I read a lot of reviews comparing GNU/Linux and Microsoft Windows, and inevitably the topic of installing software comes up. Most reviews indicate that installing software in Windows is much easier than that of the desktop GNU/Linux world. I decided to do my own comparison based on my desktop usage to see the difference. The following are my results. Those of you that come from the Windows world may be a tad bit surprised at the ease in which software can be installed.Note: This article is the personal opinion of the author and not necessarily that of OSNews’.
The Windows box I used for this test consisted of 500 MHZ Intel P3 processor with 384 megs of RAM. The Debian box is an old AMD K6-2 366Mhz processor with 128 Megs of RAM. I have a broadband DSL connection that gets a 1.5 megabit a second download speed.
There are several ways to install software on a GNU/Linux distribution. One of the ways is to get a source “tar ball” unpack it, and issue the commands “./configure” “make ” “su -c ‘make install’ ” this will work on every GNU/Linux distro available. However there is a problem with this method: it’s called “dependency hell.” The program that you are trying to install may depend on other libraries that are not installed on your system, and this will prevent the program from installing cleanly or even operating until the dependencies are met. The additional libraries that are needed may also depend on even more libraries hence the term dependency hell.
One of the ways around this is to pick a distro that has an excellent package management system, such as Debian, which uses the apt-get package management system, or Vidalinux, which is based on Gentoo but designed for the desktop, and uses the Portage source tree. Package managers must be linked to a repository. A repository is simply an FTP or HTTP server that has the software configured for a particular distro. For example: Vidalinux is linked to the Gentoo’s Portgage tree which contains over 8000 packages. Debian is set up to link to either the stable, testing or unstable branch of their repository.
Debian, as stated above, uses the apt-get package management system that is shared by several distros that are based upon Debian, including, Ubuntu, Libranet, Mepis ,and Xandros, to name only a very few. The Debian repository also has thousands of titles to its credit. Installing software is as simple as opening a terminal and typing “apt-get install [ package name ]”. The package managers listed not only install the desired package but also install any dependencies that the package may have, effectively eliminating dependency hell. Other distros, Linspire, for exmple, are making the installation of software even easer by placing icons on the desktop that link to the distro’s repository. Simply click the icon, which opens your browser and directs you to the site, then click the desired software that you wish to install. Another way to install software on a GNU/Linux system is by getting a precompiled package in the form of an RPM. Distros such as RedHat, Suse and Mandrake use this format as well as their own individual package managers. Don’t be confused, however; not all distros are RPM based. With an RPM based system, installing software can be as simple as typing the command “rpm -ivh [ package name ]”. Providing that all dependencies are met, and you have a broadband connection, your software will be installed in a matter of only a few seconds.
Virtually any package made can be installed on a Gentoo system right after its release, once it’s added to the Portage tree. Because it is a source-based distro, their repository changes daily as new source packages are added, unlike the other methods where you may have to wait for a package compiled for your distro. One other problem with source-based installs is long compile times, as you will see. It can take hours to install a program by source, even on modern equipment.
I needed a program for this demonstration that was cross-platform to be fair, so I choose the Word Processor Abiword. This a an excellent word Processor and, as stated earlier, is available for multiple platforms including the Macintosh. This article assumes that you know what program you are looking for.
Let’s start out with doing the installation on the Debian based computer first
Step 1 Open terminal
Step 2 type “su -” to gain root privileges
Step 3 enter password
Step 4 type “apt-get install abiword” hit enter
Step 5 type “y” for yes when prompted whether or not you want to install the package.
15 seconds later I was opening Abiword and it was ready for use.
I executed the install procedure once again this time using Vidalinux. Vidalinux is a distribution that is installed with pre-compiled packages for a particular processor or i686 architecture and is designed to be used as a Desktop OS. It uses Gentoo’s Portage tree to gain access to additional packages. It installs the software by compiling the source code. I issued the command “emerge abiword”. Approx 34 minutes later on a system consisting of a Celeron 2.8 Ghz processor with 256MB of RAM, abiword was ready to go. Although installing the program on Vidalinux was time consuming, it is still shorter in steps and an easier process than installing software on Windows.
Now for the Windows installation.
Step 1 open web browser
Step 2 navigate to abisource.com The home page of abiword
Step 3 find and click the download link
Step 4 find and click the Windows Link
Step 5 click OK to save when the dialog box opens
Step 6 wait approx 45 seconds for download
Step 7 close browser and all other running programs.
Step 8 navigate to the setup icon and double click it
step 9 select Language click OK
Step 10 click next when the setup wizard appears.
Step 11 agree to license, click next
Step 12 choose file associations, click next
Step 13 choose Location for installation, click next
Step 14 choose start menu folder options, click next
Wait for installation, approx 35 seconds, click next when completed
Step 15 click finish.
As this plainly shows, I believe that GNU/Linux distros such as Vidalinux and Debian have the upper hand at installing the average desktop users software. I know some will complain about a 34 minute compile time, but if you do you are missing the point. Installing software on a GNU/Linux system does not have to be a tedious task for a desktop user, as thousands of programs are only a very short command away. This may not be a typical procedure for all of GNU/Linux, but there are many excellent desktop distros available today that use apt-get as their package manager making software installation just as easy as above. It is also worth noting that these are not the only two packagers managers available. Fedora uses YUM by default and it can be linked to several different repositories allowing access to thousands of additional packages with the same ease of use.
Score:
GNU/Linux 5
Windows 15
It’s like Golf the lower score wins. However I know some will dispute this and still stick by the notion that installing software in Windows is still easier, but let go of your preconceptions, and give Linux a try, and you’ll see.
the windows install process is a joke. compare firing up synaptic, searching for what you want out of thousands of available options, then simply double clicking to firing up a web browser, searching the web, reading up on the different options, try to find one without malware, download it, and then install it. not only that, one command updates my ENTIRE system. just one. and dont get me started on dynamic linking vs static linking, windows wastes obscene amounts of memory.
Ok, you install it by apt.
But : How (and where) do you start it ?
How to tell a dummie-user to navigate to ?
Why doesn’t appear AbiWord in the Start Menu ™ ?
No, that’s too naiv. That’s no fair comparison.
My suggestion :
– Test 20-30 OSS apps that are also available under Windows
– Try NOT to think like a Linux/Debian-Zealot rather than being a Dummie-User
– Test this with real-world-people
Why de author did not mention about Synaptic or another package management frontend, where installing applications is about 2 clicks? Commercial software on Linux also comes mostly with a “Setup Wizard” or compressed in .tar.gz which must be uncompressed and moved to place. This is common even in Windows environment, and don’t say you are lazy to read the readme file…. Or if so, you don’t deserve to use a computer.
I didn’t even bother reading the other post because I simply can’t wait to say what I have to say.
yeah, thats rather apparent.
ARE YOU INSANE?
let me explain…
Fewer steps IS NOT EQUAL to easier.
Exactly how many “USERS” will even know what a terminal window is? And if you honestly think they are going to type -su you have completely lost your mind. The first 2 hour help session with thier nephew in CA will put an end to them logging on as anything but ROOT.
your not gonna get too far trying to log in as ROOT, but anyways….
its called synaptic. it has been around forever and a day. it is a graphical, fully searchable front-end to apt. if you think that requiring a password to install software is a bad thing, i pity you.
And seriously, “type “apt-get install abiword”” you may as well have said “EGFN jnfdmkL()( dnkl; afjkhP WDdm;0K NDSL” as far as most “USERS” are concerned.
Let me say this as straight as I can. DOUBLECLICK
It doesn’t get much easier.
you are wrong. you dont just double click on windows. even if the installer is already on your desktop, you still have to go through their redicules installers that ask 50 inane questions that are not nessicary in the slightest, hiding one that is vitally important somewhere in the middle just to mess with you.
But seriously, it was nice to laugh for a change.
P.S. I don’t hate linux, just users….
yeah, i like to read funny things too
well, ill tell you, my family cant seem to install software on windows for the life of them. they alwas hit a question that confuses them, are terrified of hitting “next”, and phone me up.
as for linux package management, a desktop system that does not have apt, yum, urpmi, or some other system that is lightyears ahead of windows really is not for normal users.
commercial software needs to be distro agnostic, but i have seen some that offer rpms or debs as well as the binary installer. that being said, hopefully we will see autopackage take off, and will be able to kiss those things good bye forever.
actually, that already exists. its called synaptic, and has been the tool of choice for the vast majority of apt users for years.
I agree – some do find text based operation easier, but most do not. I have no problem with a text based alternative install, but if you want to reach the masses, you need to speak in their language … for most that is graphical.
I am the odd ball, I am completly comfertable working on the command line, but still prefer graphical interfaces for most things. If any of my family or friends ever see a command line they call me to figure out what is broke.
I have heard all the text arguments, and many make sense, but all are overidden by the fact that most people are afraid of it. I know that for a small subset this is going to be a hinderance, but the increase in user base will help us all.
The difference between installing software in Windows and Linux really comes down to who you are getting the software from. In Linux you are depending on the distro you are using to package up the application for you. In Windows, you get the app straight from the developer.
Whether it takes 5 clicks to 15 clicks is just a result from the difference in the two philosophies.
