you installed Mandrake and complain about not being able to compile? while you can install mandrake and compile with it just like any other distro, I think ( this is an opinion) these distro's do alot to make the image of "it's hard to install software", especially with their split packages.

you are correct there is a gap between more experienced linux users and the rest, and this argument will really never end. personally, I want options and lots of them. if I want gnome-1.4 on slackware 10.1, I can do it and a package manager will not help me there. or if I want rhythmbox, but want it to use xine instead of gstreamer for the backend ( which I do, because I cannot stand gstreamer), I compile it and tell it to use xine. if I want firefox to use the experimental qt style instead of gtk and freetype to handle the fonts instead of xft, that's what I want and I cannot get that from a binary installer. with firefox it doesn't matter as much, but other programs/libraries have options which make alot of difference, and someone has to make those decisions ( no matter what decision is made, it's not going to work for everybody and someone is not going to be happy, so you just do it yourself).

also, who is going to do the work? some have expressed the interest for a universal package manager, who is going to code it for free and spend their time doing it they could be spending doing something they want to do? Maybe you and Jimbo99 should get together and create the universal package manager, that way it could be "just like windows" and both of you will be happy. I fully understand that some do not want to get dirty and have no desire to look under the hood of their OS, because they would rather be doing whatever it is they like to do. but if this is the case, I'd suggest not using the OS that has always been "by developers, for developers".

Well then, for your sake, I hope Linux dies out and becomes extinct. I mean, after all, you don't want users since you're so 1337 h4xx0rz.

This is not going to happen anytime soon. Nobody is implying that Linux does not want users, but if you want to use Linux then learn to do things the Linux way. If you think there is a better way of doing something you are free to implement that method if you can. Thats what opensource is about.

I like installing software from source... it makes me feel smart

actually, it doesnt take much usually. Three commands.... and if it complins about dependancies, you go find them and install them first. Only in care cases (mplayer) is it moderatly annoying.


That being said, I woudnt expect my mom or dad to have to put that much thought into computing. If you need somthing easy, you need to choose a distro with good package managing, and good availibility of packages.


Comming from a hardcore slackware user, if you dont want to hassle with your distro, get debian. Its a major pain to install (well, at least on a 233 imac) so you might consider having a more hackish friend install it for you, but once the system is running it is easier than windows to install software on. Jump on google, find the name of the program, and apt-get install <program name> So simple it hurts.



On the rare occasion that you debian doesnt maintain the program you want, you back to doing it the slackware way... but with over 4k packages (last time i check) I doubt youll be doing "./configure, make, make install" anytime soon

You're missing the point: It's not that Linux wants to DIScourage users. It's just that it has no need to ENcourage them.

Tell you what, see if this helps any: LNW

Okay, I've read it now. He has some valid points. But my (and many other) problem isn't how to use the software. I can do that. It's to install it. Being a complete n00b and not knowing anything about how to use the functions of the software, isn't the same as having frustrating installers. And don't give me that apt installer for Debian. I'm not running Debian, and it's only one Linux distro. Why do you think there's something called dependancy hell? It's not without reason that expression has been coined.

I'm still thinking you're missing the point.

The real question you should ask if you find fault with some aspect of Linux is: Do experienced users have the same problem?

Your problem is that you're having difficulties installing software. Do experienced Linux users have the same complaint?

Not that I've ever seen.

Does that suggest anything to you about where the problem may lie?

Sure, I get your point. The fault lies with me for not knowing. I never missed that point. My point however is, that the software creator is too lazy to adjust his software to cater everyones needs. Sure, you now have the choice to flame me with arguments that if I'm not donating, or improving the source code for user friendliness, then I've got no right to complain, right? Wrong. The software is created for everyone, not just for developers as that article states. You don't have to be a developer to run Linux. That's a false statement. But sure, every Linux-user has the choice of being a developer if he wants to. It's every software developers obligation and responsibility to improve and adjust his software as much as possible for everyone. I mean, if you create software, I take it that you want people to actually use it? Unless you create it for yourself, but if you release it to the public and expect people to use it, then you sure as hell better expect people to complain. If not, don't develop software. Sure, there's always the minority of experienced Linux users that know exactly what they're doing. But then there's the majority that doesn't know, have time to learn, or just don't care about using it, if you're going to be a pain in the ass with your software. Should you just ditch the majority because you don't want to conform to anyone else's opinion except your own? Sounds pretty much like a stupid move in my opinion, to say the least. Oh and one more thing, Linux is not huge as that article claims it to be. It's far from huge. When Linux comes close to the success of Firefox for desktops, then we maybe can start argue about that, but that's another subject.

