Some Flaws and Truths, and advantages Linux has

[LordWiccara]

I dont really think that the installer for red hat needs improvement...it was easier to install than windows 95/98/me.  The one thing that i think needs improvment is how you install programs.  i get so confused when i read the readmes that the program ends up not compiling correctly...if i can even get that far.  There needs to be an installer for a GUI, like win and mac, but for linux that takes care of all the hard work.

[psyjax]

quote:Originally posted by ArmTheHomeless:
I dont really think that the installer for red hat needs improvement...it was easier to install than windows 95/98/me.  The one thing that i think needs improvment is how you install programs.  i get so confused when i read the readmes that the program ends up not compiling correctly...if i can even get that far.  There needs to be an installer for a GUI, like win and mac, but for linux that takes care of all the hard work.

thats what I, and x11, were saying.

[Laukev7]

quote:Originally posted by X11: BTFH:
Im thinking of writing some scripts and my own .uef package. It will stand for Unix Execting Package.

When you run the package, what will happen is the program files will be extracted to a tempory area. Config files will be put in a users home directory. This way users can run there own individual programs without intefereing with the rest of the system.

When you finish with the program, the tempory directory is deleted. The config files still remain on the desktop.

Then you could have a system that has GNOME/KDE/ECT using def files, and just have all the programs in one "Programs" folder which all users have accses to, and you could drag whole programs around like on a macintosh.

You could still have the Unix Filesystem underneath, just a nice inteface (simlar to what M$ Windows does, but totally different).

Instead of C/D/E/F it would have a few Desktop Folders, and/or a menu called Programs, another caller Personal Files, and a Shared Files folder.

Of cource you would still be able to accses it like a UNIX system if you wanted, it just has a nice chocolate coating.

DEF's could also just be installers for programs. The programs could then install to your Personal Files or Shared Files.

Sorry, X11, but the temporary directory solution won't work well for the average user, for several reasons:

1. Starting applications would be very long, especially on slower computers. And this would defeat the point of installing Linux.

2. It would be very unpractical for big programs.

3. It would not solve the dependency problem, because you would have to install some packages in the system anyway, or else you would have to run many other programs at the same time.

4. It would add even more complexity to the file system; programs would have to search for libraries in temporary directories IN ADDITION to /lib, /usr/lib, /usr/share, /usr/local, /opt, etc.

5. As I said above, a much better solution has already been implemented in Mac OS X, as well as in RiscOS.

[ May 27, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]

[Master of Reality]

quote:Originally posted by psyjax: plain 'ol psyjax:
I really think that all Linux needs IMHO, is a better installer!

I mean, installation is a Pain. That is it, if they fix that I'm sure people will look past everything else.

bah... the redhat and mandrake installations are nothing compared to WinXP installation. I had to install WinXP at my school (Alongside linux luckily) and you must still partition using windows primitive partitioning tool (Same one as in winNT i think?) Figure out whether you want FAT16, FAT32, NTFS, or both. I think RedHats installer is already ahead of windows.

[psyjax]

I don't mean the OS installer, I mean a universal installer WITHIN the OS.

Compiling from source is a pain, RPM's don't allways work, dependancies suck, and you never know when a package is gonna work on your distro or not.

Linux needs to modularize the installation process of applications so that you can move them around, and deinstall them simply.

THat's what I'm talkin about.

[solo]

quote:Originally posted by PANiC:
With all this talk of making Linux "idiot proof" etc. I think that should not be the goal.  The aim should be to make a usable, logical, well-organised, integrated, complete (you get the message) environment that a newbie, a pro, an average user could use.  And all this "it must look like windows" I don't like that either.  In fact if I go to Linux and see an obvious windows clone (like KDE) I'll be disappointed.  Mac is different (as seen on ads), BeOS was different, but that doesn't mean I won't like them or couldn't use them.  A bit of copying *ok*, when the exercise is to create a clone *why bother*.  Why use a clone of windows when you can just use the real thing?

And jeez, how sloppily some so-called "desktop" distributions are put together, and then you use the programs and find the GUI text is full of typos, poorly constructed sentences and misspellings.  And the missing software.  I'd like to set up a dial-up account oh yea go to bash shell root vi /etc/ppp.00da ... hmh?  Why isn't it printing this text?   Ahhh...  Or how about changing the resolution... /etc/X11/xf86.. oops, the GUI doesn't start up anymore....

Then try installing some software for Linux.  No I didn't say Red Hat or Debian, Linux.  Oh yea, there's no standard installer, let's compile from source.... what a pain!!  Y'no I think source installation might be the way forward but we need alternatives to GNU make, so that there is a definate procedure for compiling, and copying, and installing and integrating.

Sorry if I'm just bashing the Linux desktop here but I'm telling it like it is and I think it needs to be said.  A newbie would put it in harsher language..  I'm just venting some frustration on using Linux here


   :mad:      :mad:      :mad:  
   :cool:  

You people anger me. When is the last time you installed Linux and what distro did you use? because I just installed redhat 9 two days ago and if I want to change the resolution I go to Redhat menu->System Settings->Display. As for standard installer? RPM *is* the standard Linux installation system, according to the Linux Standards Base. There are plenty of RPM repositories, there are dependency add ons such as URPMI and Apt4Rpm which make everything you said about compiling software absolutely useless. If the vendor of the application does not release RPMs it is *not* the Linux distro's fault! You should talk to the vendor, not Redhat or Mandrake or whatever. I don't want my KDE to look like Windows, and it DOESN'T. I USE SLICKER. If you want it to look like something else, just rearrange your panel and choose a different style engine. You can make it look like anything you want, as can distro makers, so if they want to offer a new fresh look, all they must do is default the settings to their style and panel settings. I don't mean to be mean but I hate it when people come in and tell me Linux is hard to install and installing software is hard BECAUSE IT'S NOT. If you've found a problem relating to your installation of Redhat/Mandrake/Slackware etc just send a bug report to the distro maker! Because it works for the rest of us!

Not only are you bashing Linux distributions, but you are bashing Linux distributions without even looking at them. You people and your stereotyped views about Linux doesn't help Linux get adopted by home users did you know that?