I personally perfer getting the app straight from the developer. I don’t want any middle-man.
what a terribly inaccurate and biased comparison. what qualifies as a “step”? seems like you just stopped short of saying “Step 1: move mouse cursor 1 pixel left, step 2: move mouse curseor 1 pixel up,…”
Ok, you install it by apt.
But : How (and where) do you start it ?
on ubuntu, i have “synaptic package manager” in my menus, along with the other administration tools
How to tell a dummie-user to navigate to ?
same as anything else
Why doesn’t appear AbiWord in the Start Menu ™ ?
it does if you use apt.
No, that’s too naiv. That’s no fair comparison.
agreed. the author ignored synaptic, possibly trying to put windows and linux on equal footing.
My suggestion :
– Test 20-30 OSS apps that are also available under Windows
– Try NOT to think like a Linux/Debian-Zealot rather than being a Dummie-User
– Test this with real-world-people
after an install of ubuntu on a new machine, i will be installing at least 20-30 new apps. they all install the same, requireing no more then a double click. they are all in a searchable database, and tend to install far faster then hunting down the same amount of setup.exes, and going through the windows installer for each of them.
“as for linux package management, a desktop system that does not have apt, yum, urpmi, or some other system that is lightyears ahead of windows really is not for normal users.”
Of course, this is right. But everyday people who wants to try out Linux, must be advised firstly to try Mandrake, SuSE or maybe Fedora. As a bit more advanced user of Linux, I use more Gentoo and Slackware, because I like that I can make my system to run as I want, but I don’t need wizards, and unchangeable config files (as I saw in SuSE, you could modify the config file, but the system turned it back to the original state after a reboot
), but an everyday user must have all the things set up easily with a global configuration utility like YaST or Mandrake Control Center.
thats true, but new users are only new users for a brief time, so bending over to please them will only shaft everyone else, including them once they get past the newb stage.
fedora – yum
linspire – click n run
ubuntu – apt
mepis – apt
mandrake – urpmi
xandros – whatever they use for their xandros networks
nld – red carpet(i think)
lycoris – something equivilent, just cant think of the name
anything that bills itself as a desktop distro will have a good package manager nowadays. comparing windows xp to slackware is building a strawman.
Of course – installation on Windows has always been sort of a problem. Since MSI is really *complex*, alternative installers have emerged like NSIS or the commercial InstallShield.
But what I remember from the past : Unix people alway told me, that it is bullshit that you can’t move an installed program from partition “a” to partition “b” just by copying (registry and so).
But if I think about it : It’s nearly also impossible to do this with current Unix/Linux-Apps (dependency-hell).
The only thing left are Java and .NET/Mono apps …
what are you doing with your so easy linux when you have to install a program that doesen’t have a package from your provider. Or you buy a new piece of hardware and must install the driver manually?
also with that package auto installers, you don’t have any control over the installation process.
you can’t read the license, can’t choose the language, can’t set file associations (the program doesen’t know which window manager you are using), can’t choose the install location and so on.
when it’s going wrong it doesen’t make a menuentry and you don’t even know where the package have been installed.
Windows and Mac OS are far much userfriendly because every user can install a program the same way, no matter where they buy or download it.
What drove me from windows to linux was how much easier it was to upgrade programs in linux, and how much cleaner uninstalls were.
Upgrading all installed programs in linux:
– start the package manager
– select “update”
Upgrading all installed programs in windows:
– find out which version of program 1 is installed (e.g. by running the program and selecting the Help->About menu item)
– surf to the website of program 1
– download the new version (if there isn’t a new version then skip this and the rest of the steps for this program)
– read the manual/FAQ/support-forums of program 1 to find out whether the old version should be uninstalled before installing the new version (if you get this part wrong you could end up with either two versions of the program or losing all your settings)
– find and back-up the program settings anyway just in case
– uninstall the old version if it should be uninstalled
– run the installer of the new version of program 1 (if you didn’t uninstall the old version then the installer will probably ask if you are completely sure that you want to install the program into the selected folder which isn’t empty… sounds scary, but fear not, just answer “yes”)
– find out which version of program 2 is installed
– surf to the website of program 2
etc. for each program
Uninstalling a program in linux:
– start the package manager
– find the program in the list of installed programs
– select it to be uninstalled (here you can also select whether to keep the settings or to remove everything)
This will remove the program completely (except if you chose to keep the settings, in which case the settings aren’t removed).
Uninstalling a program in windows:
– Control Panel -> Add/Remove programs
– find the program in the list of installed programs
– press “Uninstall” or “Modify” or “Change/Remove” or whatever the button happens to be called for this program (a few programs ask whether to remove or keep the settings, but most don’t)
This will remove parts of the program, but the program will most likely leave a lot behind, such as registry entries, config files, “C:Program FilesProgNameuninst.exe”, etc. However, the uninstall program won’t tell you this, and the system have neither any idea which files/registry entries are left behind, nor which of such files and registry entries are safe to remove. Don’t even try to remove such cruft manually, unless you are very experienced.
Hmm… what do I need now when I have the OS installed?
Maybe a Word processor, some music players, video players, licq (icq), xchat (similar to mIRC), Gaim (Multi protocol IM client), Firefox, Thunderbird and some more, just to get things started.
Fire up Synaptic, it’s in your menu, choose all the above apps and klick “Apply”. (Btw, pure Debian has like 16000 apps to choose from).
ALL the applications are installed in one go. No reboots, no web searches, just select and apply.
Sounds like real trouble to me
And one more thing. If you spend 0,1% of the time you have spent on Windows, instead trying to learn just the basics in Linux, you will manage do to about everything needed to feel comfortable with Linux.
My dad (66 years old) feels more at home with Knoppix than with Windows nowadays. Only using it for a month or 2.
..and what i have forgotton. In most cases the installation for a windows programm is simply clicking “next” or “install” after the autostart of the application or driver or game cd started.
and the best of this mechanism is, it works completly without a (broadband) internet connection
“also with that package auto installers, you don’t have any control over the installation process.
you can’t read the license, can’t choose the language, can’t set file associations (the program doesen’t know which window manager you are using), can’t choose the install location and so on. ”
In gentoo, if you search for the package with emerge search, or if you view it, you can see what licence it does have, if you are really that curious, you can read in /usr/share/doc/Application’s name/LICENCE. Most distros do make icons for Gnome and KDE, and if you use a lighter window manager, like FluxBox, I assume you know, why you use it, and how to use it. As for language, it grabs the system’s default language, or your DE’s default.
“Upgrading all installed programs in linux:
– start the package manager
– select “update”
Upgrading all installed programs in windows:
– find out which version of program 1 is installed (e.g. by running the program and selecting the Help->About menu item)
– surf to the website of program 1
– download the new version (if there isn’t a new version then skip this and the rest of the steps for this program)
– read the manual/FAQ/support-forums of program 1 to find out whether the old version should be uninstalled before installing the new version (if you get this part wrong you could end up with either two versions of the program or losing all your settings)
– find and back-up the program settings anyway just in case
– uninstall the old version if it should be uninstalled
– run the installer of the new version of program 1 (if you didn’t uninstall the old version then the installer will probably ask if you are completely sure that you want to install the program into the selected folder which isn’t empty… sounds scary, but fear not, just answer “yes”)
– find out which version of program 2 is installed
– surf to the website of program 2
etc. for each program
”
Really? Maybe i have an other Windows and Apps.
Windows have already an Autoupdate, thats inform me when new Patches or Updates are available.
My Firefox Browser have a green arrow at the upper right corner. When it is red, i simply klick it and get the new version. My Virusscanner downloads new version automatically.
Office informs me too when updates are available.
Every Program have such a feature nowadays.
At least i don’t have one without it! – And i have a lot.
When you are looking for a program on windows or mac, there are plenty of sites presenting nice and up to date listings of programs that might fill your need. In mandrake or debian, you get a long list with names that don’t make much sense, with the little help of the “categorie”. Personally I end up asking on some forums what others use and then I open synaptic and try to find it. When it’s there, fine, but when it’s not….
In that case, Windows (and OSX) win hands down. I have used mandrake, libranet and now ubuntu but each time, finding some software has been a question of hunting for repositories offering those packages not covered by the distro. And of course, there is no point and click way to add a repository to sources.list. No problem for me but I’ve given up arguing that it’s a great feature, except maybe to solaris people.
I wanted to try oo.org pre2 on my debian rig but I’ve not had yet the time to locate a deb package. On XP, I just downloaded and installed.
Another situation is when a new version of a package comes out, it might take a long time for it to be available for your distro, sometimes days, more often weeks and sometimes, the next release of the distro. Whilst understandable for some core package tighltly integrated to the system like kde or gnome, it’s harder to accept for something like kino or scribus, especially when the release is a maintenance release that might fix some problems you have been experiencing.
I use linux because I think it’s a better system but saying that package install is easier than in windows is stretching it a bit.