At last! Well done.

Well, then I suggest you email all the developers of all the software that you find so wanting. Tell them to stop being lazy, and get on with their obligations to make their software work the way you want it to.

Let us know how far you get with that attitude.

So? Nobody ever said you did.

As a parting gift (I'm not going to waste any more of my time on you or this post), please accept this:









It's a clump of blank space you can use to break your text up into multiple paragraphs, in order to make it more readable.

re-read the second to last sentence of my earlier post, don't stop 'till you understand it. is a developer lazy if he would rather spend time adding a feature rather than spending hours coding a "universal software installer"? I never claimed to be a "1337 h4xx0r", but I did my time, learned the systems and how to use them. the only ones that complaing about "dependency hell" are the ones who don't put forth the effort to learn the system. if you want something, stop being lazy and do it yourself, don't expect someone else to feel like donating their time and money just for you.

and by the way, most projects that I know of are done because a developer wants/needs something, and if other people want/need it to then that's great, but how many people do you know are just sitting around thinking up something they can do for others that requires a great deal of their time ( and some of their money) for no compensation?

I do it. I don't know anyone beside myself though. I'm not writing sofware, but I do edit a lot on Wikipedia, which can be argued to be the same thing, except that you don't need to have coding skills, and it's a web encyclopedia. I don't get anything out of it, I do it for fun only. How benevolent I must be Anyway, I'm tired of posting in this subject. Clearly, it's not getting anywhere. This'll be my last post regarding this topic. Later.

Hi,

A lot of the issues involved with distributing software on Linux are being worked on by myself and other members of the autopackage team. Note that the link is http://autopackage.org/ not autopackager.org which is what Jimbob has been posting.

In short:

* Yes it's possible for nearly Linux program to have an easy to use installer. Despite being only 2 months old, many projects are producing autopackages and many others are investigating it or waiting for key features to be added.

* The autopackage project provides a lot of help and tools to produce these. The resulting ".package" files are a hybrid of traditional packages and installers, combining the strengths of both.

Finally I'd like to note that software being hard to install is not "the Linux way", sorry. I've seen a lot of rubbish spouted in threads like these and felt I had to speak up. I *am* a Linux software developer which I do both professionally (for money) and as a hobby. It concerns me how many users have problems with installing software, which is why myself and others have written autopackage. I am assuming a lot of the rudeness and bizarre opinions (ie, developers don't care about their software being usable) is coming from people who are not professional developers themselves.

Anyway. I suggest people who are looking for solutions instead of "explanations" of why they're wrong look at http://autopackage.org/ and read the materials there, or try some of the packages people have built.

I rest my case. Well said. I especially liked this part:

"a lot of the rudeness and bizarre opinions (ie, developers don't care about their software being usable) is coming from people who are not professional developers themselves."

Condescending attitude like that is what pisses me off with Linux. I mean, you ask for help? "Stick to Windows." You ask a software developer if he expects people to use his software? "My software is made by developers for developers." Please.

ok mhearn


One: your links don't work.
Two: your doing the same thing that your preaching about.
Three: Linux is a community not someones personal project company that forces ideas
Four: The people that use a distro are either 1: don't want to take the time to make the OS from scratch witch you can read the LFS howto's or 2: Dont know enough about programming and such to be able to manage the system in non graphical modes.

Touting ones opinion may make you feel better but in reality no ones going to care. Nothing is Anti linux that is what makes it great. Everyone does things the way they want that makes it free and so great. Windows is such a closed box but it does have advantages that alot of people will scratch at me about here that is bullcrap. Windows makes computers easy for people that don't want to know how a computer works they just want it to play a game or look at porn or whatever. We have linux that these people can use too so maybe we can turn a few to the light side :P but seriously i think the medium that will eventually come is to be able to install things right away with no compiling but still have the option to compile it if you want. This medium is nicely done with package managers that provide source.

thanks for whoever cares to read my rant :P

exvor, the links work OK for me. What problem do you see?

I didn't really understand your other points, sorry I never said Linux was a project of some company, only that many Linux developers I know and work with *do* care about usability and making Linux work for non-technical people. I said that because some people in this thread asserted the opposite.