Trying to understand software installation with Ubuntu tools
Hello, I'm a recovering Windows user who's trying to learn how to add software to Ubuntu 8.l. I have read on this page https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Repositories/Ubuntu a description of how programs are managed in a Linux system. Like with most official help on this site, it leaves my questions unanswered, and I am unable to make use of the Ubuntu company forum, which is ridiculously busy and hasn't sent me my registration email for two days! Therefore, I'm desperately hoping that some here can help me, that the basic software tools aren't much different between Linux "flavors".
While I do appreciate the principle that Linux provides official sources of compatibility-tested and security-tested software, the source programs reside in "repositories" which must be located and connected to, and this alone may require more than one tool. Then the programs must be not only downloaded, but somehow compiled as well before they can be installed, and I'm still not clear on which tool can or can't do either. I'm having a hard time grasping the division of functionality between Ubuntu's THREE (at least) graphical tools - Software Sources for server repository server connections, Synaptic Package Manager can view repositories on any server (but can it compile and install programs too?), and Add/Remove for managing (can it also compile, install, or both?) programs. I'm a total newbie at Linux - took the red pill yesterday, and now my head is spinning all over this rabbit hole, so please cut me some slack if it's a stupid question, but shouldn't all of the above functions be combined into one tool (sort of the way web browsers work)? Before deciding on this trip, I saw so many comments to the effect that Linux is a simplifying operating system, and I would like nothing more than to agree with all who say that. It would help me greatly, and I would be most grateful, if someone could explain how so many tools does NOT really make the installation of one program the next sequel to Mission Impossible! I need to know why the installation of one program may involve the launching of three (or more) tools, which cannot be open simultaneously while another is updating. What should I expect, and not expect from each tool, how do they work together (if they do), and do they have any overlapping functionality (such as compiling or installation)? Thanks. |
You only need Synaptic (System > Administration > Synaptic Packet Manager) to install packages from the servers (repositories) provided by your base installation. If you want to add more repositories, use the Sources manager (System > Administration > Software Sources).
These tools will only help you install Ubuntu packages, they can not compile anything from source as far as I know. You will have to do that by hand (but it's fairly simple, it only involves three commands most of the time). However, I see no reason for a starting Linux user to start compiling software by hand. Just stick to Synaptic for a while. If you want to go a bit deeper into Linux, try installing software packages from the command line (using APT or Aptitude), or try adding more repositories. edit: Add/Remove programs does basically the same as Synaptic, so forget that one :) Synaptic is the way for installing programs, and the Sources manager is there to let you define additional sources for software, but you'll probably don't need it very fast, as the default sources offer lots of software! |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
On any given day, you can choose whichever you feel like; having used one previously, does not rule out changing over to another, if
Just to generalise slightly, this is something you'll have to get used to in the Linux/Open Source world. Choice. Given that the platform is open, anyone can take advantage to produce a utility that works in exactly the way that they want, either because they think someone else will want exactly that or even because they just want it themselves to 'scratch that itch'. This does tend to lead to a profusion of utilities and selection of the absolutely best could become an obsession, but you only really need to find one that is 'good enough' Quote:
Quote:
|
Thanks!
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
[/QUOTE] |
I don know exactly what a Source Program would be, but I can tell you this:
A program is written in a language, which makes up the source code. You can download this source code, and compile it yourself, which has some advantages, but has its disadvantages too. Therefore, your distribution offers you software packages, which actually are compiled source code, with instructions for your packet manager on where to place the program files on your system and how to configure the software. So it actually are pre-compiled programs. From a Windows point of view, you could see the packages as MSI files that come preconfigured with (I believe) MST files. I hope this makes sense... Also, on the topic of dependencies: a dependency is just what the word suggests. If a program has a dependency, it needs another library or program to function correctly. You refer to the actual libraries as libraries or shared libraries. Then again, I'm still pretty new to these topics on Linux, but this is the way I understand things at this moment :) Maybe someone with more knowledge can provide additional information on the topic. |
Quote:
At this point, I have to suggest that you actually try it. Select something in, say, synaptic, that you migh want and watch the process in action. Now, that's it. The process that you have just watched was it in process. It may or may not have pulled in libraries and other utilities to satisfy dependencies but if it happened (because it needed to), it happened and if it didn't (because it didn't) it didn't. Quote:
Quote:
|
Thanks for all your helpful replies.
As Salasi suggested, I finally went ahead and tried using Synaptic to install software, and it works great! What made me so gun-shy and confused is that I'm used to using Web-based sources, and guided more or less by Web ratings systems (user reviews). When I found nothing out there on specific types of Linux programs, other than a few scattered postings by command-line gurus, it kind of got my head spinning. I then went to my distro page (Ubuntu, which sure isn't written worthy of the most popular one), which, right after playing up that packages are uncompiled source (this in the official tutorial, not a forum), then presented Synaptic as a place to "view" packages in repositories - never once used the word "install" on the little abstract for this tool - this, by the way, is from Ubuntu's official tutorial, not a forum page. I realize Linux is community-supported, and then I'd like to hope that the Ubuntu technical writers aren't paid! Installation of the distro was itself an extended nightmare. Well, I've seen from forum posts that some had it worse - at least I have sound, and most other things working after I got a good installation disk burned, and made the right choice on the type of installation (stupid Vista Machine style "run within Vista" dumped my settings every time I shut down, so it was back to the drawing board from there). The biggest problem turned out to be the default speed of NTSI CD Maker, which, at 48K, burned me an Ubuntu 8.1 install CD which failed to boot. Would have been nice had someone thought to include a warning about that on the Ubuntu download site. This distro presents enough choices to really complicate the troubleshooting when something fails, and it took about a week before I stumbled accross a forum where somebody pointed out the burn speed (as opposed to installation type, or 64 vs 32-bit rate) as a possible issue - they were right! Has anyone ever permanently lost their screen after choosing the wrong screen resolution? Score 1 for Microsoft in leaving you an out if you should do that, Ubuntu lets you jump off that cliff without a warning, and no way to recover! I have a standard 22-inch wide screen, which went dark, and lost all the menus when I selected 1280x24, anyone understand what gives with that? I couldn't find any simple command line fixes for this, therefore I had no choice but to reinstall. The default screen res is the second to the smallest in Ubuntu Ibex, so I know that a change of this would be the first thing I'd reach for if I had just installed it on a laptop! Am I the only one, or should a big, red-caps warning be inserted over the Ubuntu download page? |
Quote:
I hadn't though about the business of user reviews; its true, you do get used to selecting utilities and smaller items of software on the basis of the comments of random others and using a package manager doesn't give you that. Quote:
Quote:
|
Actually its fairly easy to recover from wrong display configuration in ubuntu.
Boot with the recovery mode option I'm the boot menu and in the recovery menu you can find the command to reconfigure the X (I dont remember the command). |
This project is a community; it's all make up as we go along.
Linux is difference, linux is choice, but the spirit of Tux guides it and he gives a helping hand. http://www.linux.org/lessons/beginner/toc.html Welcome to the linux party. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:30 AM. |