Ok, I had to pre-configure smart to use an FC-extras repository, and I had to put a smart-gui icon on the desktop. Now all I do is
1. Click on smart-gui desktop icon
2. Wait for smart-gui to appear
3. Scroll down to abiword
4. Right-click to bring up menu
5. Select Install
6. Click on the Apply marked changes icon
not as easy as yum (or apt-get) install abiword from a terminal, but easy enough for your average Windows user
I hate most linux installers, and I really hate windows installers. They ask the same questions whether you’re a total newbie or power user, and they almost never provide any help with answering those questions. (Some ncurses-based linux installers provide help, although in an almost useless fashion: the help is shown before the question! (This is less useless if you keep a digicam nearby and snap a pic of each help message and then when you read the actual question(s) and thus know what you need help with you can look at the pic you took.)) And in the few systems where you can configure whether you’re a novice or a power user this setting is global, as if the same user couldn’t be ignorant regarding one type of program but knowledgeable regarding another type of program.
Why can’t people make something like the Amiga installer? When you install an Amiga program it first asks what level of questions you want (novice, intermediate, advanced). At each step in the wizard there is a Help button, and pressing it will bring up a help screen to assist both with the question(s) in said step of the wizard and with the installer program itself. I’d probably spend 50+ h/yr less on giving support to relatives if windows installers had a Help button like this!
the article is a bit biased but for standard maintaining it is far easier on any system with synaptic or kynaptic, you click “smart upgrade” and come back in half an hour to an upgraded system.
In windows I’d have to locate each program individually, (atm there is no package maintainer in windows) and download them then install them. (*reboot optional?*)
I think autopackage will take off and will make all package maintenance and installation easier on linux, you’ll be able to browse the web download an autopackage, and use your built in repository to keep everything else up to date.
packages not in the repos that you have to compile yourself???
last i checked you didnt have that hassle with windows..
also.. as far as rebooting goes.. i havent had to reboot windows after installing something since win98 ish.. win2k and winxp NEVER ask me to reboot.. cept an occasional package where the programmer requests it.. then i just say no.. and it still works fine… you guys really need to ditch the whole ‘reboot for anything when your on windows’ thing.. its getting kinda old..
btw.. i use ArchLinux fulltime now.. no more windows, but thats because of ‘genuine’ and other legal reasons..
dont get me wrong i love being able to pacman -Ss name and pacman -S name, but there is still alot of things i need to compile myself.. in which case i would LOVE to have a windows box running.. because at times i need to tinker a lil with the souce or install other packages..
this article does NOT address installing from source.. which it REALLY should.. sure.. it touches on portage.. big woop.. thats not
./configure && make && make install
now is it..
maybe
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=10155
will help solve alot of the issues.. 😀
just my opinions..
I find it funny how many people bit this obvious troll story. Keep it up guys, you’re all giving me a great entertainment.
Well if the stupids above wouldnt post such on a news site, then there wouldnt be a problem 😉
People, people, people…
You cannot compare Linux and Windows with respect to high level user activities like installing software. You can compare Debian to Windows, or RHEL, or Fedora, or SUSE. The process of installing software varies enough from distro to distro that it’s just plain silly to compare to Windows (which may differ in fundamental respects from 95 to XP, but software installation from the point of view of the user has remained substantially the same).
Which leads me to me second point, any difficulties installing software on one Linux distro DO NOT represent a valid argument about the ease of installation on another distro. The fact that I can roll my own Linux system which requires me to do everything manually without any handholding whatsoever in no way detracts from the ease and convenience of using apt, or yum, or upmri.
Likewise, the fact that different distros handle software installation differently should be of no concern to the average user. Pick a damn distro and stick with it if an overabundance of options is somehow beguiling you. You can run Debian or one of it’s close relatives while remaining blissfully unaware of how it is people install software on Mandrake, or Fedora, or Slackware. The same is true in reverse.
The official way to do this has you creating directlies all over the place, and linking to different files etc.
There may be some special trick, or application, that makes the linux install easier, but that would be just as bad, because it requires some special insider knowledge – with windows, it’s all standard.
I love Debian. I’m using debian right now, but that article was a very unfair comparison.
forgotten wrote:
> Windows have already an Autoupdate
I said nothing about the OS itself, only the programs. WindowsUpdate is OK, imho.
> My Firefox Browser have a green arrow at the upper right
> corner. When it is red, i simply klick it and get the new
> version.
You are correct that many programs nowadays can automatically check for updates. (So instead of the first two steps in my list you’d have one step, “run the program”.) Only very few can actually update themselves, though. Also, since Microsoft is so utterly clueless and doesn’t provide a standard interface for update management each program has to have its own update checker, each of which have to be configured separately. Several of these also won’t copy the proxy configuration from the browser (and in my case I don’t even want the update checker to use the same proxy as my browser), many don’t support all proxies and some don’t support proxies at all! And you’d also have to grant network access to all your programs. And you’d also have to run the programs that you want to upgrade, one by one.
All in all, there is no way the windows upgrade mess could be considered comparable to the simplicity of upgrading programs in linux.
I’m surprised not more people have commented on the inability to have the choice of where to install the app on *nix systems (except MacOSX apparently)..
One guy commented on it and got the answer that you shouldn’t have to care where the app is installed.
However, when I was using Linux (Slackware) a few years back, my biggest issue with it was that I didn’t have the same control over where my apps were installed, as I do in Windows.
My reasons for wanting to choose where to install stuff?
1. I want to have control over how space is divided on my hdd’s, as in maybe I want to keep one partition solely for installing apps on and one solely for loose documents, etc..
From what I remember I can easily do the second but not the first.
2. I do not always wanna have to go through a menu to start an app, nor having to open a terminal to start an app that way. I want the choice of having a filemanager open with a nice structure over my installed apps so I can simply go the the app folder of my choice and doubleclick on the executable to start it.
My second argument might seem stupid, but it’s just how I’ve gotten used to use my computer, especially since the startmenu in Windows quickly fill up with alot of crap (since every app puts it’s own submenu in it with usually more than one shortcut, for sometimes ridiculous features) so that it’s no longer usable at all really..
The quickstart panel is nice, but only usable for the most used apps really, if you don’t want it to fill up and become useless too aswell as making the taskbar way too small to be usable.
So, the best way to keep a nice, usable, clean Windows system (for me) is to use the file manager for just about everything and keep it structured in a way that’s optimal for me. And that is definitely not by using c:/program files/ as the installpath for my apps, since Microsoft puts all kinds of crap in there that I will never touch. And it’s not by using the Documents and Settings folder for my loose documents, since Microsoft creates a mess in there aswell..
So for me, it’s way better to simply use C:/ solely for Windows and create a D:/ for all my stuff and structure it to my liking.
Maybe this is not a problem in Linux, but what if I like how all my files and apps are structured? Can it be done in Linux? Can it be done with ease? (really, I’m asking, because it was years since I last used it on a daily basis and it was Slackware without a package manager)
walterbyrd wrote:
> The official way to do this has you creating directlies all
> over the place, and linking to different files etc.
Sounds odd.. I’ll try it..
“sudo aptitude install firefox && firefox [URL to applet]”
… works fine here, without me having to create any directories or linking or anything.
UN-installing Software: A GNU/Linux VS. MS Windows Comparison
which is perhaps a more interesting article
“I want to download any software out there for any Linux distro and install it on any version of Linux that I have installed here at home”
Have you tried installing a Windows 2000/XP only software on Windows 98? Windows 95?
Upgrading Microsoft Office from Office 97 to 2003?
My point is not to be facetious. Linux distros are independent operating systems who happen to share the same (mostly, if not tweaked – and most are) kernels. They use different versions of libraries, different locations for critical system files, and the like.
Maybe they shouldn’t but they do.
So why would anyone expect to be able to install “anything” on “anything”? You can’t do that on Windows either. I’m not familiar with the Mac, but I doubt that older stuff runs well on OS X, nor that OS X only stuff runs on older Macs.
If Linux had only ONE distro and that distro was only released EVERY THREE FUCKING YEARS (like Windows), your comment would be useful.
Otherwise, it’s completely pointless.
Yes, it would be nice, but it’s not going to happen until AutoPackage and the distro repositories and the distros and the LSB get their act together and cooperate.
In the meantime, most Linux users are happily installing from RPMs and source and whatever, and getting on with using their systems. Worrying about some clueless Windows idiot who can’t even install a Windows program (and the article is correct, installing Windows programs CAN be a huge pain in the ass depending on the author’s competence, so it’s not entirely the user’s fault) is not terribly useful to anybody.
There is always an error in installing software on Linux, either because of a version already installed but corrupted, or on compilation time, or installing from the binaries. Good luck also to update software in Linux. It took me a day to update Apache, PHP5, MySQL and PostgreSQL 8. Time is money. Be prepared to have to search in forums, discussion newsgroups, erratas and all that with Linux. It almost never succeed to install successfully and to run properly the very first time you try to install it.
There’s a lot to improve in this area too.
Only developpers are able to install using the console. Linux was made by developpers for developpers.
> 1 single line!!!
> Yes, 1 !!!!
> Don’t tell me that a normal user can not remember such a
> command.
> Can Windows do something like this?
