It will be instead a huge benefit for you.

If you "don't ever want to type code"...Window$ always awaits you back.

Re: Loading applications
 

Hmmm.........let me start by saying that GNU/Linux is not MS windows.
GNU/Linux (aka as Linux) is a different operating system, which essentially means that there are new things you
will have to learn. How much you will have to learn depends on the distribution you have chosen to use.
For example, SuSe and Mandrake are geared toward Linux newcomers while in the case of Gentoo, Debian and
Slackware a certain degree of knowledge about your system is necessary.
If you are not willing to learn a FEW NEW things about the NEW OS you are using then Linux is no good for you.
In your case, I think you are using RedHat, you should know what is an rmp and from where to download them...
.etc. Nobody is asking you to fireup a terminal and type some commands, AFAIK you can double click on an rpm
and it will install.
Just spend some of your time learning about the distribution you are using instead of complaining.

Re: Loading applications
 

But that is the whole point of it. By having to learn to open terminals and type in code (usually just about four or five lines to compile a huge variety of software) you get one thing Windows users do not have - CONTROL. If you prefer, those four or five lines of "code" (actually dirt simple commands like configure;make;make install) can completely reconfigure the resulting binary to your specifications, contrary to the Windows model where you are stuck with the binary you got.

It is the classical dichotomy - with more power comes more responsibility, and in this case just four lines of text to type to get a working binary...

OK, I'll admit my posting came late at night when I was tired and had work to go to in the morning, and three hours following various suggestions posted on the internet about how to load the programmes into Linux, and getting nowhere.......

I'll persevere, because I do see the benefits of being not tied to Microsoft. But my point was basically if Firefox could be made so easy to install and run in my distribution, why can't all programmes? As history has shown, products live and die by their software (classic example victory of VHS over Betamax, despite being an inferior product).

I remember seeing a Linux magazine with a free distro, and bannered across the top was "BETTER THAN WINDOWS" and for all I know in terms of its programming efficiency, elegance of coding etc Linux may well be. But until 'plug and play', 'point and click' become realities then for the mass of people it isn't "better than Windows".

I am not wishing to be negative, and therefore would not welcome - nor feel I deserve - a blitz of postings telling me to learn about shells and bash etc etc. I just feel (and to be fair I have seen this comment made in specialist Linux literature) that it is fundamentally dishonest to promote Linux as a realistic desktop altenative to Windows for the domestic user. Perhaps nobody wants it to be...

"Nobody wants it to be"...if it looked and felt like Windows you'd say it's just an attempt to copy the way M$ does things and wouldn't be of much interest. It might even get criticized about it.
Learn shell, etc., etc.,...it's in your benefit to do so. It would get you closer to your computer. This is the way Linux works and that makes it different and, yes, better. And this shouldn't be changed just to make Win users happy.
Why don't you people see the other side of the things also? There are some people who are satisfied with Linux as their desktop OS and some who are not. Nobody forces you to use Linux. If you don't like it, continue using Window$ and the problem is solved. If it's not good enough for you it sure is for others.

BrianD18 just hang around this forum and no matter how minor a problem seems, post it and someone will help you out. When I started using Linux in 1999/2000, there weren't as many forums and people to help, but I still perservered and now I am helping others. I also learn a lot of stuff from newbies and others even though I see myself a seasoned Linux user :)

One point however, that I was just thinking about, you may need to find yourself a copy of a newer distro like Fedora Core 3, Mandrake 10.1 or Suse 9.2 because Redhat 9 is now a legacy distribution, so even though people maybe able to help you out when you have problems, Redhat does not provide any upgrades/updates anymore. Fedora is the new distribution by Redhat, that replaced Redhat linux 9 and below. If you don't feel like upgrading to Fedora or changing to another distro, you can check out the fedoralegacy who still provide essential updates for some Redhat distributions.

Which, of course, is an issue you don't have to worry about if you become a Debianite or Ubuntuist. You can always update to latest.

hell that's half the fun i think :p

i'm not going to rehash things that are said here already (hopefully) but, all linux distros are different on how they handle stuff (with certain respect) but, all the programs will work on every distro, so doing the ./configure lets the program configure itself to your distro. I think that is just awesome!

That is true. And though the distributions differ a lot regarding the interface, knowing and getting a basic understanding of the most essential configuration files will cut the troubleshooting efforts to a minimum. And that is not difficult.

OK folks - I'm going to carry on with Linux of course, because I do realise that in principle it's A Good Thing. If I'm honest I guess I'm just pretty pissed with myself that I spent £34.99 GBP on a piece of software which was out of date.

What's Gnoppix like? I've just seen a mag with a distro on its front cover.....!

Change distribution...

Try Xandros (linux OS) distribution. The you can
install with the GUI XN (Xandros Network). You
can even download the free Open Circulation
Edition v.3 for free.

Avoid Linspire even though it has a software
warehouse. It's dangerous to run as root.

Even Lycoris is better (can download from its
website) although their libraries are old and
not as many choices of softwares.

I never tried SuSe, although I heard words about
their YAST installer.

Sheng-Chieh

I am with FC3 at the moment, which is nice, except the Up2Date updating thingie. I got an extra PC the other day - I expect to make a SuSE Pro FTP install on it. YaST is okay, but Debian's apt with the Synaptic interface is the best. If program package management was my main issue, I would install Ubuntu.

Debian has the best and easiest package management system.

apt-get for command line, but the synaptic package manager allows you to add and remove and upgrade applications (thousands of them available in the Debian repositories) in a few Windowsy clicksy way ;) (and it takes care of dependencies too).

Before you can start using this do this (once only the first time): you must add repositories by running the apt-setup command from the terminal. It will walk you through a menu environment where you can choose different repositories (from the web (HTTP, FTP) or CD-ROM and so on).