Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Is it easy to install new software on Linux yet?

53 posts in this topic

Posted

I haven't tried Linux since RedHat vSomething.0, but what I do recall was that if it came pre-installed with all the software you needed, it was great.  But if you needed to download a small piece of software, it was a pain.  Suddenly I had to learn what tarballs are and tar.gz and how to compile things in a command line and make binaries and what all of that means... I missed my good old EXE!  

 

So lately I noticed Android was loosely based around Linux, and it has an "APK" package management system - no more compiling for me!  Do any of the linux distro's have a similar system?  Or an automatic way of figuring out what to do with the tar.gz I downloaded when I just want to install a program?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Linux has had, for the longest time, the easiest software installation system out of all of the major operating systems. In fact OSX and Windows (8, anyway), are just now getting around to similar systems. It just wasn't available on RedHat (or it might have been, depending on when you used Redhat, it was called RPM). Package management, back in the day, anyway, was the domain of Debian-based systems.

 

You're looking for apt-get  (synaptic being the GUI frontend) or a similar package manager. Ubuntu and all of it's derivatives have the Software Center built in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Linux has had, for the longest time, the easiest software installation system out of all of the major operating systems. In fact OSX and Windows (8, anyway), are just now getting around to similar systems. It just wasn't available on RedHat (back in the day, anyway).

 

You're looking for apt-get  (synaptic being the GUI frontend) or a similar package manager. Ubuntu and all of it's derivatives have something similar built in.

 

Are you farking kidding me?!  RedHat was the ONLY one that didn't have it?  I'm talking like 10 years ago, btw.  Damn, and ever since then I've been going around telling everyone how linux is great except for how difficult installing new software is...  

 

TO THE LINUX!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

suppose it depends on which distribution you are using and who you ask. I have never thought installing Software on linux was difficult, its just different than installing on Windows. as threetonesun said apt-get has made our lives much simpler for years now but as far as easy goes. thats up to your level of comfort with the OS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Are you farking kidding me?!  RedHat was the ONLY one that didn't have it?  I'm talking like 10 years ago, btw.  Damn, and ever since then I've been going around telling everyone how linux is great except for how difficult installing new software is...  

 

TO THE LINUX!!!!

 

Well, it's stupidly simple on something like Ubuntu or Linux Mint. Certainly compared to the old days. Installing something on Redhat pre-RPM was a PITA, but RPMs (if you could find them), did make the whole process relatively simple. Didn't always work the way you might have expected it to though.

 

Don't feel too bad though, Red hat was by far the easiest distro to install back in the day. Debian, thought it might have had a better package manager, usually came with a million headaches to get through the installation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Its incredibly easy to install software on pretty much any modern distro, and has been for years.... Especially ubuntu and derivatives with its software center and ppa's. Linux has come a long way compared to a decade old version or red hat....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's gotten even simplier with the software centre. Synaptics, as well. As long as you don't have to compile it, it is easy as pie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Also, it's worth mentioning that there's Steam for Linux now, which a) comes as a package for Ubuntu, and b) installs games itself. So yeah, it's been making some pretty impressive strides in the last few years.

 

If you want to see how it works these days, run Linux Mint in a VM. I think you'll be impressed how much it can do, and how fast it will run, even in a VM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Welp, I'm looking for a super-easy-to-use GUI to replace the disaster that is Windows 8, and so far I'm looking at either ubuntu or mint.   I'd be using it for watching movies, browsing internet, some pic/vid editing.  I'd probably leave a dual boot Windows OS for gaming support.  I'm leaning to ubuntu at the moment, as it looks more professional and I'm liking the software store, but any advice would be greatly appreciated!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Elementary OS ;)

 

Or Fedora

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Welp, I'm looking for a super-easy-to-use GUI to replace the disaster that is Windows 8, and so far I'm looking at either ubuntu or mint.   I'd be using it for watching movies, browsing internet, some pic/vid editing.  I'd probably leave a dual boot Windows OS for gaming support.  I'm leaning to ubuntu at the moment, as it looks more professional and I'm liking the software store, but any advice would be greatly appreciated!

 

Mint is based on Ubuntu (or Debian, but most people use the Ubuntu version). It really just comes down to which GUI you prefer, although at the moment I believe Mint is more popular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Go with linux mint.  If your looking to play games on steam, your biggest hurdle will be installing graphics drivers.  I had to install the latest beta drivers to get steam to work properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Mint is based on Ubuntu (or Debian, but most people use the Ubuntu version). It really just comes down to which GUI you prefer, although at the moment I believe Mint is more popular.

I highly doubt mint has more users than ubuntu. All distrowatch counts is page hits on its own website...

 

Personally I'm not a big fan of mint. IMO its interface is clunky and unpolished. (although it is more customizable than ubuntu's unity).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Linux was the first OS with an "App Store" like system. I like Suse because it has a cool "one click install" feature--and it has a great KDE experience. I think suse also has a software center--I think it's called Apper or something like that....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Mint is based on Ubuntu (or Debian, but most people use the Ubuntu version). It really just comes down to which GUI you prefer, although at the moment I believe Mint is more popular.