> Not yet, but Microsoft is going to do something similar in > their next windows update (although in a graphical ui way)
I doubt it, and I really don’t hope so. It’s more Linux copying Windows’easy step by step installation process.
ok, my 2 cents,
for me (seasoned linux user), it is just as easy if not easier to install software on linux weather it be via portage, apt, yum, or even many rpm’s, however….. Windows is IDIOT PROOF, all you need to remember for most software installations on windows is… click ok and keep clicking ok till it finishes installing.
oh yeah…. in reply to Joe User, i very and i mean very rarely get errors when installing software in linux… but i use gentoo, which is the only linux distro that i have used that follows this precident 😉
one more thing…. there are alternatives to the command line for installing software on a debian or gentoo system, debian has synaptic (an apt gui), gentoo has porthole…among others (a protage gui), however… once you are accustomed to the commandline… it is generally faster and more efficient to use it
<p>I think that the most important feature that people are forgetting to give Linux distros is the fact that most (not all, but most) software that is used for every-day tasks is licensed in a way that it can be packaged by the, distro and installed by the geek or OEM installing the system in the first place effectively making this entire issue moot. A reasonable distro will come with a word prossesor and a chat client along with a pile of other software leaving the user without having to worry about installations at all, unlike Windows which comes barebones and is expensive as all hell to add on to. A complete system out of the box verses one that you have to manually purchase and install a ton of software for, guess which one I use.<p> <p>PS It is a shame that this article was written by someone who insisted on unnesiccarilly using the command line for a useablity comparison.<p>
Good luck also to update software in Linux.
Are you kidding? Updating software in Linux, especially multiple apps at a time, is a lot easier than in Windows.
On Mandrake, I click on Mandrake Control Center, then on “Installing/Updating Software”. I select the packages to update, click install and the rest is all automatic.
It took me a day to update Apache, PHP5, MySQL and PostgreSQL 8.
What distro were you using? I did something similar only a week ago and it took me about half an hour.
Only developpers are able to install using the console. Linux was made by developpers for developpers.
I am not a developer, yet I am able to install/upgrade apps using the console. Ergo, your argument is false.
Using modern distros, installing and upgrading software in Linux is indeed easier (and a lot faster) than in Windows – whether you use the command line or a GUI front-end. And with development such as Autopackage, Zeroinstall and Klik, the gap in ease of installation is even greater.
Gee, I can’t believe the amount of FUD here.
#$@@$^&* ! The brains of childrens and youngs nowadays are seriously damaged by years of Windows…
Do you never use M$-DOS ? Even secretaries could use and install CLI programs in past. Why young people, born after 70’s cannot type: apt-get install program ?
“I’ve been there and have programs “installed” in my Linux machine that I’ve never been able to find!”
…that’s funny as hell.
I’ve been down that road.
http://www.nongnu.org/synaptic/
http://www.nongnu.org/synaptic/action.html
Use synaptic in conjunction with MEPIS, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Knoppix or Xandros (Linux distributions).
No compiles necessary. No command line – it is a GUI package manager.
# Install, remove, upgrade and downgrade single and multiple packages.
# Upgrade your whole system.
# Manage package repositories (sources.list).
# Find packages by name, description and several other attributes.
# Select packages by status, section, name or a custom filter.
# Sort packages by name, status, size or version.
# Browse all available online documentation related to a package.
# Download the latest changelog of a package.
# Lock packages to the current version.
# Force the installation of a specifc package version.
# Undo/Redo of selections.
— Any of the above actions can be done in a few clicks.
— never had to resolve any “dependencies” – the manager handles it.
— never had to re-boot.
— new packages appear in menus after install.
http://www.debianuniverse.com/readonline/chapter/06
[/i]Again, there is no commands to memorize in Linux either, unless you want to use a command. Some Linux software does require configuration — that’s true. That’s the fault of the software, though, there is really nothing that the OS could do about it.[/i]
Well that’s not true. I guess the linux way of installing software is better, but it simply doesn’t work like it should. I’ll give an example:
yesterday i installed kubuntu, first thing i did was installing nividia-glx (via kynaptic), it didn’t update xorg.conf and the provided script doesn’t work, in fact i allways end up editing X11’s config file because it simply can’t setup monitors right.
Then i decided that kubuntu’s fonts looked like crap and upgraded xft2, freetype2, fontconfig etc. They still looked like crap because the people that put packages on the repositories are never able to compile them right, so I ended up downloading, configuring and compiling those packages myself (./configure make make install).
I changed the default KDE fonts to the way i like them, but then every package i download or upgrade still uses the old default preferences so now I have two types of menu fonts and whatnot on my system.
yesterday i installed kubuntu, first thing i did was installing nividia-glx (via kynaptic)
Um, Kubuntu isn’t a stable release yet.
in fact i allways end up editing X11’s config file because it simply can’t setup monitors right.
What does that have to do with packaging? Yes, configuration needs to be easier in Linux. But that’s a seperate issue.
I changed the default KDE fonts to the way i like them, but then every package i download or upgrade still uses the old default preferences so now I have two types of menu fonts and whatnot on my system.
Again, that has nothing to do with packaging. I wonder how Windows apps would react if you replaced the font rasterizer! Now, the fact that you don’t like the fonts out of box, and that apps don’t use the same font preferences, those are legitimate complaints. However, they have nothing to do with packaging. It’s not a fault of the packaging system when the user tries to subvert it, no regardless of the reason for the subversion.
Whoa! Talk about a need for medication for some individuals.
All I know is that I should sue a certain company for Repetitive Reboot Syndrome and time lost for the reboots.
Why not do a comparison of Linspire and Windows…
i used linspire 5.0 live for the first time last night and i have to say that if you can’t use and install additional programs with that dist then you shouldn’t be touching a computer.
its so freaking easy its laughable and out of the box it comes with most stuff you need anyway, you tell me that you can do the same with windows!
i’ve used well over 20 linux dists as well as most versions of mac os, dos, beos and windows… so i know my stuff
arguments like this are stupid, but all the posts trying to defend one thing against the other is ever dumber. some people like to do things one way, some another…
personally, the best way of installing stuff i’ve used is BeOS (click and drag, bit like some mac os programs)… next to that i like apt (using synaptic of course!)
but i can almost guarentee that within the next 10 posts, someone will disagree with me, my advice… get over it!
The author listed “Agree to License” as an installation step on Windows. That means on Linux, I can get away with ignoring the license? Actually that would stand up in court when you think about it.
Ask the person installing the software to comply with the license agreement is kind of flawed on a multiuser system.
If you wan’t your users to read and agree to it, you should pop up the dialog the first time the user runs the program.
So this should really not be in the installer.
I find this rediculous. There is no way Linux is easier to install software over Windows. I don’t like windows but when it comes to having to resolve dependencies – search for dependencies etc. This article assumes too much – like all of the applications you want are on one repository with all available dependencies etc. Then there’s the matter of setting up apt in the first place to point to the repository and blah blah blah – c’mon people face the facts.
“There is no way Linux is easier to install software over Windows. I don’t like windows but when it comes to having to resolve dependencies – search for dependencies etc. This article assumes too much – like all of the applications you want are on one repository with all available dependencies etc. Then there’s the matter of setting up apt in the first place to point to the repository and blah blah blah – c’mon people face the facts.”
Not so. Not one of these is true for a modern distribution.
Didn’t you read about synaptic? It comes pre-installed with many Debian-based distributions. It is a GUI installer. It does not have any problems with dependencies. It comes with the distribution repositories already defined. There are 15558 packages in the debian repositories – all in the one place, all installable by synaptic, all free to download and use, and all installable and useable after a few clicks without any need to reboot.
Face the facts yourself. Installing software on a modern Debian-based system using synaptic is in every way imagineable far easier than anything in Windows.
http://www.nongnu.org/synaptic/index.html
http://www.nongnu.org/synaptic/action.html
… in real life, the most frequent way installing new programs in windows is just browsing internet. Just open internet explorer, check some fun sites, and thats it, several programs installed in your computer without even being asked.
In the other hand, for installing most programs under linux you need to have some extrange “root” password for even thinking on that.
Well i think that the nvidia drivers problem with updating config files pertinent but fair enough. Since the author mentions abiword have you compared installing abiword (package manager vs .exe file), i just checked and the .exe method gives you a lot of pre-install options if you want to(file associations, dictionaries, clipart, desktop icons and start menu entries etc) that you don’t get via package manager. And most user would find having to hunt for several packages for just one program annoying.
I don’t like windows but when it comes to having to resolve dependencies – search for dependencies etc. This article assumes too much – like all of the applications you want are on one repository with all available dependencies etc.
The vast majority of apps are available on the Mandrake repositories, and all the good ones are there. For Joe User (the typical Windows user, not the person posting with that name in this thread), all the apps he’ll need are available and easy to install. Obscure apps, real cutting-edge stuff and commercial apps aren’t, however for the latter the serious software vendors will distribute an installer. Again, commercial apps are pretty rare in Linux so the point is moot.
Then there’s the matter of setting up apt in the first place to point to the repository
If I recall correctly Mandrake can do that automatically. I know it does that for regular updates and security fixes.
and blah blah blah
What wit.
‘mon people face the facts.
The facts are that installing and updating apps in Linux are very easy with modern distros. With “newbie” distros like Linspire it is easier than Windows, certainly. For a distro like Mandrake it’s as easy, and software management is more powerful and much less time-consuming when you upgrade many apps at the same. My time is worth something, and since I upgrade software quite regularly Linux is a productivity gain.
