User Firendly Not

[mshater]

Fairly new to linux as I hate microsoft BUT I do miss the logical and professional installers of windows. I want to use linux, not play with it. With a few exceptions windows packages provide everything to install a program. When linux gets to that stage, if ever, it might be a viable alternative. After 20 years it has still not managed to get up to windows standards. A free OS is not much good if you have to spend hours/days finding all the dependencies for the multitude of different distro's out there - probably the achilles heel fo linux. TOO MANY FLAVOURS.

[oz]

A free OS is not much good if you have to spend hours/days finding all the dependencies for the multitude of different distro's out there - probably the achilles heel fo linux. TOO MANY FLAVOURS.

Hello and welcome to the forums!

Try using a distro that includes a good package manager so that it can find any dependencies for you. I never need to bother with tracking down dependencies. As for all the flavors, just find one you like and use it. The top 5 or so distros in the page hits chart over at DistroWatch.com are usually a good place to start.

Best of luck to you with all of it.

[Irithori]

I beg to differ.

A msi usually brings everything needed in one directory. Granted.
It might tell you, that dependencies are missing. Like a .net framework.

But that´s about it.
It wont resolve the dependencies on its own, ie: download and install.
It is common practice, that dependend libs, even 3rd party, are just included in said program directory.
And then never touched again. Which means: no maintenance, no updates.

So:
For one-shot installations, this approach seems nice. (For the user. Not an OPS guy )
Doubleclick and be happy.

But what about updates?
Each and every msi, that does not come from microsoft, needs to be updated individually.

Or look at system installs:
1) system install
2) update
3) reboot
4) again update
5) goto 3)

This is because some updates are only available, once you reached a certain patch level.
In linux, you usually only need one update after system install.

Also, all packages are in repositories.
So dependencies can be calculated and updated.
Do a "yum install php" on an empty machine, and it will pull in apache, for example.

The repositorys also take care of updating machines as a whole.
So, rather than every app has its own libs,
in linux apps share the same libs, which of course are packaged.

Also, say you look for programs related to e.g. "bluetooth"
Do a
yum search bluetooth
and see the packages available at your fingertips.

In windows, you need
- to visit a webpage
- search for the download area
- search for the up to date version of the programm
- download it
- then install it



Imho, the linux approach is more practical in terms of datacenter management.

[PrinceSharma]

Imho, the linux approach is more practical in terms of datacenter management.

You're right and of course will be BUT he's an end user and talking about user friendliness as a desktop OS, where he on his points stands corrected IMO.

[zenwalker]

Try Zorin

Read this, too.

[rokytnji]

Fairly new to linux as I hate microsoft

Bad way to get started into using Linux. Emotions just cloud up logical thinking.

I want to use linux, not play with it

I use it. But their are limitations so I keep Windows for just one Task

With a few exceptions windows packages provide everything to install a program.

OOPs. Another misconception made by users many times. Vendors write packages. Not Windows. ***** at the Vendor.

When linux gets to that stage, if ever, it might be a viable alternative.

Like I said. ***** at the Vendor. You are free to do as you wish though. Nobody broke your arm or took your lunch money. I think Windows 7 will take your lunch money though.

A free OS is not much good if you have to spend hours/days finding all the dependencies for the multitude of different distro's out there

Slackware along with a few distros that are for advanced users (is that what you are running because you do not say) are the only ones I know of that do not use dependency checking when installing from source. I run Debian Testing and Unstable AntiX, Ubuntu, and Puppy. Dependency checking works just fine for me.
And yeah. I like playing with Puppy when not playing with my Dogs and Cats.

These kind of posts show up every so often in this and other forums. I visualize this as a guy with a jap bike who finds he has to buy a new one to fix it. Parts are more expensive than a new jap bike. Kinda like a Bic lighter.

So the guy looks for a cheap used Harley where parts are ready available and he thinks he will become cool. He finds out he does not have the knowledge and tools to accomplish this and he wants it now.

Usually that is when the bike ends up on my door step and I hear a rant similar to above 1st post. WHY,THEY SHOULD,HARD

Well, It costs him some way in the end. Either he makes payments to the dealer for a new bike. He can make payments to me to put the bike together. Lastly he can buy the tools and books and invest time to learn on his own, which I think is best. Because. Once he learns something. It is his. Nobody can take that from him.

Hope you get comfortable in time using Linux. I was not born knowing how to run Linux. But learn I did. You can't buy that.

My contribution to what I consider just another troll thread. (among many)

Happy Trails Rok

[dethklok02895]

Thank you Rok really well put.

