Installing Software: A GNU/Linux VS. MS Windows Comparison
(http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=10165)
Well, first off let me say the article is trash. The author compares linux command line installs with windows gui installs. He should stay consistant, and compare a .msi silent install with the familiar dpkg -i or rpm -i. If we are comparing the setup.exe experience, then it should be done with something like Synaptic, not the cli. The real ironic thing is that in the comments section, I was the first one to say that after a flamewar of about 100 posts or so by win/linzealots. Here is one of my responses to one of the more lucid posters.
(link)
I ranted in an earlier post because I was simply overwhelmed by the outragousness of the article.
I have since read over a hundred different post from people commenting. Some just as put out as I was, and some defending linux as a superior system.
the article was comparing apples and oranges, the linux commandline installers with a windows gui one. it depends how you define superior, if you mean easy to upgrade with low memory consumption, then linux is superior due to its almost total use of dynamic linking. if you mean superior as in ease of use, that is what the article was about.
BUT,
what all of the linux users seem to be missing is that in MOST of your arguments you depend on a particular distribution with a particular installer and specific knowledge about how to use it.
what you seem to missing is that ALL the top desktop distros have great package managers. and for the most part, it requires less knowledge to use a linux installer (i cant think of any that dont just answer the standard 10 windows installer questions for you with sane defaults.)
If an average "USER" wants to install software the first place they are likely to look is the internet.
You mean the average WINDOWS user. The average linux user opens his package manager.
That said, most linux software installation is tedius from the web, because there are hundreds of different options for numerous different flavors. It is simply overwhelming and confusing.
Agreed. That is why you just install it the normal way instead of hunting through websites, like you would on windows.
It is made MUCH WORSE by the infamously BAD ATTITUDE of most linux die-hards. I know that is improving, but those of you who love linux and want to truely see it adopted by the world in mass know what I'm talking about.
Dude, I am still a newb. Only been using linux for a few years, and I have yet to run accross this BAD ATTITUDE, at least directed at me. the only time I see the BAD ATTITUDE is when DUMB WINDOWS USERS ask IDIOTIC QUESTIONS that could be answered by a GOOGLE "I FEEL LUCKY".
The author did specifically compare the installation of a particular piece of software using windows typical installation methods versus a specific installation manager on a particular linux distro, and I was happy to learn something new that could assist me in the future with my linux woes, and marked the information in my brain for future use.
I'm not defending the article, as I said it was a bad comparison. If you want something similar, look up how to install .msi files from the command line in windows. The equivilent to the setup.exe process in windows is synaptic, not command line apt.
However he seemed to be implying that that meant all software was easier on all linux distributions. (I know that's not what he said, but I do feel it was implied)
Every once in awhile you will run accross a 0.1, or something pre-1.0 that is simply too obscure to be in a repository. However, these are fringe cases, and many of the linux package managers still handle it gracefully. If you are using one that doesnt though, you will definately be going through a painful process.
But, we are once again comparing apples and oranges. Try installing pre-1.0 software in windows, by doing a cvs pull and compiling it yourself. Remarkably similar. Biggest difference is that windows simply cant handle it out of the box, and linux can.
He made several large assumptions, like how the user knows which distribution to use (or cares). That the user understands about execution context (or cares).
He also made big assumptions in his "rating" system that could have even the odds a bit had he made the assumptions evenly on both sides, like how he knew the exact command to execute from the command line, which I have already said is like giving the full url to a .msi package.
Agreed. He should have compared command line apt to installing an msi via the command line using all the switches for the same sort of silent install you get on linux machines. OR, he should have compared the click-a-thon that setup.exe gives you with synaptic. one or the other, because they are really two different things, for two different purposes. I would say linux wins hands down in both cases having extensively used all four methods, but thats just me.
But unfortunatly what we get from the community is more of the same "LINUX IS BETTER - WINDOWS SUX" crap we have been listening to for years.
Well, theres definately alot of that going on in this thread, but not by me. I dont like windows too much, and I get real annoyed by having to use it all the time at work, but I have reasons for those annoyances that go beyond the great battle of good vs evil you usually get from zealots. But really, its been that way since time immemorial. ITS vs UNIX, MacOS vs Windows, Windows vs Linux, Linux vs UNIX, Boxers vs Briefs, etc.
Now lets talk about non "USERS". He did not elude to how I would change the default installation path, or how to add (or not add ) the icon to my start menue or desktop. Is that easy as well? it is in most windows installations.
Very very very good. You have touched on the reason that windows installations blow so hard. If 99.9999999% of the cases a question will be answered the same way, you do not require the user to answer it every single time. Instead, you allow through ealier intervention to change the way it will work. All that is possible in linux, but it is rarely used, because its only a one in a thousand situation where you would want something like that.