Well i think that the nvidia drivers problem with updating config files pertinent but fair enough.
That’s really nvidia’s responsibility. If they released their driver under an open-source license, then it could be installed as the same time as the OS, or through the hardware config program (e.g. harddrake), updating xorg.conf at the same time.
i just checked and the .exe method gives you a lot of pre-install options if you want to(file associations, dictionaries, clipart, desktop icons and start menu entries etc) that you don’t get via package manager.
That’s a valid point but I’d rather have the app do this for me the first time it’s run – especially file associations.
And most user would find having to hunt for several packages for just one program annoying.
Using a tool such as rpmdrake, you only need to select the “main” package for all of them to be selected at once. It’s a compromise between convenience and customization.
“And most user would find having to hunt for several packages for just one program annoying.”
Not so – you don’t have to do this in a modern Linux distribution.
Synaptic lets you list packages by section. For example, just click the button on synaptic for the “word processors” section, then from the list of packages displayed select the one you want – Abiword, KWord, OpenOffice.org writer – or whatever. Then mark that wordprocessor for installation, and click “apply”. The package manager will sort out all the required file downloads (including any library dependencies), download all the files and install them, and create menu entries for your new application. Presto, wordprocessor installed in a few clicks.
This works (at least) for synaptic (GUI for apt in Debian), Software Installer (GUI for urpmi in Mandrake), kynaptic, kpackage and YAST (GUI for SuSE (I think it works for YAST)). I can’t say if it works for YUM (GUI installer for Fedora) or not, as I haven’t tried that.
… and I’m adding another one.
Windows programs are much easier to install MOST of the time. But that is because Windows install are homogenous. Linux has hundreds of flavors, Windows has only one maintainer..
Try apt-get install faad2 in debian, go on.
The package system is great, sure, if the software you want to install is actually packaged for you.
Problems with *NIX installing
-w/ portage, you must wait for the compile process to finish, which may take hours
-often you must use the command line to involve shell scripts; with windows it is just point and click
-there are too many package managers
-there are too many ways of installing program. Sometimes with command line, sometimes with double click (rarely), sometimes by right click and rpm.
-After install, it is hard to find the program. there are no icons, and the file system is messed up.
You think you know everything and that every user is like you. You are wrong on both accounts.
Or you’re a troll.
what a great article!!
with this kind of reasoning the author should concentrate on writing articles on how God must be a communist!
Try apt-get install faad2 in debian, go on.
The package system is great, sure, if the software you want to install is actually packaged for you
Umm, I’m not positive, but Debian has this thing about NOT putting cracking programs in thier repository. Not sure, but if you are trying to circumnavigate copyright laws by breaking the law… they can’t afford lawyers. But that’s a whole nother kettle of fish. I will say this, if you want it bad enough, you’ll figure out how to run the command line, or go do it in windows. Either way, if it isn’t in the repsoitory, I generally READ how to do it. Forums are a great source of info.
I can’t say if it works for YUM (GUI installer for Fedora) or not, as I haven’t tried that.
YUM isn’t a GUI installer but a solely command controlled package manager, allmost like the superb emerge from Gentoo.
Didn’t you read about synaptic?
I actually used it a lot 🙂
It is a GUI installer
Well correct me if i’m wrong, it’s a GUI front-end to apt/dpkg.
It does not have any problems with dependencies
Most of the times it does it’s job fairly well.Sometimes you can still get dependency obstacles when you try to install app X from stable that depends on some library “that isn’t going to be installed” because it’s in the unstable repository.
There are 15558 packages in the debian repositories – all in the one place, all installable by synaptic
Nice although the packages are devided between:stable,testing and unstable.So all packages are not inmediedly avaible after initial install without directly editing /etc/apt/sources.lst or via synaptic menu.
Michelle de la Resistance:
Well i think that the nvidia drivers problem with updating config files pertinent but fair enough.
a nun, he moos (IP: —.53-203-24.mc.videotron.ca):
That’s really nvidia’s responsibility.
Doesn’t realy matter whose responsibillity it is,in the end the user still isn’t helped.Than again we should be glad they made such exellent drivers.
If they released their driver under an open-source license, then it could be installed as the same time as the OS
It’s still feasonable,which is not per se due to a license issue.A script could download and install the driver from a NVIDIA website close to your geographical position during install time right away and changing “nv” into “nvidia” in whatever file your OS has put xorg.conf in.To make it even more convenient a link with a nice icon could be made to some native TV-OUT,twinview,tweak,whatever function.
Ok so according to you, typing the name of a program in one line is all Linux needs to install a program. It somehow knew exactly what program you meant, knew where to go get it and every other setting you would need to tell it where to go.
ok ya, this was obviously a fair comparison.
How about instead of a program that has been built in, you go through the installation of something like “Doom3”
Eugenia, please take no offense, but articles like this do nothing but hurt OSNews’ reputation. Much more than you imagine. And yes, you should care.
Ok so according to you, typing the name of a program in one line is all Linux needs to install a program.
As you might know Linux is a array of distributions that have at least a kernel in common.There isn’t *a* Linux.
In Gentoo and CentOS 4.0 (RHEL 4.0) for example installing your daily usage apps is something like: “emerge mozilla-firefox”
(Gentoo) and “yum install firefox” (CentOS)
It somehow knew exactly what program you meant, knew where to go get it and every other setting you would need to tell it where to go.
Yes,for emerge (Gentoo) and yum (CentOS,Fedora,RHEL..) to work ther’re “repositories” . Textfiles with relevant info like where to download the apps ,which mirrors to use,which branch to follow {stable,testing,unstable,etc} etc,exsist in for example /etc/yum.config on your system,when you have installed one of the above mentioned distros that install yum by default that is 🙂
Only what is necesary is devs making quality apps. package maintainers, so end-users can install even more apps with ease as described.
I’m still a novice Linux user though.
“YUM isn’t a GUI installer but a solely command controlled package manager, allmost like the superb emerge from Gentoo.”
I did a bit of looking (I did say I hadn’t tried YUM). I would say YUM is more like apt-get or urpmi (command-line package installer’s) than it is like emerge (this one doesn’t install packages, it compiles them).
“Ok so according to you, typing the name of a program in one line is all Linux needs to install a program. It somehow knew exactly what program you meant, knew where to go get it and every other setting you would need to tell it where to go. ”
Apt use repositories. A Debian-based distribution, such as MEPIS or Ubuntu, will come pre-configured to point to a set of compatible repositories. Every now and then, one “updates” the package information from the repositories. This is achieved either by typing “apt-get update” on a command line, or by clicking the “Reload” button in a package manager such as synaptic. (See here: http://www.nongnu.org/synaptic/images/0.53-main.png).
These actions will download a set of index files from the package repositories. The index files contain information (names, description, version, list of dependencies) about all of the packages in the repository.
When one “browses” or “searches” the packages available to install, one is actually looking at the index files.
When one types “apt-get install abiword”, or one searches for “abiword” in synaptic, or one chooses the “wordprocessor” section and selects “abiword” from that section, one is merely selecting an item from the index files.
When instructed to install such an item, apt will check the dependencies (from the information out of the index file) to see which are already installed. Apt will download any unsatisfied dependencies, and then also download the requested package files. Apt will then extract the package files and install the contents. The package files contain information about where the content files should be placed and other settings information for the actual distribution.
So you see, “typing the name of a program in one line” realy “is all Linux needs to install a program” in actual fact.
Really Millsy, if you have never tried something, you should not comment about it. If you just don’t know, don’t pipe up with an opinion that makes you look iditotic and uninformed.
“Eugenia, please take no offense, but articles like this do nothing but hurt OSNews’ reputation. Much more than you imagine. And yes, you should care.”
There was nothing incorrect in the article.
My only comment would be that the article should have focussed more on the GUI installers in various Linux distributions, (such as synaptic for Debian, RPMdrake for Mandrake and YAST for SuSE) rather than talk about the command line.
Windows has nothing that comes anywhere near the ease of synaptic.
Synaptic (and similar tools for other distributions) provides a one-stop GUI to easily manage all package management (install, upgrade and remove) for a Linux distribution. My copy of synaptic (for MEPIS which is Debian-based but dead easy to install) currently lists 16599 packages (of which 1075 are installed on my system). I can sort, browse, read descriptions prior to install and search by name, category or keyword in the description.
Try doing any of this with Windows. Not possible.
Package management on Linux is light-years ahead of Windows.
I don’t think this is a fair comparison on the whole because any experiment should have valid parameters on order to get a valid result. I am a competant computer user and have been using them for 25 years. I am also a Debian convert. Debian is a huge learning experience in comparison to MS based systems. But lets say that the user of each system has equal competance in his own os and we apply the same test. The result in this case is valid. The time taken to install in the Debian environment is certainly much shorter. I have experience of this on a personal level on many occassions. A typical example was when I installed broadband. It took 10 minutes to get my networking setup with Debian and 30 minutes with the MS installer.
I think a lot of the comment from MS users in this long thread derives from a lack of knowledge. apt repositories do have over 16 000 programs available in each flavour (stable, testing and unstable). The details of the apt respository are local and are updated via an apt-get update. An apt-get upgrade will upgrade every single package that has an updated package. No need to find out which of your hundreds of packages has an updated package available. I remember having a specific application for Win ’98 to do this for me. For me and many others my Debian has big advantages;
It’s free
The applications I use are free.