And have to admit I didnt think linux was great or user friendly when i first used it....and that was when i was 10. And now I'm actually fully capable of installing and using any Linux or BSD....gentoo still eludes me lol.

You cant pick something up and expect to know it or to get your answers from someone else. Have to learn things on your own.

[Rubberman]

Thank you Rok really well put.

And have to admit I didnt think linux was great or user friendly when i first used it....and that was when i was 10. And now I'm actually fully capable of installing and using any Linux or BSD....gentoo still eludes me lol.

You cant pick something up and expect to know it or to get your answers from someone else. Have to learn things on your own.

My first distro was Gentoo - took me two weeks of evenings to get it installed and working for my hardware. I learned a lot, and after it was up and running, it was (still is) dead-bang reliable! First thing I did was to print out the entire installation manual - I think most of an entire forest was cut down to do that! Then I went one step at a time, backtracking frequently when something I didn't quite understand, or misread, resulting in a non-working system. So, it was an iterative processes, but keeping at it I was able to succeed, and had an OS fine-tuned to my system and hardware. No unnecessary cruft, so it was lean, mean, and fast!

[elija]

While I have the suspicion that the OP is a troll, I have to admit it is sometimes difficult to distinguish an extremely frustrated genuine poster from a troll, so I'll slap my penny in the slot also!

You say that the msi way is more user friendly than the Linux way but I would argue that it is more familiar to you, which can look a lot like more user friendly if you don't examine it too closely.

In the Windows world you install software by hunting it down on the Internet, then downloading and installing the file. I would bet that you used your Windows knowledge to to the same with Linux and unless you know what you are doing this is almost always a bad idea. I admit to finding this out the hard way back when I started with Linux! The Linux way is to use the provided and tested repositories of software via their package management tools. There are, as has already been mentioned, some more advanced distributions that don't do any of this for you. There is also the rare occasion where a particular piece of software isn't in the repositories for what-ever reason.

While the concept of repositories is undeniably alien to a Windows user, they are equally undeniably user friendly. After all, a simple search will allow you to install software that has been built specifically for and tested with the exact version of which-ever distribution you are using, with all dependencies automatically found and installed as well. All at the click of a mouse or if you prefer all with a single deft command.

To quote one of the UK's most popular celebrities "Simples!"

[Etna]

While I have the suspicion that the OP is a troll, I have to admit it is sometimes difficult to distinguish an extremely frustrated genuine poster from a troll, so I'll slap my penny in the slot also!

You say that the msi way is more user friendly than the Linux way but I would argue that it is more familiar to you, which can look a lot like more user friendly if you don't examine it too closely.

In the Windows world you install software by hunting it down on the Internet, then downloading and installing the file. I would bet that you used your Windows knowledge to to the same with Linux and unless you know what you are doing this is almost always a bad idea. I admit to finding this out the hard way back when I started with Linux! The Linux way is to use the provided and tested repositories of software via their package management tools. There are, as has already been mentioned, some more advanced distributions that don't do any of this for you. There is also the rare occasion where a particular piece of software isn't in the repositories for what-ever reason.

While the concept of repositories is undeniably alien to a Windows user, they are equally undeniably user friendly. After all, a simple search will allow you to install software that has been built specifically for and tested with the exact version of which-ever distribution you are using, with all dependencies automatically found and installed as well. All at the click of a mouse or if you prefer all with a single deft command.

And what happens when the app you want is not in the repositories? Or if the version available in the repos are completely out of date?

There are gazillions of software apps available on the Internet, did you for one second think that any company or developer has the resources to catalogue and package all that gazillion software apps into a repository? No, and that is why MS or Apple don't even bother to try. And don't get me started on the latter issue, which is EXTREMELY common in Debian. In such cases, what is the user going to do? Start whining for help on how to handle .tar.gz or tar.bz2 files?

It is always a lot more convenient to go direct to the software's home page and download the latest working binary that is available for users. Oh wait, i forgot: Linux users dont download binaries, because they hate binary blobs, right?

I have been using Fedora, Debian Lenny and OpenSUSE for almost 3 years now, and i like my Linux experience as much as the next Linux enthusiast. But to claim that Linux is more user friendly because it forces users to install old and outdated packages via a 'tested repository system' has got to be the biggest lie anybody can make about attempting to sway someone over to a penguin OS.

And to the OP:

Linux. Is. Not. A. Free. Copy. Of. A. Windows. OS. Nobody learns how to use something without having to play with it and get a feel for how completely different it is. You want Linux to break its longstanding practices just so that you can use it? Well, if that is the case, Linux doesn't want you as part of its user base. GO back to Windows where all is bright and happy with one-click installers.