Why can't Linux agree on a universal install?


Recommended Posts

Bearded Kirklander
because all the linux manufactures dont work together to solve problems, thats the jist of it ;)

But I think the old Star Office had an executable that you downloaded and ran and it installed the whole thing without any need for further input, unless you wanted to change install path or something. Why can't other app makers do that? Argh!

I like Linux a lot, but it needs some more common sense refinements to really be able to break through, at least I think so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bushrat

Well all i have to say is to all the fools who say it should be like the windows installation go have a **** !

Linux is not soposed to be like windows or its installations!

morons morons morons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kjordan2001
But I think the old Star Office had an executable that you downloaded and ran and it installed the whole thing without any need for further input, unless you wanted to change install path or something. Why can't other app makers do that? Argh!

I like Linux a lot, but it needs some more common sense refinements to really be able to break through, at least I think so.

Unfortunately that makes package management harder. If you really want easy just use apt-get or portage, and there's even frontends for them. You can't get any easier than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bearded Kirklander
Well all i have to say is to all the fools who say it should be like the windows installation go have a **** !

Linux is not soposed to be like windows or its installations!

morons morons morons.

Linux elitists are so lame. (N)

Link to post
Share on other sites
kjordan2001

Also wasn't there some way to make RPM's autorun by clicking on them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
scoobydoobie

This is "one" of the problems with Linux. Ther is no set standard on much at all. You want the world to embrace it yet you don't make it universal between different distro's.

If I buy a vcr I have a pretty good idea how it's gonna work. No matter what brand I buy.

If I purchase Ms office for Windows or Macs, I'm pretty sure it's gonna work about the same way on either Operating System. Get the picture? Opensource is a great concept but without some type of universal way of doing things then it's never going to amount o much more than what it is right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bearded Kirklander
This is "one" of the problems with Linux. Ther is no set standard on much at all. You want the world to embrace it yet you don't make it universal between different distro's.

If I buy a vcr I have a pretty good idea how it's gonna work. No matter what brand I buy.

If I purchase Ms office for Windows or Macs, I'm  pretty sure it's gonna work about the same way on either Operating System. Get the picture? Opensource is a great concept but without some type of universal way of doing things then it's never going to amount o much more than what it is right now.

You made some good points there. :cool:

I don't mind many things being different, but at least they could agree on one method - one very simple, easy method - of installing/uninstalling and maintaining (updating) programs and the OS itself. That kind of stuff is so basic and it should be bone-simple.

Apps, storage, Samba, etc - that is different. But at the very least, the ability to install, uninstall and patch applications should be almost idiot proof and very easy to do, at least in my opinion.

I totally dig Linux and don't mind poking around and having fun at the command line and whatnot, but if people want Linux to really break into office desktop use, being able to keep a system updated is key, don't you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites
JustGeorge
If Linux hopes to become a real alternative to Windows, then they are going to have to change. They have to start making it easier to use, because I wouldn't feel comfortable putting a Linux computer in front of my parents, because they wouldn't know what to do. Thing is, if Linux started to become more like Windows in the way that it operates, then the diehard enthusiasts would be in a complete uproar. I doubt there will be a way to please everybody on this, but thats why we have so many distros to choose from today.

As for me, I have no problems installing programs on my Debian installation, but thats because I've been using it for so long.

I agree. I want to try Linux, but it just seems like a pain. I wish they would unify the builds into one distro. Just an opinion, but I think thats the only way it will ever have a chance at knocking MS from the #1 spot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
d10p

Gentoo Linux is the best Linux distro ever for this kind of stuff. Portage is amazing. You basically open up the console, type emerge search <program> and it finds it. Then just emerge <program> and it complies/installs, or emerge -usepkg <program> and it installs a binary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
CaKeY
at least they could agree on one method - one very simple, easy method - of installing/uninstalling and maintaining (updating) programs and the OS itself.  That kind of stuff is so basic and it should be bone-simple.

apt-get upgrade

I dont see how it can get much easier than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PureEdit

You usually can install binaries by just copying them to /usr/bin or some other dir that apps run from. Most programs have dependancies and crap that make them need an installer though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spacce

to throw in my two coppers

You know, I've been trying to install linux since 1995 and first became successfull at in 1999 ..

since then, Linux has involved greatly...

there is a large variety of linux's to choose from, from the easiest (Knoppix) to one of the hardest (Gentoo) <--- thats my opinion.. and each has its stengths and weaknesses..