I have not had a system crash in the 2 years I have run in comparison to the 8 crashes I had in an hour with ’98 last week (its old now I know)
I have an Internet server that has been running for 6 months without a reboot and its updated every week.
I don’t have malware or spyware.
I have a software firewall that works and I have the rights to prevent malevolent users from comming on to my server if I wish to.
Having permissions on an operating system that operates in a wide area network (the internet) is fundamental requirement to ensure system integrity and protection. This in my opinion, is a very serious design flaw in all the user MS operating systems (DOS, Win ’95, ’98, XP) designed to date. When it was conceived it was always intended to be used as a single user system and not in a network environment.
All I can say is if you want to carry on paying somone else for a half baked os and applications and have no real knowledge or control of what happens to or on your system, then help yourself because it has nothing to do with me as you are paying for the priveledge.
Doesn’t matter if you agree or not, the article is quite factual.
“-w/ portage, you must wait for the compile process to finish, which may take hours”
— so if you don’t like Gentoo, and don’t want to wait hours for the optimised compiles, use a different distribution such as Debian which sacrifices optimisation for ease of use, and install binary packages.
“-often you must use the command line to involve shell scripts; with windows it is just point and click”
— so use synaptic which is even more “point and click” because all the available packages are searchable in the one place (try doing that with Windows!). In using synaptic (or equivalent such as RPMdrake) I have never once had to use a command line.
“-there are too many package managers”
— so use only the one for your distribution that suits you.
“-there are too many ways of installing program. Sometimes with command line, sometimes with double click (rarely), sometimes by right click and rpm.”
— so just use the package manager alone if you find choice confusing.
“-After install, it is hard to find the program. there are no icons, and the file system is messed up.”
Not at all. The programs appear on the menus after install. This is typically achieved by a package installing a menu definitition in /etc/menu. Here is one such from my system for acroread:
====
?package(gv):needs=”x11″ section=”Apps/Viewers”
title=”Acrobat Reader”
icon=”acroread.png”
command=”/usr/local/Acrobat5/bin/acroread”
hints=”PostScript,Documents”
categories=Graphics
====
Automagic !
Package management on Linux is light-years ahead of Windows.
That’s right– The reason being that Windows doesn’t need it. You can install anything without being tied to a distros ‘way of working’.
“That’s right– The reason being that Windows doesn’t need it. You can install anything without being tied to a distros ‘way of working’.”
Pfft. Utter, utter rubbish.
1. There are many ways to install things on Linux. For my system, I can choose to use synaptic (GUI), kpackage (another GUI), apt-get (command line), aptitude (console-with-mouse-and-menus), or I can download packages with a browser and install them with dpkg or via a file manager such as konqueror, or I can install them off cdroms, or I can download source files and compile for myself if I so choose.
2. I can choose from over 16000 packages (yes, that is correct, 16 *thousand*, all free by the way) – only just over 1,000 of these represent my distro’s “way of working”.
3. I can choose from a multitude of desktop GUIs – such as KDE, Gnome, Xfce, Icewm, Windowmaker, Fluxbox, Blackbox, Rox – to name but a few – I can even have all of these on my system at the same time if I so choose, and let each user decide which one of these he or she wishes to use.
4. You can only install something on Windows if you can find it somewhere – except of course the stuff that installs itself that you do not want and which you cannot get rid of. There is no one place to search for stuff. Nearly everything comes with a hyper restrictive license – except of course the stuff that installs itself that you do not want and which you cannot get rid of. The rest costs a fortune or quits working after 30 days – except of course the stuff that installs itself that you do not want and which you cannot get rid of.
As some others pointed out there are some “accidental” omissions in the article. Not a Win fan but I use it, and I appreciate the fact that the installer does it all. When the sw is installed under Linux I have to locate the binary, create shortcuts, configure menus etc etc etc, often by hand. On Windows that is all done for me. You also forget the fact that with Windows there is only one thing you need to do – point and click repeatedly. This is much easier than having to remember (or even find out) which commands you have to write. It doesn’t matter that they are simple commands, it takes quite a while for inexperienced people to get their heads around them. “-hmm, was it apt_get, aptget or apt-get and did I need any command line switches?” And that would be an advanced, normal user thinking, ie someone who even grasps the concept of root vs. others on his system.
“In linux you have to go to debian’s site and search the package list descriptions which is much more of a pain.”
This is incorrect. Misinformation.
In Linux, one downloads the package list descriptions to local disk. Then one searches, sorts, filters or browses the list (including dtailed descriptions) – or one choses sections (such as Office applicationsWord processors) to find the package(s) one wants.
In Windows, new applications cost one dearly 90% of the time. Sometimes many, many thousands of dollars. Sometimes they cost over and over again. This alone is infinitely more of a pain that installing anything under Linux ever.
Oh – and you do have to reboot. Often. One has to reboot about six times just to get the OS installed – one has to reboot often when one installs new drivers – and often one has to reboot in just installing a new application. This is also a right royal pain – and almost a complete showstopper for a server.
“I appreciate the fact that the installer does it all.”
Misinformation. There is no one “installer” in Windows.
“When the sw is installed under Linux I have to locate the binary, create shortcuts, configure menus etc etc etc, often by hand.”
You can do this if you want to, but why would you want to? Just install your application using a package manager from your distribution and it is all done for you. Again, I think, an attempt at misinformation.
“with Windows there is only one thing you need to do – point and click repeatedly.”
Unless it comes in a zip file. Unless it has a EULA where you give away your rights to your firstborn in order to install something.
“This is much easier than having to remember (or even find out) which commands you have to write.”
So don’t do it that way – use a GUI package manager. Search for “word processor” or just go into the word processor section. Choose the one you like best from the list (all with descriptions) that is presented to you, mark that one (or even a couple of them if you want) for installation, and click “apply” – then you are done.
“did I need any command line switches?”
No, not if you don’t want. Use the GUI – it installs exactly the same set of packages as the command line. Over 16000 to choose from by the way – and all free. All installable with a few clicks. No licenses to worry about. Easy to upgrade, at zero cost. Enjoy.
You should have used a novice for your comparison. A person experienced at both O/S comparing methods means nothing to the newbie and helps them not one bit. Sure it will be easier for the newbie when they are no longer newbies – but that it is not the point.If your intention is promote how easy Linux is for new users then you have missed the point – because it is not – it is a mystery to them. I spent 2 weeks trying to successfully install one program, any program – I tried a few. I tried gzip, RPM, apt-get types etc but it was a freaking nightmare. You forgot to mention the person having to find and know what a Command Line is, how to find directories, files etc, where on earth did the files disappear to when they were installed, did they really install? how do I know? wheres the executeables and so on.
The only thing you have proved is that for an experienced windows and linux user the Linux installation method is just as easy. This is nothing to do with winning new users. Also the documentation/directions are always written with view to
a person knowing how to use the command line. The only packages I could get installed was in Ubuntu using Synaptic Packager (ie it did it for me). For the newbie Windows is far far easier. At least WIndows has a file manager where someone can search for files in an intuitive way. The newbie has to spend an hour just to find out where to look at files and directories which is far better in Windows. Frankly I use computers to produce work, it is not a toy for its own sake that I know many Linux geeks find it – I dont have the time to waste having to study Linux before I can use it. I think the fact that program installation is an actuall issue for people in the real world among new users should tell you something is wrong – no matter how you tell yourself how wonderful and easy it is. Linux is missing out on many new users because of this issue – you telling yourself how easy it is wont fix that. I think the phrase ‘Read The Freakin Manual’ sums up many Linux proponents attitude to anybody wanting to take up Linux – many are in love with the nerdy niche they think they have with Linux – and actually will probably dread Linux becoming common as place as windows. Sorry but Linux is fails dismally when it comes to the one thing that newbies will want to do – install programs. Poor obvious documentation giving basic ‘dummy’ instructions for the newbie is missing. Sure once you hold their hand all the way through a process a few times they will not be put off. And dont say go read the man page or poorly set out help files. I dont have the time for Linux anymore, I have work to do – I must advise all the people whom I work with (about 75) to not try Linux yet – they have even less time than I to work Linux out. GET the message – It doesnt matter what you think as an semi/experienced Linux user – the truth is what happens when the newbie first opens up Linux. Oh and if you want me to tell you how to survive a myocardio infarct – I can tell you RTFM. ;]
Not not joking – perhpas you are the joker?
Every thing you say in your post is incorrect.
For example – Linux has more than a dozen GUI file managers. Konqueror for example behaves almost exactly like Windows file manager.
Here is the GUI way to install packages on linux – for people new to Linux:
=======================
KMenu->System->Synaptic Package Manager.
(KMenu is the equivalent of the Windows “Start” button).
Dialog box appears – enter the root password.
Click the “Sections” button in the lower left corner.
Scroll through the list of sections until “Multimedia” appears.
Click on a few of the packages that appear, and spot the one which says:
beep-media-player
and has this description displayed:
“Versatile audio player that supports Winamp skins
A player that supports Winamp skins, with a customizable interface based on GTK2. It has various output plugins and can read various audio formats.”
