The reason I started this debate is to get feedback from the linux users on what I consider to be a major stumbling block into Linux becoming a vaible desktop.

I expected a lot pf people to lay into me and this is what did happen.

However, a lot of people have tended o lend their voices to my argument.

I really don't blame the developers: If I'm developing an application for my own personal use, I'll use whatever tools are readily to hand. And if I use Imagmagik over another graphical file format tools (or visaversa), that's up to me. However, If I look to releasing this application into the public domain, there is a reasonable obligation on my part to make it usable.

All I'm saying is that Distros could rationalise dependencies to the point that any new installation would already have dependencies installed.

Dave Coventry

Sounds like a great idea in theory, but how exactly are you going to implement it? You can't predict the future.

How do you get around a package adding a new functionality which may require a new dependency?

Just out of curiosity, does it ever occur to you that maybe the developers who spend hundreds of hours making their software work, might just know more about the subject than you, and maybe the problem is on YOUR end?

Now THERE'S an arrogant statement. Developers who create software and donate it freely for use by anybody without any charge have a duty to make their software user-friendly?

No. Sorry. They have no obligation to do ANYTHING. If they're selling it, they have some obligation to be 'customer-focussed'. But they're not. This is FOSS. They're giving you a product free, out of the goodness of their heart, and you think that gives you a right to expect it to be up to your standards?

You're wrong, pure and simple. You don't like their software, write your own. Or pay developers to make it for you, and then you're justified in telling them it's not good enough. So long as it's FOSS, you've got no right to complain.

Here's a really big newsflash for you, one that many linux newbies need to have pointed out to them time after time:

Nobody cares.

None of the developers are trying to make Linux a huge, mainstream distro. Nobody's trying to replace WIndows. It's FOSS - the only concern people have is making the software work well. There is no bottom line, there are no sales targets. Linux can be 1% or 99% of the market, and the people who are creating it will not care. The only reason people want Linux to get more mainstream is to get more support from hardware manufacturers, instead of having to build drivers ourselves.

Linux is aimed at users who know what they're doing, and want to tinker with their software. It's not aimed at people who can't even spend the time to learn how to satisfy dependencies. If you want an OS that does everything for you, that's what Windows is for.

with due respect, I couldn't disagree more. regarding the majority of OSS (excepting the corporate distros) you and I are not "customers" of developers. they develop what they want to, for their own reasons. most are generous enough to relinquish control and donate their efforts free of charge, without asking for much in return. you can use what they have developed, or not, if you wish - if you don't like it, use something else. they have no obligation to serve you and I, contractually or morally - and they can design for customer "friendliness" or not, if they wish.

OSS is open - if you do not like the system in place, you are free to change it. if you think it should be replaced with a monolithic, locked-down, centrally-controlled system, go ahead and develop one. if the dismal current offerings of microsoft, even with 20+ years of development, an obedient marketplace, compliant vendors, and billions of dollars at its disposal are any indication, it is apparently exceedingly hard to do it well.

oneandoneis2 really knows what s/he is talking about. I am getting tired of people complaining about how hard some distro is and they actually seem to want it to be as Windows. Then use Windows instead! Cause the main reason why I use Linux is because when you understand it, you own it! You can do whatever you want with it, upgrade some library, you can choose between some desktop environments or window managers, and so on and so on. But to get this big freedom one has to learn how to tame it, that is how it is.

That would require that the distro installs a lot of libraries and such by default and that would make the distro huge. This is not what I want, I want a distro that has some basic things and then after I have used it for some time I have installed *only what I need*, so it is adapted to me and my usage, not for the mainstream. This is the power of Linux and if you do not like it you should switch back to Windows.

As oneandoneis2 said, we are not here to fight a battle against Windows and become the worlds largest operating system. We are just here to make good software. FOSS is not driven by money or something like that, what drives FOSS is the pure sole of hobby programming and making good software, that works well for its purpose.

Regards.

Brilliantly put!!

So, do linux developers care?

I'm sure Bill Gates would like to think that they don't!

No, of all the post on this thread, I think this one would warm Mr. Gates' heart the most!

I actually found Linux easier to use than Windows. I use Fedora and my comments are based on that distro. I don't know much about non-RPM based distros except Slackware.

Installing a program using RPM -xyxyxy filename.rpm is so much easier then having to go through an installer and completing a bunch of options. And if you get dependency errors, then just install 'em. Five packages will still be easier to install than a huge Windows program. Plus, I would like to add that Windows programs have dependencies also. It's just that it is more automatic in Windows, but what's the point.