I've liked windows, heck I kinda still do, but it lacks variety..

People always claim that linux is still lacking.... the simple fact is that it is lacking because more people aren't trying to use it.. to develop it.. if it had more of a user base and a large developer base.. then Linux would be far beyond that of what it is now at this point and time..

Link to post
Share on other sites
SeaClearly

Well I learned Linux the very hard way and I hated it and I realized I had a life to deal with. So I got a Mac and used X11. Now it does get easier I hate to tell you all. In mac I download a file and Firebird does its work and brings up a finder windows. Some programs tell me to do this but others don't but I've done this the same way everytime. But in the finder window that comes up I have a pretty icon that is different than every other file and has the same name as the program. So I drag this file to my applications folder. I than go into the applications folder and drag this icon to my dock and I than double click my icon and I'm running it. Boy this sounds hard. This IMO is easier than windows and the mac just doesn't double-click the icon for me so its actually better. For something to install I have to do something but that something isn't hard at all. I love linux so much after all the work I put into it but once I found out that I had a life I got a mac and use x11 and have the best of both worlds. So my final answer is that yes linux can get much much better at a universal install system without being windows because last time I checked OS X isn't like windows is it. Now I wasn't trying to start a flame war of any platform but those are my thoughts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
nuka_t
Also wasn't there some way to make RPM's autorun by clicking on them?

they do that by default in mandrake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kjordan2001
they do that by default in mandrake.

So what's the thread starter's problem then?

Link to post
Share on other sites
nuka_t

i dont know about him, but for me(and i hope you can help me with this) i dont know where the apps install to. i actually prefer compiling it from code cause the executable is in the same folder. however, knowing how to use rpm's would make my life A LOT easier.

Link to post
Share on other sites
nuka_t

im updating my install of mandrake right now. i cant believe how cool rpmdrake is. i just went there, checked the bugs, security, and normal updates checkboxes, and then i selected all and its updating every app on my system right now. how cool is that? waaaaaaay better than windows. i dont understand the peopple that say linux is high-maintenance. i can update all my apps(3xxmb worth of updates) in like 4 clicks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
CaKeY

mandrake update = frontend to urpmi ^^

Link to post
Share on other sites
kjordan2001
i dont know about him, but for me(and i hope you can help me with this) i dont know where the apps install to. i actually prefer compiling it from code cause the executable is in the same folder. however, knowing how to use rpm's would make my life A LOT easier.

Well, you can look under the install section of the Makefile to see where it puts it. Usually it will be /usr/local/bin or /usr/bin or /usr/sbin, except in the case of libraries.

Link to post
Share on other sites
nuka_t

thanks. more and more, this whole linux thing is starting to make sense. it was really overwhelming at first though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
nuka_t

holy crap. rpmdrake is done. not only did it download and install everything in a flash, no restart, no eulas, nothing. AWESOME.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Zerosleep

urpmi rules.

<-- a fan of the PLF

Link to post
Share on other sites
markjensen
You made some good points there. :cool:

I don't mind many things being different, but at least they could agree on one method - one very simple, easy method - of installing/uninstalling and maintaining (updating) programs and the OS itself. That kind of stuff is so basic and it should be bone-simple.

Apps, storage, Samba, etc - that is different. But at the very least, the ability to install, uninstall and patch applications should be almost idiot proof and very easy to do, at least in my opinion.

I totally dig Linux and don't mind poking around and having fun at the command line and whatnot, but if people want Linux to really break into office desktop use, being able to keep a system updated is key, don't you think?