Double-click on “beep-media-player” to mark it for installation.
Click the Apply button.
Dialog box appears informing that 1 new application will be installed, 1 package file to download.
Click Apply.
Package takes about 30 seconds to download.
Dialog box appears stating “Applying Changes” – descriptive text displayed within – terminating with a message: “Successfully applied all changes. You can close the window now.”
Click close.
Quit Synaptic.
There is a now a new entry on the “Multimedia” menu saying “Beep Media Player”.
Click that new entry – new media player application starts, and works.
Whole process from start to finish – under two minutes.
To remove again:
KMenu->System->Synaptic Package Manager.
Enter root password as before.
Select “Sections”, then “Multimedia” as before.
Find “beep-multimedia-player” (now marked as “installed”).
Right-click, then select “mark for removal”.
Click “Apply”.
Dialog box appears informing that 1 application will be removed.
Click “Apply”.
Dialog box appears stating “Applying Changes”.
Dialog box states (after a short while) “Successfully applied all changes. You can close the window now.”
Click Close.
Quit Synaptic.
There is a now no entry on the “Multimedia” menu saying “Beep Media Player”.
Also under two minutes.
==============================
Now here is the absolutely critical bit:
**** All packages which can be installed on the command line using apt-get can be installed this way using a GUI instead if users prefer *****
Get it? You can install *everything* using the one GUI and never use a command line in your life – and there will be no packages that you miss out on!!!
Much hyprocrisy from one more Linux fanatic, nothing too surprising in fact (I’m not saying there aren’t fanatics in the other team, BTW)…
I wonder why it is so difficult to keep one’s head cool and in working order when it comes to computing. Is it that hard to acknowledge the pros and cons of each competitor in a professional and unbiaised manner?
This kind of unfounded propaganda ends up generating a lot of disappointment, frustration and disgust among newcomers (I’ve been one myself not so long ago).
If you can’t see it’s broken, then you’ll never get it fixed!
Just my 2cents anyway…
What was wrong with the GUI way of installing packages that is described above?
It is a dozen times easier than finding and installing anything under Windows. Under Windows, the Start->Control Panel->Add/Remove Programs has only about 20 or so programs available to install – and then you have to go & dig out your original Windows CD to even istall those. For the vast majority of Windows programs you have to get the install file to your Windows box somehow – and every single program has a different way to locate it.
You cannot put a “here is how to install programs on Windows” section into a help file or an instruction book because no two programs install in the same way.
Yet there just a few posts above I have put the instructions for installing via a common GUI on Linux that will enable anyone who owns a machine to put upwards of 16000 packages on that machine all using the exact same GUI steps every time.
You can’t do that with Windows.
“documentation giving basic ‘dummy’ instructions for the newbie is missing.”
Not so.
KMenu->System->Synaptic Package Manager.
Click “Help” or press the F1 key.
In the first instance the author was not writing an article aimed at newbies but was doing a somewhat unscientific experiment. So this article is not a comparison of how newbies would get on in equivalent environments. Given a blank sheet and comparing the learning time of a newbie starting with MS or a Debian based distro like Linspire or Ubuntu I am sure that they would be at similar compentance levels after a month. The main difference would be that the Linux user would be more aware of the functions of his os than his MS counterpart. With regard to APT – it only took me a few days to figure out how to use it and how powerful this system is.
Linux is very much a working environment. Once running I don’t have to worry about BSD’s and networking stopping because of some unknown glitch in the system. I also don’t have to pay some exhorbitant fee to someone for antivirus software either. There is also a great deal more help out there for Linux users than I have ever found for MS.
My 10 year old son uses his Debian system quite happily and is equally at home in MS but guess what he prefers Debian.
From Linux (remotely):
KMenu->System->Konsole (Terminal Program)
or from Windows (remotely) find the menu for Putty.
at the prompt, type:
$ ssh [email protected]
password: (enter the root password)
[email protected]$ apt-get install package-name
…
…
… apt-get types out several messages here
…
…
[email protected]$ exit
$ exit
Try and do that with Windows.
I ranted in an earlier post because I was simply overwhelmed by the outragousness of the article.
I have since read over a hundred different post from people commenting. Some just as put out as I was, and some defending linux as a superior system.
BUT,
what all of the linux users seem to be missing is that in MOST of your arguments you depend on a particular distribution with a particular installer and specific knowledge about how to use it.
If an average “USER” wants to install software the first place they are likely to look is the internet.
That said, most linux software installation is tedius from the web, because there are hundreds of different options for numerous different flavors. It is simply overwhelming and confusing.
It is made MUCH WORSE by the infamously BAD ATTITUDE of most linux die-hards. I know that is improving, but those of you who love linux and want to truely see it adopted by the world in mass know what I’m talking about.
The author did specifically compare the installation of a particular piece of software using windows typical installation methods versus a specific installation manager on a particular linux distro, and I was happy to learn something new that could assist me in the future with my linux woes, and marked the information in my brain for future use.
However he seemed to be implying that that meant all software was easier on all linux distributions. (I know that’s not what he said, but I do feel it was implied)
He made several large assumptions, like how the user knows which distribution to use (or cares). That the user understands about execution context (or cares).
He also made big assumptions in his “rating” system that could have even the odds a bit had he made the assumptions evenly on both sides, like how he knew the exact command to execute from the command line, which I have already said is like giving the full url to a .msi package.
But unfortunatly what we get from the community is more of the same “LINUX IS BETTER – WINDOWS SUX” crap we have been listening to for years.
Now lets talk about non “USERS”. He did not elude to how I would change the default installation path, or how to add (or not add ) the icon to my start menue or desktop. Is that easy as well? it is in most windows installations.
Honestly I don’t know. perhaps someone else could enlighten me. But I’ll tell you now if it involves editing configuration files you have already lost.
-moidib
<quote>
From Linux Remotely):
KMenu->System->Konsole (Terminal Program)
or from Windows (remotely) find the menu for Putty.
at the prompt, type:
$ ssh [email protected]
password: (enter the root password)
[email protected]$ apt-get install package-name
…
…
… apt-get types out several messages here
…
…
[email protected]$ exit
$ exit
Try and do that with Windows
</quote>
You are assuming those tools are available, and that you know the exact commands to use.
If I make a similar assumption for windows I can just say
– PSEXEC \MachineName -c LOCALPATH TO INSTALLER.msi “INSTALLER.msi /q” -u USERNAME
– Enter password at prompt
for most applications I install.
THERE I just BEAT THAT on Windows!!!
Of course there is a distinct advantage to not having to go get the file first. But it is hard to say that is signifigantly simpler for someone that would be installing software remotely.
Ok, I’m 13 yrs old and I thought I would give a prospective from the other side of installing software. I have never head of or used a microsoft operating system ever. My dad and mom have always used Linux since I can remember. I only started using microsft at school. So, after reading some of the posts here, I thought I would give my preceptions of installing software from the “Never used windows” prospective. That way people can look at this and say “There is someone that is on the other side of the spectrum; never used windows and always used Linux.” At school, I asked my teacher if I could learn windows a little. So, she sat me down and we went over some do’s and don’t about the internet (very similer to my Linux training; dont go to bad sites, dont chat with strangers, etc…etc). I was shocked to learn about virus’ and mallware (Although that sounds exiting, well, the “mall” part:-). Anyway, I proceeded to instal a package called Office. I is supposed to be like OpenOffice and has alot of the OO features. I really like OO alot and use it all the time. Anyway, I put the cd in the drive (lol, didn’t have to donwload it. That was kind of nice. Internet at school sux0rs). I told my teacher not to help me unless I absolutly needed it and she left me alone. So, I put in the cd and went to the my computer icon like I had read to do. But before I was able to do anything, something poped up that started the install for me. Kind of nice I suppose, but what if I didnt want to install it at that time? Anyway, so this is where I got totally lost. I know nothing about windows filesystems, process’, or anything, and it started asking me where I wanted to put the files. I tryed to put in /opt/office, but that didnt seem to work. So, the teacher steped in and said the default was ok. I was a little embareassed to have the teacher tell me that, but I got over it
. So, I dont really know what else happend afer that, but it asked me other questions about programs I wanted to install, something about a ticket or license or something and I had to spend 5 min putting in a long number. Sheesh. The whole process took me about 30 min to figure out what to do (With the teacher helping occasionally). Once I was done, I had to reboot the machine. Well, that was a new concept for me as my Linux box at home has been up for 184 days (Needs a new kernel update though, so I might have to reboot it soon for that). So, the machine rebooted and I had to log in. Then on the windows desktop start menu, I found alot of icons sitting there kind of “cluttery” and in the programs directory, I saw MS Office. I wondered why it puts all those other icons in the start menu; really looks out of place thee. Well, It was a little cluttered, but functional. I was able to get a document typed and felt good about doing it. I tried to install some other stuff from CD, but was halted by not knowing the mount command for windows. The Office CD was nice in that it automounted for me, but the other CD’s didnt. Oh well. All in all, I have to say that windows is pretty ok, but Linux is far simpler for me to use as I would excpect the opposite from someone that uses windows. Later, I tried installing windows from the CD and I was not able to finish that. Too many questions that I didnt understand. I have installed Red Hat, Mandrake, Arch, and some others. I am going to try Gentoo this comming weekend. Should be simple enough though. Point is, that to each his/her own. If you are good with windows, then that is for you. I find Linux much simpler to install and work with, but that is because I am used to it. I think it is importaint for your kids and schools to teach Linux, Apple, and MS in their schools so everyone has a rounded idea of what is out there. I really appreceate my parents from protecting me from all the bad things that happen to windows users while running windows (identity thefy, virus’, this mallware stuff), but I was glad to learn about it. Someday, maybe all the bad virus’ will go away too, but I’l glad I dont have to worry about that!!!
