Decentralized installers are needed
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| claus Aug 21, 2007 3:52 AM EDT |
I often agree with Matt Hardley's opinion pieces. But this time, I think he is not quite honest when he writes:
"Software management, discovery and installation is light years easier than with Windows." Indeed, when you already know what application you want, and when there's a working package in your repository, APT is rather comfortable. The problem starts whenever you don't know what application you want or need. Or when you want applications that are no standard yet -- either because your wants are unusual or you are interested in brand new releases. Here, APT and front-ends fail. This was already pointed out by dburrows (http://lambdaman.blogspot.com/2007/01/package-management-usa...): "Maybe the biggest problem is that unless you know what package you're looking for, basically all our package interfaces are useless. [...] the big problem I see is that you tend to get back several dozen results, many of which are libraries, development packages, command-line software or software that doesn't work." Just search for "Evolution" in Ubuntu's Synaptic. I got 106 results. Which is the right one? Another description of the problems of Linux package management was already published by Ian Murduck (http://ianmurdock.com/?p=388). He focuses on an application written in Java but the problems extend to other applications as well. Or look at the documentation to install ANYTHING in Ubuntu (http://monkeyblog.org/ubuntu/installing/): It needs 5.000 words! While written very well, it still is bloody complicated. And the guide does not even mention the problem arising from installing application written in PERL or Python! Linux needs at least a standard API for dealing with the native package management of the distribution. And it needs at least one installer that is used by the majority of application developers. Without these two things, Linux will continue to grow slowly on the desktop. Microsoft found out the hard way that an API and a standard installer is needed. Why is it so hard for Linux developers to understand this? Is this eventually due to the fact that some Linux using tech writers can't understand other people problems and perspectives? Writers such as Matt Hardly? Unfortunately, after reading his above essay, I believe this seems to be the case. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 21, 2007 10:23 AM EDT |
> Is this eventually due to the fact that some Linux using tech writers can't understand other people problems and perspectives? Writers such as Matt Hardly? No. This difficulty is because writers such as Matt Hardly aren't writing for Linux based systems. When searching for an application for Windows, do you already know its name? If not, then you have _exactly_ the same problem as finding an application in a Linux distribution's repositories. So, how is this problem solved in Windows? Personally, I search the categories in Tucows for little Windows tools and games. I also search Tucows for little Linux tools and games, and when I find an application name I check the repositories first. |
| vainrveenr Aug 21, 2007 10:26 AM EDT |
"The problem starts whenever you don't know what application you want or need. Or when you want applications that are no standard yet -- either because your wants are unusual or you are interested in brand new releases." from http://lambdaman.blogspot.com/2007/01/package-management-usa... Quoting:The great package huntSo true. Same for so many other pkg managers besides apt and aptitude, such as rpm, portage, slaptitude, ...... etc... Sometimes as well, sourceforge may have minimal documentation on a particular package. Past this first package hunt, one does not necessarily know which of these to use to find the best pkg description in the case when you don't know what application you want or need: a) the proper Google search terms that will yield the best hits, b) missing lists of distro packages, c) the correct and most productive wiki/forum to get the answers one needs, ... etc. Especially irksome are packages that somehow become installed upon default with no prior warning (just why DID portmap and NFS end up on my default Fedora anaconda install for my desktop workstation anyway??). At least MS-Windows going way way back to the ancient days of 3.1 provided a bunch of one or two -liner application descrpitions of those additional "goodies" the end-user could check off to install or not. |
| Steven_Rosenber Aug 21, 2007 10:26 AM EDT |
In addition to Synaptic, Ubuntu has an add/del programs utility that shows full applications with descriptions and isn't clogged up with libraries. That's the go-to place for Ubuntu users to manage their apps. Not everything is there -- by a long shot -- but the major apps are all there for newbies to discover and install. It's more friendly than Synaptic. |
| rijelkentaurus Aug 21, 2007 11:37 AM EDT |
Quoting: In addition to Synaptic, Ubuntu has an add/del programs utility that shows full applications with descriptions and isn't clogged up with libraries. Under System Settings in Red Hat/CentOS, there is an option "Add/Remove Applications" which does the same thing. Quoting: At least MS-Windows going way way back to the ancient days of 3.1 provided a bunch of one or two -liner application descrpitions of those additional "goodies" the end-user could check off to install or not. Most users won't know where to go to find those things, and Windows 2000/XP just install everything at once with no input from the user other than target partition. Those "goodies" are buried in a menu that's buried in a menu...hardly friendly to someone who doesn't know where to look. Quoting: then you have _exactly_ the same problem as finding an application in a Linux distribution's repositories. Not quite the same...you can search apt/Synaptic/yum/Yumex/etc. Half of what you "find" to install on Windows from the net is spyware or nagware or crapware. |
