I switched from Windows to Linux around 2012 because I started learning about Richard Stallman, and I not only found the philosophy of free software interesting, but I also didn't want to deal with the surveillance issues of Windows. However, one thing I've seemed to struggle with is installing programs. Before anyone says anything about me "wanting Windows in a different shell", let me be clear that I actually did try learning programming at one point, but I found it difficult. True, everything is difficult until you practice and get better, and I could try learning programming again. Despite the occasional difficulties I've had, I don't at all intend to run back to Windows, because I do manage to get by with the basic features Linux distros offer. FYI, I've used Mint in the past, and now I'm using Debian, however Mint seemed relatively easier to use in my opinion. However, for people like me who just want to install a program, but end up getting confused and frustrated when trying to do so, I don't understand why Linux distros don't come with the option to install a program by using the executable or the source code. The non-programmer could use the executable when they're first learning the ins and outs of Linux, and later on use the source code if and when they finally get the hang of it, while the programmer could just use the source code and make the programs better for the non-programmer because they have more experience.

Linux Mint, Debian and most other major Linux distributions have their software on their own servers (repositories) and the best way to install software is through the package manager for that system. Installing is then just a mouse click or two away. I think you're confusing 'programming' with the ability to read and write (type) which is all you really need. I don't know anything about programming and don't have any problems installing software. Perhaps if you could give a specific example of what you are having problems with?

1 members found this post helpful.

what?
apt-get install app name
it's that simple. No one needs to be a programmer to use and install programs on Linux.

you've been using Linux since 2012, what are you now finding difficult in 2019?

1 members found this post helpful.

Agree: software installation on Linux is far easier than on windows. It's also far safer: major Linux distribution repositories provide secure software packages that are installed through graphical means. No hunting around the web for software to install from dubious sources like in Windows.

You CAN install via source code but this is the exception rather than the norm.

1 members found this post helpful.

I should've clarified that most of the time I do use synaptic package manager, but when I have to download stuff off of the internet, that's when things get confusing and frustrating. For example, I've recently downloaded Thunderbird off of Mozilla's website because it wasn't included in synaptic package manager for whatever reason. So I tried exactly what you said by typing in "apt-get install thunderbird" to install it, but ended up getting this error message saying

"E: Could not open lock file /var/lib/dpkg/lock-frontend - open (13: Permission denied)
E: Unable to acquire the dpkg frontend lock (/var/lib/dpkg/lock-frontend), are you root?"

What's frustrating and confusing is I don't know I did wrong

If you're using a package manager it doesn't really matter if the package is precompiled or not since the package manager does the work for you. The difficulty is the same. I believe in Mint when you install a 3rd party package it's already been compiled?

Maybe you're referring to those packages that aren't available for your distribution and you have to get it directly from the developer in which case you would follow their instructions for installing, probably generically, and make the adjustments for you own distro.

The reason why there is no "one size fits all" is because each distro has it's own way of handling packages. For example, I can't install a package made for Redhat without first converting it for Slackware. A developer couldn't possibly package their software for each and every distro. So it's up to the distro to package that software.

I believe Snaps is supposed to solve this "problem"? But I couldn't really say because I haven't looked into it.

Nonsense, Debian has it and so does *buntu: your message looks like you were either trying to apt install as user and not root/sudo or your dpkg was already in use by another program and was "locked". You can remove the lock when that happens: https://askubuntu.com/questions/4981...-lib-dpkg-lock

Note: if you are using Debian or *buntu with backports then rarely will you need to install from outside the repos, that's one of its strengths.

1 members found this post helpful.

sudo is too called into question, in the message ..E: Unable to acquire the dpkg frontend lock (/var/lib/dpkg/lock-frontend), are you root?"

If the OP had synaptic running and also tried to "apt install blahblah" in a terminal, they would get this message too because the package DB is locked by synaptic.

"are you root" as suggested by BW-userx

I can't say what is more easy from an OS or program point but I do know there are a lot of folks that do seem to have issues with programs on linux. I have to look stuff up once in a while too.

DK1994, your OP is friendly enough, so I'll try to do the same to you.
However, variations of this topic have been regurgitated thousands of times (i'm sure i'm rather downplaying than exaggerating) on all GNU/Linux/FOSS community platforms...

I am not a programmer. I started using Linux in 2012 - not because of guru stallman but because my partner (not a programmer either, or even in IT) wrote their thesis on a ubuntu laptop, and ubuntu had a bittorrent client built right into it[1].

I have learned a few things over the years, and now I'm using ArchLinux. Believe me, I'm only hanging on, but comfortably so. I manage to take care of my own system, that's it.

So I guess it comes down to learning things - accepting the responsibility[2]. willingness. not throwing a temper tantrum when something doesn't work the way i want it. not blaming some vague outside entity (the distro developers maybe?) - instead simply try to solve the problem at hand, one step at a time. patience & persistence.
being realistic: at the moment, this thing is way over my head. i have to let it go, come back later, do something else[3].

You may say it is wrong of me to demand all that from linux newcomers, and i say: "Distros marked beginner or userfriendly work well enough out of the box. If you're not confident about changing things, don't mess with the defaults!"
Whatever else critique a statement like that will get me, you have to admit it has nothing to do with being a programer.

[1] OK, that wasn't the only reason; I'd been toying with the idea for a year or so, and that was just the final kick...

[2] IMO that is still the biggest difference between GNU/Linux & $PROPRIETARY_OS

[3] famous example of doing it wrong: "But I need to install the newest version of software XYZ! That's why I started compiling from source even though I have no clue how to do that! HELP!"

3 members found this post helpful.

If your decision to use Linux rather than Windows has to do with the differences between them, you can lean back, fold your hands on your belly and smile. Do it now.

This is especially a detail that the non-programmers should enjoy. “Knowing stuff” is also responsibility (where did I read that word) but if you are just trying to avoid a headache, trust me, the way that Linux handles installation packages is a fine painkiller.

It is a mystery to me, why the word “PROGRAMMER” pops up every now and then, whenever something becomes comp... (NO!) subject to reflection. We are not the only ones who complicate things these days.

For what it's worth, I'm not a programmer.

1 members found this post helpful.

Linux (& BSD) programs use other helper programs & libraries, so as not to duplicate too much code, unlike MS used to, but they also now use libraries, ever noticed those .dll files, dynamic link libraries - so no difference there then.

Each distro comes with a package manager, this bit of software does all the tricky bits for you, so you just ask it to install a certain program, & it will find any necessary libraries &/or helper programs for you, & install everything needed.

All you have to do is use it. Debian based systems, (which I use), use apt as a front end to an older program called dpkg, & these not only install your program, but also keep a record of what it installed, & where, so that you can remove it safely, if you want to.

I'm not a programmer either, although I can compile software, if the need arises, because I took the plunge to dig deeper than a newbie needs to, to be able to run their computer using Linux.

Hope this helps you to understand something of the Linux philosophy.

I find it hysterical that people equate a command line to programming. Not even close. I can use a terminal quite well I think, and I can script fairly well. But programming... not even close. I don't understand a singe line of code outside of bash. And I didn't start using Linux AFTER I understood some bash. I started using it knowing nothing.

They have made it easier than Windows to install apps and programs these days. I don't mean to be harsh but if you can't figure out or think you need to be a programmer to point and click your way through the software center then you need to reevaluate whether or not you should be using a computer at all. At the end of the day Linux is generally easier and simpler, better designed than Windows. Programmer knowledge not required.

I honestly think the "have to be a programmer" line is more like "I don't want to learn something else, why can't it be free windows!" than anything. It's just different, but in most ways far simpler to use.