All of these comments are forgeting that most pc users can, hardly use the machines that they are on, and don’t really have the know how to install software using a command line. That is why windows will allways be prefered to mass public.
All of these comments are forgeting that most pc users can, hardly use the machines that they are on, and don’t really have the know how to install software using a command line.
And what you’re forgetting is that you don’t have to use the command line to install software in Linux. This has been repeated many, many times in this thread already.
Click to check out the instructions for installing some popular software on Ubuntu:
http://ubuntuguide.org/#skype
That’s typical for many Linux distros, but not all (some, like Libranet, SuSE/Novell) make the process even easier, but you have to admit Windows has an advantage in this area. That said, this one one-up is not enough by itself to claim Windows superiority overall.
I ranted in an earlier post because I was simply overwhelmed by the outragousness of the article.
I have since read over a hundred different post from people commenting. Some just as put out as I was, and some defending linux as a superior system.
the article was comparing apples and oranges, the linux commandline installers with a windows gui one. it depends how you define superior, if you mean easy to upgrade with low memory consumption, then linux is superior due to its almost total use of dynamic linking. if you mean superior as in ease of use, that is what the article was about.
BUT,
what all of the linux users seem to be missing is that in MOST of your arguments you depend on a particular distribution with a particular installer and specific knowledge about how to use it.
what you seem to missing is that ALL the top desktop distros have great package managers. and for the most part, it requires less knowledge to use a linux installer (i cant think of any that dont just answer the standard 10 windows installer questions for you with sane defaults.)
If an average “USER” wants to install software the first place they are likely to look is the internet.
You mean the average WINDOWS user. The average linux user opens his package manager.
That said, most linux software installation is tedius from the web, because there are hundreds of different options for numerous different flavors. It is simply overwhelming and confusing.
Agreed. That is why you just install it the normal way instead of hunting through websites, like you would on windows.
It is made MUCH WORSE by the infamously BAD ATTITUDE of most linux die-hards. I know that is improving, but those of you who love linux and want to truely see it adopted by the world in mass know what I’m talking about.
Dude, I am still a newb. Only been using linux for a few years, and I have yet to run accross this BAD ATTITUDE, at least directed at me. the only time I see the BAD ATTITUDE is when DUMB WINDOWS USERS ask IDIOTIC QUESTIONS that could be answered by a GOOGLE “I FEEL LUCKY”.
The author did specifically compare the installation of a particular piece of software using windows typical installation methods versus a specific installation manager on a particular linux distro, and I was happy to learn something new that could assist me in the future with my linux woes, and marked the information in my brain for future use.
I’m not defending the article, as I said it was a bad comparison. If you want something similar, look up how to install .msi files from the command line in windows. The equivilent to the setup.exe process in windows is synaptic, not command line apt.
However he seemed to be implying that that meant all software was easier on all linux distributions. (I know that’s not what he said, but I do feel it was implied)
Every once in awhile you will run accross a 0.1, or something pre-1.0 that is simply too obscure to be in a repository. However, these are fringe cases, and many of the linux package managers still handle it gracefully. If you are using one that doesnt though, you will definately be going through a painful process.
But, we are once again comparing apples and oranges. Try installing pre-1.0 software in windows, by doing a cvs pull and compiling it yourself. Remarkably similar. Biggest difference is that windows simply cant handle it out of the box, and linux can.
He made several large assumptions, like how the user knows which distribution to use (or cares). That the user understands about execution context (or cares).
He also made big assumptions in his “rating” system that could have even the odds a bit had he made the assumptions evenly on both sides, like how he knew the exact command to execute from the command line, which I have already said is like giving the full url to a .msi package.
Agreed. He should have compared command line apt to installing an msi via the command line using all the switches for the same sort of silent install you get on linux machines. OR, he should have compared the click-a-thon that setup.exe gives you with synaptic. one or the other, because they are really two different things, for two different purposes. I would say linux wins hands down in both cases having extensively used all four methods, but thats just me.
But unfortunatly what we get from the community is more of the same “LINUX IS BETTER – WINDOWS SUX” crap we have been listening to for years.
Well, theres definately alot of that going on in this thread, but not by me. I dont like windows too much, and I get real annoyed by having to use it all the time at work, but I have reasons for those annoyances that go beyond the great battle of good vs evil you usually get from zealots. But really, its been that way since time immemorial. ITS vs UNIX, MacOS vs Windows, Windows vs Linux, Linux vs UNIX, Boxers vs Briefs, etc.
Now lets talk about non “USERS”. He did not elude to how I would change the default installation path, or how to add (or not add ) the icon to my start menue or desktop. Is that easy as well? it is in most windows installations.
Very very very good. You have touched on the reason that windows installations blow so hard. If 99.9999999% of the cases a question will be answered the same way, you do not require the user to answer it every single time. Instead, you allow through ealier intervention to change the way it will work. All that is possible in linux, but it is rarely used, because its only a one in a thousand situation where you would want something like that.
Honestly I don’t know. perhaps someone else could enlighten me. But I’ll tell you now if it involves editing configuration files you have already lost.
No editing config files, but you use command line switches. I dont remember them, because I have never used them. But since linux documentation rocks, if I ever do need to use them, they are just a man away.
I think Rebecca came nearest to the point.I think it’s all a matter of what you are most familiar with.With todays modern Linux distributions it’s as easy to learn for a first time user as windows is.As with learning a new language you have to get hold of a fair amount of basic skills first.A first time windows user has to learn about different file suffixes and unzip tools etc first to make a sinfull install from the web.”.exe”=double click right away”,”*.zip=unzip first and see if that *.exe is somewhere around”..
Yes if there would be only commercial applications avaible for windows on CD,installing on windows is far easier.However the majority of savvy windows users don’t have endless deep pockets and install now and than from the net,than i say there’s not much difference between a modern Linux distro and windows at all in terms of how difficult the actual install is.
actually, being unfamiliar with something makes it uncomfortable to work with. That feeling goes away quickly after you adjust to a new way of doing things. It is a feeling that is easily identifiable if you are used to trying new things. However, most windows users equate the windows way of doing things with “the way a computer is operated”. So that uncomfortable feeling with using an alien design means that its bad, and that is where the introspection ends.
This attitude bugs me to no end. And its not just with computers.
Try a few different distros. Try installing various apps to those distros. Refrain from pulling out all hair and curb desire to bludgeon author of this article for suggesting Linux is that easy.
Seriously, the author has chosen to take the easiest install experience possible under and Linux distro. Usually, the user ends up with one vague error message or another. Dependancy hell is not a phrase the author seems familiar with.
In refference to your last reply…
Sounds like you and I are seeing eye to eye for the most part.
Of course unless the numbers have changed, the average “USER” uses windows.
I am a little surprised you have not had the “bad attitude” experience I had, but perhaps your idea of an idiotic question and mine are different. Still, I don’t think so. I’m fairly capable and most of my questions would go well past a simple google search.
Your comment about compiling source may have been a little obscure to me, but it does bring up a good topic. I have for some time now felt that that was both the joy and bane of the linux world. Most developers know you will have the compiler, so they don’t put a lot of effort into cleaning up thier installation method. That’s a shame because it gives the whole environment a bad name.
Perhaps I’ll have to give the whole linux/gnu thing another try soon.
-moidib
//Where are you supposed to find these programs that you can just download and double-click to install?//
Huh? Where to find Windows software? How about every damn computer store on the planet, outside of a Apple Store? How about Wal-Mart, Targer, grocery stores, Starbucks … hell, just about every retail outlet selling most anything will have Windows software.
Stop the FUD.
I’ve been in the IT world for going on 20 years now, and if there is one thing I’ve learned it is never listen to a techie when it comes to ease-of-use.
As a model user look to the person who uses a computer simply because they have too, that is about 95% of the current user comunity, ignore them and you’re ignoring a huge market.
When I setup the home network to save money I used Linux on the main workstation, winXP on the laptops. Used ultraVNC to allow terminal access.
The wife *COULD* not figure out how to use the main workstation. A week later I gave up and shelled out 100 bux for winXP.
“I just want to click and have it work”.
The world is no longer RTFM based, if a user needs to read they’ll give up.
This is a lesson MS and Apple both know, but the Linux crowed seemed to not hear. This is why where I work Linux is on the Servers (not all) and windows on the Desktop.
rob
//well, ill tell you, my family cant seem to install software on windows for the life of them. they alwas hit a question that confuses them, are terrified of hitting “next”, and phone me up. //
Well, then, would please inform your family that by hitting “Next” they will NOT blow up their computer?
Geez. Are they terrified of most other electronic devices, too?