Honestly I don't know. perhaps someone else could enlighten me. But I'll tell you now if it involves editing configuration files you have already lost.
No editing config files, but you use command line switches. I dont remember them, because I have never used them. But since linux documentation rocks, if I ever do need to use them, they are just a man away.
*sigh*
Anyways, as much as I think the article was trash, this is a subject that has annoyed me to no end. Its like that "Linux hardware support sux" thing. Yeah, sure, maybe five years ago buddy. Now when I install linux, everything works out of the box. The same cannot be said for windows, I have to go hunting for drivers for every last piece of hardware on my system.
This one however, truely boggles the mind. Anyone who has used apt or portage knows the feeling of hundreds of thousands of applications and libraries at their fingure tips. There is simply no equivilent in windows, and there really cant be because of standard liscencing on the platform. But software installation is one of the reasons I use linux, how can these people possibly be saying the windows click-a-thon is better?
Heres my guess. Mr. Moidib up there installs mandrake. He immediately does the windows user thing, and starts trawling the web for installers. He finds an rpm, downloads it, double clicks, and it says "libfoo.so not found" or something similar. Coming from a non-technical os, having zero administrative or development background, and knowing nothing about the operating system he is on, he declaires it bad, and moves on.
Of course, a quick google search will show that instead of searching through dozens of sites for installers, you can simply configure urmpi with "online repositories" of software. There are many out there, and considering it is mandrake, most of the instructions are so easy a child could follow them. But no, a "typical" user downloads software from web sites. Therefor, anything that makes the process trivial in comparison is "bad", on the sole reason that it is unfamiliar.
I have used so many operating systems at this point that I think I have gotten mast much of the zealotry. For example, something I truely love in BeOS is that a right click on the titlebar of a window sends it to the back. It may not sound like much, but it is truely insane. You want to know what scripting is? It sure as hell isnt bash (or even more laughable, dos). It isnt even perl or python. It is that scripting environment from amiga (archie or something like that, havnt used amiga in ages. been thinking of giving AROS a try though, its a very promising looking amiga clone). Coolswitch? Heck no, its all about expose.
When it comes to software installation, linux really does beat everything else I have tried hands down. I mean how can you compare this:
with the windows installer experience?
Well, first off let me say the article is trash. The author compares linux command line installs with windows gui installs. He should stay consistant, and compare a .msi silent install with the familiar dpkg -i or rpm -i. If we are comparing the setup.exe experience, then it should be done with something like Synaptic, not the cli. The real ironic thing is that in the comments section, I was the first one to say that after a flamewar of about 100 posts or so by win/linzealots. Here is one of my responses to one of the more lucid posters.
(link)
I ranted in an earlier post because I was simply overwhelmed by the outragousness of the article.
I have since read over a hundred different post from people commenting. Some just as put out as I was, and some defending linux as a superior system.
the article was comparing apples and oranges, the linux commandline installers with a windows gui one. it depends how you define superior, if you mean easy to upgrade with low memory consumption, then linux is superior due to its almost total use of dynamic linking. if you mean superior as in ease of use, that is what the article was about.
BUT,
what all of the linux users seem to be missing is that in MOST of your arguments you depend on a particular distribution with a particular installer and specific knowledge about how to use it.
what you seem to missing is that ALL the top desktop distros have great package managers. and for the most part, it requires less knowledge to use a linux installer (i cant think of any that dont just answer the standard 10 windows installer questions for you with sane defaults.)
If an average "USER" wants to install software the first place they are likely to look is the internet.
You mean the average WINDOWS user. The average linux user opens his package manager.
That said, most linux software installation is tedius from the web, because there are hundreds of different options for numerous different flavors. It is simply overwhelming and confusing.
Agreed. That is why you just install it the normal way instead of hunting through websites, like you would on windows.
It is made MUCH WORSE by the infamously BAD ATTITUDE of most linux die-hards. I know that is improving, but those of you who love linux and want to truely see it adopted by the world in mass know what I'm talking about.
Dude, I am still a newb. Only been using linux for a few years, and I have yet to run accross this BAD ATTITUDE, at least directed at me. the only time I see the BAD ATTITUDE is when DUMB WINDOWS USERS ask IDIOTIC QUESTIONS that could be answered by a GOOGLE "I FEEL LUCKY".
The author did specifically compare the installation of a particular piece of software using windows typical installation methods versus a specific installation manager on a particular linux distro, and I was happy to learn something new that could assist me in the future with my linux woes, and marked the information in my brain for future use.