 

Well, now I'm leaning more to Mint.  According to this article, which pretty much went through every question I had about the two, Mint is better for the "tech-savvy linux beginner", as it offers more customization and tweaks, which I love :D .  However, apparently people said that once they had learned the interfaces of both, they preferred the Ubuntu interface.  Looking at them, it seems Ubuntu is more MacOS-based, and Mint is more Windows-based.  I think I'd prefer a Windows-based GUI, clunkiness and all. I'll also be installing it on an slow netbook to replace the chugging Windows 7, and apparently Mint handles slow machines better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Elementary OS ;)

 

Or Fedora

Yeah, I actually just installed luna beta 2 on my laptop yesterday. Its very nice! Very pretty, and very fast. And for a beta its already quite polished and stable.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well, now I'm leaning more to Mint.  According to this article, which pretty much went through every question I had about the two, Mint is better for the "tech-savvy linux beginner", as it offers more customization and tweaks, which I love :D .  However, apparently people said that once they had learned the interfaces of both, they preferred the Ubuntu interface.  Looking at them, it seems Ubuntu is more MacOS-based, and Mint is more Windows-based.  I think I'd prefer a Windows-based GUI, clunkiness and all. I'll also be installing it on an slow netbook to replace the chugging Windows 7, and apparently Mint handles slow machines better.

 

False. Ubuntu can do all of that, as well. It's all person preference. Try them both in a VM, see what you like. I've been on Debian for a month now, and I used to love Ubuntu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Linux has had, for the longest time, the easiest software installation system out of all of the major operating systems. In fact OSX and Windows (8, anyway), are just now getting around to similar systems. It just wasn't available on RedHat (or it might have been, depending on when you used Redhat, it was called RPM). Package management, back in the day, anyway, was the domain of Debian-based systems.

 

What do you mean it wasn't available on RedHat - they invented it - that's what RPM stands for - RedHat Package Manger - read the Wikipedia article you are linking to lol ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

False. Ubuntu can do all of that, as well. It's all person preference. Try them both in a VM, see what you like. I've been on Debian for a month now, and I used to love Ubuntu.

 

What's false?  Ubuntu can do all of what?  Dude are you quoting the wrong person?  I never said there was anything that one could do that the other could, I was just listing the 'personal preference' differences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yup, you havent tried Linux based distros in a LONG time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What do you mean it wasn't available on RedHat - they invented it - that's what RPM stands for - RedHat Package Manger - read the Wikipedia article you are linking to lol ;)

 

Well, it was after 1997. Depending on what version he was running, it might not have been available. .deb were, as far as I remember, always available for Debian, although admittedly apt was not.

 

From my hazy memory of Linux in the late nineties, I recall it being easier to use apt-get than to hunt down rpms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

 

Mint is better for the "tech-savvy linux beginner"

 

You can install Cinnamon on Ubuntu as well. How is that not tech savvy?

 

 

as it offers more customization and tweaks, which I love

 

You can do 99% of tweaks in both. Will it be easy peasy? No, but it is possible.

 

 

Looking at them, it seems Ubuntu is more MacOS-based, and Mint is more Windows-based.

 

Where you ever get that idea? Being that they can both run any desktop enviroment (As KDE, or Cinnamon) that will look more like Windows, or OSX. It's all in the flick of your finger.

 

 

and apparently Mint handles slow machines better.

 

Actually, they both do the exact same thing. If you installed both on your netbook, you wouldn't notice a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You can install Cinnamon on Ubuntu as well. How is that not tech savvy?

 

 

You can do 99% of tweaks in both. Will it be easy peasy? No, but it is possible.

 

 

Where you ever get that idea? Being that they can both run any desktop enviroment (As KDE, or Cinnamon) that will look more like Windows, or OSX. It's all in the flick of your finger.

 

 

Actually, they both do the exact same thing. If you installed both on your netbook, you wouldn't notice a difference.

 

Okay, you're right, I'm talking about the GUI that they include, not the OS kernel itself.  And yes, I can install whatever GUI I want on whatever distro I want.  But at the moment, for an easy-install, I'm talking about what's included with the name brand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

dude you are really dating yourself ;) RPM has been around since 97 I do believe, while RH did come out a few years before then end if 94/95 -- that real old school stuff ;)

I just looked - your only 24, I find it unlikely that you were playing around with redhat before rpm was around - you would of be what 8 years old and you were installing linux distros?? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

dude you are really dating yourself ;) RPM has been around since 97 I do believe, while RH did come out a few years before then end if 94/95 -- that real old school stuff ;)

I just looked - your only 24, I find it unlikely that you were playing around with redhat before rpm was around - you would of be what 8 years old and you were installing linux distros?? ;)

 

I did say 10 years ago, but yeah I've been playing with computers since my dad's first Dynalogic Hyperion with 256kB of RAM when I was 3!  

 

RPMs existed back then, but from what I recall they were kinda new, and only the biggest software developers offered them, like nVidia graphics drivers.  I didn't see any obvious easy way of installing small software, like VLC or games, back then.

 

And what are you doing checking my age?  Check to see if I'm single, too? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.