Like I've said earlier: digital communism. In the open source world, everyone is open to their own ideas. It doesn't have to be standard. If you want Linux to be more like Windows, then you have three options:

1. Make your own Windows-like distro.
2. Use Lycoris, SuSE, or Linspire.
3. STOP COMPLAINING.

About the developers, they have no obligations to us end-users. They do what they are doing for free so they can help advance a minor community (relating to home computer world, not enterprise). We should be thankful that they are doing this much.

The thing with the Linux community is: if you do not like it, change it! Because you can, and you have every right to do so. This is not true in the Windows "community", there you are stuck with what M$ decides to give you. In the Linux world, you can do whatever you want.

Thank you

No. See above.

On the contrary, it's his biggest nightmare.

If Linux were aiming to become a mainstream distro, MS would be able to fight it in a myriad number of ways:
- Linux would have to be easier to use, MS could point out it's still harder to use the Windows.

- Linux would have to support proprietary formats, MS could point out that Windows does it better

- Linux would have to make deals with hardware manufacturers for drivers, MS could threaten to take their considerable business elsewhere

and so on.

However, Linux ISN'T aiming to take over the desktop. It's not using any strategies to increase its user base other than to offer really good software.

And it's still gaining users daily. Not because of marketing, which it doesn't have; not because of huge advances is ease-of-use, which nobody's really working on much; not for any reasons like that.

It's gaining users because users want software with the quality and control only FOSS can give them. It's gaining users because it's a bloody good OS that can do ANYTHING in the hands of a knowledgeable user.

That's one thing that Microsoft can never give users. They can never compete against Linux on that footing. And that's why nobody cares about ideas about how to make it "work more like Windows" or "go more mainstream".

You situation is unfortunate, but one must keep in mind where linux comes from. Everything about it was developed by people working online, sharing ideas and source code, so its easy to understand that its assumed you have access to the internet if you are using it, especially since its heavyweight champion role is that of a server.


One thing that would probally help is to be sure that when you install any linux distro, you always install all of the developer libraries. Doing so will eliminate at least 60% of yoru dependency issues. As for the rest, mabey its time for you to take your linux box and start a ISP

Just to correct someone who postd above. SuSE is nothing like Windows ;-). Get your facts straight.

I think the guy has a point.

Many people like the variety of linux. Me too. But if this software management issue is not handled, it will never find its way to the home desktop.

So I read a few times: "Who cares, you should know what you are doing and use Windows instead if you don't. This is for free so never blame the developer." I can accept this, but then let's stop presenting this as a true alternative for MS products, because it is NOT for everyone.

Furthermore, if a developer cannot be held responsible for the software he/she writes, this is a serious flaw if you want to use linux in the business world.

I really like linux, and I know my way around it. A few times I tried to install software, even after changing the Makefiles itself it would still not compile. Installing a software package should not take days of my time (even if a Gentoo emerge takes 24 hrs to complete, I only need 5 mins to start it). While every distro has its characteristics, an alternate uniform way of working would benefit a lot of people, especially less advanced users.

Why should this not be possible? Maybe something like this: a documented repository of libraries developers can use to do their stuff, and which can be expanded should a developer use a new lib. When a library gets a newer version, scripts to be backwards compatible (e.g. creating supplemental links) can be put into place. Add a sort of installer tool which bundles the new program and all libraries it uses when creating the installable package. Libraries are installed/upgraded as needed when installing the package. Even if the developer has the choice to have is software qualified or not, imagine what this could mean to the usability of linux if a regular user could rely on this to configure his/her box with qualified, free and especially "working" software!

If this would be combined with some good standards concerning the desktop regardless which window manager is used (shortcut locations, program locations, ...) this would be a good starting point to really get linux going.

Once again, it's just a matter of what you want the OS to be or to become. I know my preference, but I will never blame the developer, I just hope he'll use common sense.

Rgds

I'm beginning to think there is a conspiracy going on on this site because there seems to be quite a few of these kind of threads that were started in the last week or so. Here is a similar thread for those that have not seen it.

If you want instant gratification, then stick with Windows. Of course it will also buy you all the problems to go with it. It's all the people who can't be bothered to read the README file or INSTALL file that will make me a millionaire. I'm not afraid to work a bit to get things to work, and I'm definitely not afraid to exploit those that are.

I'm not a developer, but I am amazed at the vast array of programs that do some pretty incredible things. For FREE save the cost of my time to download! If I want something to work differently, then I guess I'll have to get off my whiney butt and write it myself.

And just to throw in my 2 cents, I also prefer to ./configure;make;make install
simply from the standpoint that this will create software that, for all intensive purposes, is custom built for MY system.

sam_vde you could not have said it better. Linux is NOT for the user that wants to have control over what his computer is doing. Linux is NOT for the user that does not want to understand what is happening under the hood. Linux is NOT for the user that is isn't concerned about security of their data or personal information. Linux is NOT for those people that are content to be herded around like blind cattle.