You ask for installing and updating to be easy in Linux.

I type yum install celestia and it will automatically retreive the wonderful Celestia program (shameless link) and all dependencies for me, install it, and make a pretty icon in my KDE menu. That is easier than installing it in Windows, as far as I know.

Updating is accomplished by typing yum update. It not only updates any kernel/OS components, but also checks my programs, too. That is much better than Windows Update.

Does there have to be one method? Yum, apt, swaret, emerge and other tools all do a great job. I primarily use yum on my box, because it is RedHat based. I have installed apt and even teh synaptic GUI frontend, but I am more familiar with yum, so that is my primary system.

I just wish Windows were this easy to update! My wife, my parents, and my in-laws would have a lot less problems. :yes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Aeonandromere

I cannot agree more! Linux main goal besides creating a free open source operating system is to destroy Windows. As far as iv'e seen in my 3 years of using Linux is that its progressivly moving backwards or not moving at all towards a state of being friendly to the remotest computer user. For example the executables problem, RPM technology just is not good enough for the common Joe. Windows and OS X solve the problems with installers .exe or .dmg or etc. Linux is still expecting every user to compile his/her software. Sure this is optimal in terms of application optimization and it stays true to the UNIX concept of compiling.

Now there is my rant and Im sure a few of you are gonna call me a troll or someone without a viable solution to my argument. But I do have a solution, one that does what it should.

Introducing iCompiler, .ice installers. What these installers do is they load a GUI from which the user's system will auto-configure the software, compile and install and test all in a GUI application like MSI.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the evn show
Linux main goal besides creating a free open source operating system is to destroy Windows.

This has never been a stated goal of LBT, ESR, RMS or any of the other "big names" in Linux/open source development. It might be the goal of Random McLinuxdiehard but for most of the world we just want healthy competition between Apple, Microsoft, BSD, and the various Linux distributions.

As far as iv'e seen in my 3 years of using Linux is that its progressivly moving backwards or not moving at all towards a state of being friendly to the remotest computer user
In my ~10 years of using various UNIX, Linux and BSD systems I've seen the opposite. Go find yourself a distribution of Slackware 2.3.0 and try installing it and some software, then compare to something like Lindows (ugh!) or Gentoo and come back. Take a look at the BSD ports system (the inspiration for Gentoo's portage) where applications can be installed by changing to a directory and issuing a single command line statement or binaries can be installed without even manually downloading them:

pkgadd ftp://server.to.grab.from/path/to/package/somefile.tgz

Then there are the Live CDs where you don't even need to install the operating system to use it! Linux is leaps and bounds ahead of where it was 10 years ago and from what I've seen watching from the sidelines (Mac OS X is my client desktop of choice now) it's getting better.

For example the executables problem, RPM technology just is not good enough for the common Joe.

Maybe, or maybe not. Fortunatly we have competing technologies including apt, portage, ports, and those 'things' in Lindows so we'll eventually find the best method.

Linux is still expecting every user to compile his/her software.
No it isn't - maybe your distribution does but the few of the major distributions expect you to download source code and manually fix dependencies for the majority of applications.
stays true to the UNIX concept of compiling

This is not a UNIX concept at all. GNU/Linux is in large part a response to the restrictive UNIX license agreements which made obtaining source-code difficult or impossible and costly.

Having access to source code and being able to compile and redistribute your software is the major goal of the FSF, but being forced to roll your own code is not.

Introducing iCompiler, .ice installers. What these installers do is they load a GUI from which the user's system will auto-configure the software, compile and install and test all in a GUI application like MSI.

This treats the symptom and ignores the problem. The problem is that software installation can be complex. Hiding complexity from the user just pushes that problem out of sight.

If I had to choose a method for my own distribution I would go for drag/drop installation similar to how it is handled on OS X. Drag a folder to the hard drive to install. Drag folder to trash to uninstall. If applications like Microsoft Office can work this way on a unix-based operating system like OS X then there's no reason we can't do something like this in Linux and *BSD.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.