| vainrveenr Aug 21, 2007 1:10 PM EDT |
Quoting:Most users won't know where to go to find those things, and Windows 2000/XP just install everything at once with no input from the user other than target partition. Those "goodies" are buried in a menu that's buried in a menu...hardly friendly to someone who doesn't know where to look. Not exactly, and it would probably be good idea to re-review the links that claus brings above. It remains MUCH easier to use the descriptions within "the menu that's buried in a menu" for the OS installation itself. The menu system Windows uses rather than that llllllllllonnnnnnngggggggg list of never-ending packages that someone will inevitably feel MIGHT need to be installed with a GNU/Linux install (and even much less friendly to that "someone who doesn't know where to look") This same problem exists for both Windows versions mentioned and for GNU/Linux _ after_ the installation stage. In either case, just finding and configuring a new required application can be significantly more difficult than the original install of the pkg. Clear examples of this are obtaining the appropriate "non-spyware or non-nagware or non-crapware" .COM or .EXE file in WIndows, and for GNU/Linux. the _EXACTLY CORRECT_ package for your hardware and Linux distro (i.e., must match hardware architecture, must match your distro's -pkg format, must be the correct pkg version with dependencies that you've already installed,.........etc). Basically this goes against Hardley's "Software management, discovery and installation", and Windows has the clear edge. Eventually this touches on the debate between tailoring Linux distros more finely toward what MIcrosoft does in terms of handholding the Windows user -versus- FOSS developers' own ideas of novel and efficient features FOSS packages should have REGARDLESS of making these particular packages especially easy-to-use, easy-to-find and easy-to-install for GNU/Linux users (again, "Software management, discovery and installation") BTW, IIRC this was brought up recently in a similar LXer discussion between Apple Mac and Linux users. |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 21, 2007 1:42 PM EDT |
There's one thing that puts the Linux way clearly above the Windows way: updates. With Windows you have to track the updates yourself or rely on a diversity of application-specific update managers. With Linux you have one central place that automatically updates anything you have installed. |
| dinotrac Aug 21, 2007 2:03 PM EDT |
>So, how is this problem solved in Windows? It's not a problem in Windows. You use what your buddy or workmate uses. You ask the guy at the computer store. You seek out a not-hard-to-find Windows guru. You listen to Kim Komando. You go to Borders and get a book, buying the software it talks about. It's not a technical answer, but it's the answer that matters. It's also not something you really program around. It's something you realize and figure out how to make life easier for the brave souls who come our way. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 23, 2007 8:45 AM EDT |
> You use what your buddy or workmate uses. You ask the guy at the computer store. You seek out a not-hard-to-find Windows guru. You listen to Kim Komando. You go to Borders and get a book, buying the software it talks about. All of which are equally valid for Linux. Or did you mean I could walk into an Apple store and ask "the guy"? Obviously your definition of "computer store" meant _Windows_ computer store, which you should have considered and, I believe, would have demonstrated my point. Thousands of Linux gurus are not-hard-to-find too, I suggest the website LXer.com if you want an example. Or the users email lists that every distribution fosters or directly hosts. I can't go to my neighbor for Windows advice, he's a Mac user. Does that instantly invalidate your point? No, so the fact that you can't go to your neighbor for Linux advice does not invalidate my point: Advice is easy to find regardless of platform. > It's not a problem in Windows. Yes, it is. The fact that you consider that problem solved does not remove the existence of the problem, any more than 4 removes the existence of 2+2. > It's something you realize and figure out how to make life easier for the brave souls who come our way. Which you, and I, and everyone else who I have read posting to LXer does every day: Offer advice. The one and only reason Linux support is perceived as a problem is because Microsofties continually repeat the Big Lie that Linux support is a problem. It may very well be the one piece of FUD that has flat-out WORKED. |
| dinotrac Aug 23, 2007 8:48 AM EDT |
>All of which are equally valid for Linux. You must live on a different planet from mine. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 23, 2007 8:56 AM EDT |
> You must live on a different planet from mine. I thought that was obvious from the first time we posited on the same subject. |
| dinotrac Aug 23, 2007 9:00 AM EDT |
>I thought that was obvious from the first time we posited on the same subject. Pretty much. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!