More unsubstantiated generalizations. Prepackaged software is almost always installed with a single command, and within a few seconds it is unpacked, set up, and under the appropriate menu to be easily accessed. Nothing to it.
I can’t comment on documentation since I never really look for it or read it.
OK. If you want to install a program, you run “apt-get install [program]”. If you want to remove a program, you run “apt-get remove [program]”. Why is that complicated?
try explaining supo to a “normal” user… first of alll
Second of all you have to know what you want before. You cant just visit a website and click. That’s the problem with linux is that everyone involved doesn’t have the ability to think about these problems like the average PC user. Andy Hertzfield is one of the pioneers of the Mac where you can read about it at folklore.org. He basically mentioned that empathy is one of the biggest hurdles to designing a great UI because you have to understand other people. Think of trying to explain apt-get to your mom. “but what if I want to watch video?” Well you have to type in supo apt-get install mplayer
Then it returns asking you which version to install in the most cryptic language.
Open source is great and all, but most people seem to forget that ease of use is probably the most imporant aspect.
This is a bizarre statement. The MacOS is now essentially open-source UNIX with a fancy GUI and lots of great commercial software. I have begun, sometimes out of practical necessity and the desire to streamline repetitive tasks, programming AppleScripts and tinkering with the UNIX command-line. I am interested in understanding, I can and do utilize scripts and a command-line interface just as foreign to the GUI experience as DOS ever was, and have, if I wish to dip my toe into the waters of UNIX programming, more control over the kernal and other core elements of the OS than any Windows user has ever had.
You might want to read up, or check out some stuff on AppleScript. The beauty of the MacOS is while you certainly can be a software dum dum and do everything you need to do simply, you can also modify the OS as its foundation if you feel like it, and plenty in-between. Like I said above, it’s a great deal of what Linux has to offer (and Darwin has even been ported to Intel, if folks want to quibble about hardware platform limitations), along with nutty things like mainstream commercial software and robust tech support.
When Linux has all this going for it, I’ll sit up and take notice. Until then, it’s a curiosity to probably better 99% of the home and business consumers out there.
Well, I guess it’s all in how you use the application. When I’ve used Open Office, I’ve never had too much difficulty, and switching or translating to Word format hasn’t caused me trouble. But I guess it is all in the features you choose. I don’t need the fancyshamcy features other than what is basic. But that is just me. When I need to create a text document, I just need text on the screen. Printing is an option I use sometimes, but OO worked for me. Too much non-standard formatting doesn’t work for me.
I should also add that may favorite version of Word I ever used was for DOS on a 286.
The big draw back to OO, as mentioned earlier by someone else is the lack of OS X.
Not true. The only thing apt-get will ask you for is a confirmation. It will not ask for a version. It may notify you if you have selected a virtual package and it doesn’t know which dependency to use, but that’s it.
And it’s sudo, not supo.
Something to keep in mind when debating this, is that feature/function/useability is only part of the equation.
When something is good enough to get the job done, but costs less, you have real opportunity.
Linux will continue to make inroads for a few key reasons:
One of the other things that drives the adoption of a new/different technology is the ability for companies/individuals to make money from that technology.
When Unix came on strong in the 90’s, I believe part of that was due to the ability of different companies to get a piece of the action where previously IBM had most of it locked up.
I can see a similar situation where Microsoft is currently making the money on the OS, but Linux offers companies an opportunity to get a piece of the action. I realize the OS itself won’t cost money, but obviously there are things surrounding that where vendors can add value and charge.
None of that would mean anything to my gran. Or my dad, or my mum, or either of my sisters. It would mean zilch to most of my colleagues. All of the above, apart from my Gran, could cope with a Windows installer.
Defending current Linux installation procedures won’t win any arguments. The fact is that it’s not what people are used to. Even for relatively-new-to-Linux geek-minded folk (like me), apt-get feels like installing software to Windows 3.1, where one wrong character results in meaningless error messages.
Once again, I must reiterate:
[ol]
[li]You do not have to use the command line to install packages.[/li][li]You do not have to use the command line to install packages.[/li][li]You do not have to use the command line to install packages.[/li][li]You do not have to use the command line to install packages.[/li][/ol]
For example: All recent versions of Gnome on Debian-based systems come with a nice little application called Synaptic, which is usually set up to provide a graphical front end to the distributions entire software library, as well as security updates.
It is, objectively, no more difficult to use than Windows Update for security purposes.
Subjectively, it’s also easier than searching the web/usenet/p2p networks for some free/cracked/adware app that may or may not damage your system, clicking next a half dozen times, crossing your fingers, and praying.
It’s literally as simple as searching for, say “video player,” checking a box next to the one you want, and clicking “Next.” Twice.
For all of this trouble, the user gets a tested application, with all of its attendant dependancies, that will absolutely not attempt to hijack their system.
Also,
[ol]
[li]You do not have to use the command line to install packages.[/li][li]You do not have to use the command line to install packages.[/li][li]You do not have to use the command line to install packages.[/li][li]You do not have to use the command line to install packages.[/li][/ol]
Sheesh. Can we put this one to rest? Please?
It’s not for everybody, but better than you may realize. I’m trying not to evangelize too much, but this particular old saw no longer holds water. To use a mexed mitaphor.
How is the concept of the Administrator account on a 2000/XP system easier to grasp for the novice than root priveledges or (ahem) sudo?
I, for one, welcome our new Linux overlords.
What I really hate about Linux is having to use the command line to install packages.
One word: Legacy.
Remember Y2K, where management was chanting over the corpses of dead programmers to find someone to fix their moribund COBOL code?
