Humor Software installation in Linux is difficult

[TSPenguin]

This page shows with detailed screenshots how user un-friendly software installation in linux is. It is quite a demonstration of how much more user friendly windows is.

Software installation in Linux is difficult

 

[Bj]

This page shows with detailed screenshots how user un-friendly software installation in linux is. It is quite a demonstration of how much more user friendly windows is.

Software installation in Linux is difficult

:rofl:

That's a good one. Although he should have added a virus warning to the slides as well.

 

[insane_alien]

oh yeah, i mean linux can't even run viruses. what kind of crappy OS can't even run a simple virus.

its useless i tell you!.

[/sarcasm]

 

[Moonwalker]

And don't forget the annoying activation of Linux. And the price. It's way too expensive for the average user. And you are not even alowed to install it on as many computers as you want.

 

[Vanguard]

While I get the sarcasm... it's a ridiculous example Apples to apples would have been to install Hearts that came with Windows... and it would have been the same amount of work. The hearts that he installed on Windows won't even run on Linux... now that's the funny part.

 

[Hielor]

Actually, unless the user did something funky with their Windows install, Hearts should've already been available for them, so the install time would've been 0.

Moreover, a lot of the issues it shows are with Firefox and the Hearts program's installer (and the Hearts program itself) not Windows...

 

[Quick_Nick]

Another example: http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/software-installation-windows-or-linux/
You'll notice it says also that Linux isn't always better...
In any case, I'm not against Linux but I stick with and enjoy Windows and Internet Explorer. (as buggy as IE 8 is)

 

[Linguofreak]

Now, generally I do find that, with package managers and all, software installation is much easier on Linux than on Windows. However, things do get a bit hairy when you need/want to install a program that isn't in the repositories. Then you have to through pretty much the same process as on Windows, except you have a much higher rate of programs that simply refuse to install or run. You have to make sure you have the right architecture (if you can't find a .deb for your architecture, you *do* have to compile from source, which I haven't yet attempted), and I've seen a program originally written for Windows that had been ported to Linux by somebody that didn't understand that you don't need an executable installer to install something on Linux, and in that particular situation, the installer wouldn't run. And even if you can get your program installed, half the time there's a dependency problem and it doesn't run.

But I do find that there are enough goodies in the repositories that I don't have to worry about that too much. So Linux is much superior install-wise when it comes to programs that can be gotten through a repository (Windows doesn't even *have* repositories), but Windows is much superior when it comes to finding a program on the Web and installing it.

 

[simonpro]

Installing software on linux is an absolute nightmare.
I spent 6 hours last friday (when I should've been doing soemthing more productive) trying to install Matlab and IDL. Neither work properly and it turns out that IDL won't run unless you are always logged in as root, which is plain stupid.

 

[Moonwalker]

Now, generally I do find that, with package managers and all, software installation is much easier on Linux than on Windows.

On the whole, yes. Especially the Nvidia video card driver installation is easier in Linux meanwhile (if you use Envy). Just a click and the latest driver is being downloaded from Nvidia automatically and installed just within seconds.

 

[TSPenguin]

*sigh*
This should have been a thread dedicated to simple jokes and winks....

The whole issue is non comparable in the first place. With windows, every developer has to take care of proper installation methods and distribution of the program.
With a linux distribution, these parts are taken care off by the distribution of your choice.
If anything, you could compare a linux distribution to a windows installation that has been PEed to death with most programs out there and a custom version checking/update system.
There are attempts of packet managers for windows, mainly in the form of searchable online archives like download.com.

While we are at this right now, why do so many developers for windows forget that a config file is all you need for 90% of all programs? While the idea of the registry is bloody genious, it is absolutely overabused.

My installation experience with linux is pretty good though. If it isn't in the repo, 95% of sources simply work with:

tar xvzf something
./configure
make
make install

From those that don't work right this way, setting a flag to configure solves 50%. 40% require a fancy lib, but that is usaly pointed out by configure. Now the last 10%, those are interesting

@simonpro, does IDL really soft check for root? Maybe it could be resolved with changing ownership.

Simonpro has a point here. Most commercial programs I have seen really are quite painfull to install. Usaly not flexible directory wise, yet require spread out files and sometimes even manual linking and registering libaries.

 

[Urwumpe]

Simonpro has a point here. Most commercial programs I have seen really are quite painfull to install. Usaly not flexible directory wise, yet require spread out files and sometimes even manual linking and registering libaries.

Yeah, and often obscure compiler settings and makefile editing which require you to nearly rewrite the program, only because you use Linux instead of BSD.

I think the problem is: The bigger the company, the lowest is the will to follow known standards. And Linux does not require a lot you need to know for making standard software.

 

[simonpro]

@simonpro, does IDL really soft check for root? Maybe it could be resolved with changing ownership.

The problem is that it requires a license to run, and this license is on a central university server. Unfortunately IDL can't access the server unless you're root, and it's not a firewall issue or anything like that.
Still, it's better than the previous version: That wouldn't even load on Linux.

 

[Poscik]

In Kubuntu and derivatives, installing pretty much of software can be installed by typying:

sudo apt-get install name_of_software

And that's all

 

[TSPenguin]

In Kubuntu and derivatives, installing pretty much of software can be installed by typying:

sudo apt-get install name_of_software

And that's all

Actualy, (k)ubuntu is a deriviative of Debian. That is also where apt comes from.
Another popular packet manager is RPM by Redhat.

 

[garyw]

In Kubuntu and derivatives, installing pretty much of software can be installed by typying:

sudo apt-get install name_of_software

And that's all

Until you:

1. Get an unresolved dependency
2. Can't work out which package name you need
3. Can't work out which deployment mechanism to use (rpm, apt-get, yast, download and compile)

 

[DarkWanderer]

"Did you know a WV Beetle seat can be installed in an Audi TT?"
Linux.org.ru - the only place where you can find out such thing in a Debian setup thread.

 

[cinder1992]

I've been using ubuntu for two years now. and it IS difficult to install non-packaged software. compiling from source is worse.

the link made me :rofl:!