I'm not defending the article, as I said it was a bad comparison. If you want something similar, look up how to install .msi files from the command line in windows. The equivilent to the setup.exe process in windows is synaptic, not command line apt.
However he seemed to be implying that that meant all software was easier on all linux distributions. (I know that's not what he said, but I do feel it was implied)
Every once in awhile you will run accross a 0.1, or something pre-1.0 that is simply too obscure to be in a repository. However, these are fringe cases, and many of the linux package managers still handle it gracefully. If you are using one that doesnt though, you will definately be going through a painful process.
But, we are once again comparing apples and oranges. Try installing pre-1.0 software in windows, by doing a cvs pull and compiling it yourself. Remarkably similar. Biggest difference is that windows simply cant handle it out of the box, and linux can.
He made several large assumptions, like how the user knows which distribution to use (or cares). That the user understands about execution context (or cares).
He also made big assumptions in his "rating" system that could have even the odds a bit had he made the assumptions evenly on both sides, like how he knew the exact command to execute from the command line, which I have already said is like giving the full url to a .msi package.
Agreed. He should have compared command line apt to installing an msi via the command line using all the switches for the same sort of silent install you get on linux machines. OR, he should have compared the click-a-thon that setup.exe gives you with synaptic. one or the other, because they are really two different things, for two different purposes. I would say linux wins hands down in both cases having extensively used all four methods, but thats just me.
But unfortunatly what we get from the community is more of the same "LINUX IS BETTER - WINDOWS SUX" crap we have been listening to for years.
Well, theres definately alot of that going on in this thread, but not by me. I dont like windows too much, and I get real annoyed by having to use it all the time at work, but I have reasons for those annoyances that go beyond the great battle of good vs evil you usually get from zealots. But really, its been that way since time immemorial. ITS vs UNIX, MacOS vs Windows, Windows vs Linux, Linux vs UNIX, Boxers vs Briefs, etc.
Now lets talk about non "USERS". He did not elude to how I would change the default installation path, or how to add (or not add ) the icon to my start menue or desktop. Is that easy as well? it is in most windows installations.
Very very very good. You have touched on the reason that windows installations blow so hard. If 99.9999999% of the cases a question will be answered the same way, you do not require the user to answer it every single time. Instead, you allow through ealier intervention to change the way it will work. All that is possible in linux, but it is rarely used, because its only a one in a thousand situation where you would want something like that.
Honestly I don't know. perhaps someone else could enlighten me. But I'll tell you now if it involves editing configuration files you have already lost.
No editing config files, but you use command line switches. I dont remember them, because I have never used them. But since linux documentation rocks, if I ever do need to use them, they are just a man away.
*sigh*
Anyways, as much as I think the article was trash, this is a subject that has annoyed me to no end. Its like that "Linux hardware support sux" thing. Yeah, sure, maybe five years ago buddy. Now when I install linux, everything works out of the box. The same cannot be said for windows, I have to go hunting for drivers for every last piece of hardware on my system.
This one however, truely boggles the mind. Anyone who has used apt or portage knows the feeling of hundreds of thousands of applications and libraries at their fingure tips. There is simply no equivilent in windows, and there really cant be because of standard liscencing on the platform. But software installation is one of the reasons I use linux, how can these people possibly be saying the windows click-a-thon is better?
Heres my guess. Mr. Moidib up there installs mandrake. He immediately does the windows user thing, and starts trawling the web for installers. He finds an rpm, downloads it, double clicks, and it says "libfoo.so not found" or something similar. Coming from a non-technical os, having zero administrative or development background, and knowing nothing about the operating system he is on, he declaires it bad, and moves on.
Of course, a quick google search will show that instead of searching through dozens of sites for installers, you can simply configure urmpi with "online repositories" of software. There are many out there, and considering it is mandrake, most of the instructions are so easy a child could follow them. But no, a "typical" user downloads software from web sites. Therefor, anything that makes the process trivial in comparison is "bad", on the sole reason that it is unfamiliar.
I have used so many operating systems at this point that I think I have gotten mast much of the zealotry. For example, something I truely love in BeOS is that a right click on the titlebar of a window sends it to the back. It may not sound like much, but it is truely insane. You want to know what scripting is? It sure as hell isnt bash (or even more laughable, dos). It isnt even perl or python. It is that scripting environment from amiga (archie or something like that, havnt used amiga in ages. been thinking of giving AROS a try though, its a very promising looking amiga clone). Coolswitch? Heck no, its all about expose.
When it comes to software installation, linux really does beat everything else I have tried hands down. I mean how can you compare this:
with the windows installer experience?
posted by Google Ninja at 9:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home