The reason Microsoft stays dominant in the business sector (other than its co-opting of the IBM crown) is the fact that every new version of Windows was backwards-compatible, unlike the constantly shifting Mac OS, which meant that your existing documents were always useable.
Microsoft hired a bunch of ex-DEC people who basically put their foot down and said they were not going to try and maintain old Windows functionality, which is why there are a umber of older programs that will not run on XP outside of an emulator mode, and a number which will not run at all.
This makes business nervous. Plus Microsoft has been intensely costly to business in terms of security issues. If Longhorn comes out this year and exacerbates these issues, management (who will have to resign themselves to spending in order to keep current) are going to be casting about for a reasonable alternative.
All Linux would need is an Office-type suite that reliably and consistently opens legacy MS documents and has an interface with a short learning curve for curent Office users, and Microsoft could be toast in short order.
The novice isn’t grasping the concept of the Administrator, either. And he doesn’t really have to in order to get things to work.
I can’t believe no one has brought up the problem of Intellectual Property (IP) protection, which IME is a serious problem growing even more serious very quickly. Do any of you sell integrated products to large corporations? Well, I do, and I can tell you that one serious impact that the SCO suit has had was to wake up all the lawyers to the (IMHO nearly nonexistent) issue of suits over IP issues if someone claims that Operating System X (NOT OS/X) has stolen or compromised IP in its source code.
This issue didn’t exist IME until SCO’s suit, and since then it has been appearing more and more. Last year, my company lost $3M in sales because we would not provide the same, exact level of protection in our software products that Microsoft guarantees. I also personally know of two very large clients in the Southern US who cancelled their entire Linux rollout for all their server farms due to the SCO suit - with more than 2000 machines affected. Think about it - 2000 potential Linux installs that are now 2003 Server. All over the fear that somehow they might get sued over it.
(And I’d love to see that defended by any lawyer here - how a company who buys a legal product in good faith and with no reasonable suspicion of any malfeasance can be sued if it’s later proved that the seller of the code has an IP infringement. Why is it the buyer’s problem? This isn’t like buying a fucking Rolex from a guy in an Impala on concrete blocks near the reservoir, fuck!)
This has had a somewhat chilling attitude elsewhere - some companies are now no longer allowing shareware (like PDF 9.95) or freeware (Spybot) utilities on their machines, out of the unreasonable fear of being sued in case of IP problems. My own company just told me that Adaware would not be allowed due to “IP risk”, and that all employees are to uninstall it immediately, by order of corporate counsel.
Microsoft’s indemnification program, along with the SCO antics, is hurting Linux, and may end up being the silver bullet that kills it - as well as a lot of shareware, freeware, and open-source efforts. And IMO we will all be much, much poorer as a result.
hehe sorry. I tried typing in sudo once too!
But no… I actually had to choose between versions of mplayer when I tried to install it on Ubuntu. It wasn’t easy. But really, linux guys, I know there are instances where things aren’t so hard, but who are we kidding? There are various levels of users. The lowest end doesn’t care about anything but email and web, and cares a little bit about changing their setup. The furthest end is the typical custom linux version user. In the middle are people that want to set up things but with little trouble. You who are telling me that I don’t have to use command line interface to install programs on linux, please help me out. I’ve tried linux builds for ab out 5 years on about 6 different occasions. Suggest a build that I could deal with… I am a little upset since my last forray but maybe I’ll do another one soon…
Yes, I know, I use Debian :rolleyes:
When the software (or version) you want isn’t provided by Synaptic (say, something really esoteric, like a new release of Firefox), whaddya know? It’s command line time!
Oh, nearly forgot - I don’t think anybody’s mentioned printers yet. Try telling me that’s not an awkward aspect of Linux.
Indeed. It’s illuminating reading Microsoft old-timer Raymond Chen’s blog, The Old New Thing, in which he frequently defends apparently strange Microsoft design decisions. He also details the extraordinary hoops Microsoft has had to jump through to make poorly-written applications still work on newer versions of Windows. These strenuous efforts to maintain backwards compatibility are as much a part of Microsoft’s success as the ruthless business practices and FUD that we hear so much about.
I think Linux would also need versions of all the thousands of smaller, proprietary applications that businesses everywhere depend on. And there are literally thousands of them, some of them DOS applications that their users will still not be without.
You do know that Microsoft provides the same level of indemification that your generic Linux app does, right? None. Or almost none. By default, the most, according to their EULA, they can be responsible for, is the cost of the software.
On the other hand, since there is no single point of supply for Linux products, there are now a number of people who will support-for-pay any linux product. Not to mention, of course, there is specific indemification insurance just for open-source products.
Not to mention the entire SCO case is falling apart like a decaying redwood.
In short, Una, if you think Novell and IBM are fly-by-night operations, if you don’t think you can trust products they sell you to stand the test of time… Then you’ve gotten scammed. Sorry. This whole Intellectual Property issue isn’t a big thing at all. We could go into why, but any reasonably informed person should know the outline by now. Basically, though, A: Consumer isn’t at fault, come hell or high water. B: If you try to sue IBM over IP, expect to be destroyed by the lawyer Nazghul. C: You want IP theft, look at Microsoft and the Stacker lawsuit.
Oh, fair disclosure: I don’t currently have a Linux system running at home, had to wipe it for Server 2003 for my MCSE that I’m studying for again. I like Linux because it is an example of a functional communism. You can take as much as you need, without depriving anyone. You can give as much as you can, and everyone will make their own decisions to use it. The structure that exists only exists by the consent of the governed, and can be ignored at will, barring breaking of the covenant.