Ximian Desktop Installer, Red Carpet, and MonkeyTalk

An anonymous reader submits: "Long-time Linux users forget what it is like to try to install something for the first time. Ximian has done a nice job writing scripts to hide the inner workings of a Gnome installation. TuxReports has snapshots of the Ximian installer. Do you believe that all Linux distributions should use such a friendly series of dialog boxes in order to attract more users to Linux?" Update: 07/14 21:13 GMT by M : Tuxreports has provided a non-PHP page for us to link to... whoops. Sorry about that.

Comments

how about this?

[MrSloth]

I think that the OPTION of being able to use an installer wizzard is nice, but in an OS that is known to be so versitile and let you configure EVERYTHING the way you want it, it is a bad idea to require an installer script

Re:how about this?

[Dr. Shim]

I agree. It would be nice if you could do it both ways.

Re:how about this?

[flsquirrel]

I think a lot of it depends on the Distro. Let's face it, I'm not sure Debian will ever be as friendly as Mandrake, but I don't think that's a bad thing. Personally, I would much rather have the Debian staff working to get woody stable than be writing cute little graphical wizards. Mandrake on the other hand, yeah, I think it's wonderful what they're doing trying to get linux into the hands of more people by easing the installing process. But isn't that why despite wild differences many Linux distro's fare reasonably well in popularity?

So to answer the original article: What Ximian and others are doing is a wonderful. But I think there's no reason for all the distro's to jump on the user-proof bandwagon.

Re:how about this?

[DoctorFrog]

You hit the nail on the head. What else is there to say? I'm a newcomer to Linux, and at the moment a graphical installer would be of great benefit to me.

I have to admit, though, there's an unholy fascination about the command line interface... I like the option of getting down amongst the gears; one of the things I hated most about the evolution of Windows 95 and onward was that the DOS command line was becoming less and less useful. (Had I known about Unix I wouldn't have cared for the original DOS so much, but that's another issue! ;)

Option is the operative word, though; give me a nice wizard for when I'm in a hurry, but don't take away the command line versions. Sometimes it pays to be able to go primitive!

Re:how about this?

[xtremex]

The question I have for you, is how is a graphical interface with a button that says OK? different from a command line message thats says "Hit enter to continue?"

Re:how about this?

[tenman]

Mainly because I don't get to put -Rf or -vxpf or -Ufdlw behind an 'OK' button, and keystrokes are easier (when you know what they mean) than a GUI that changes the location of it's options with every new version.

I can not '$>man OkButton()', while I can 'man find', or 'man ksh', etc...

Re:how about this?

[xtremex]

"I" was saying that a command line install is the same as a GUI install. The poster said he needed a GUI install. I was trying to imply that a command line install is the SAME. I am a cLI user myself, so I understand your argument

Re:how about this?

[Penguinshit]

The problem you have is that you are thinking that everyone wears the same shoe. While people like you or I have no problems with a command-line interface and arcane flags and whatnot, the Average Joe (or Jane) is not comfortable with that, and doesn't really assimilate information off the screen that easily (like he/she can with the extra tactile sensation of holding paper).

So to give these folks the "comfort" of a graphical screen with a few button choices (which allow the most common, robust, and safe installation options) you dramatically increase the acceptance of what we all already know to be a superior underlying OS.

We still live in the age of "The Magic Button"; the one single button on the keyboard that many people think will completely melt down the computer.

In the early age of automobiles, you had to be a part-time mechanic to keep the little beasties running. Consequently, most folks tended to keep their horses for which they knew how to adequately care. Once the things become more reliable and simpler to operate, adoption caught on.

Why do you think Microsoft is so big? It clearly wasn't the best, but it was easy to get going and do many things. As long as Linux stays dominated by command-line, it will always be regarded by The Masses as "that hacker OS I don't know how to work with so I'll just stay with easy Windows".

Re:how about this?

[xtremex]

That was why I made my original port...how is a GUI with an OK button, different than a non-graphical installer with a "Hit enter to continue?".
Do people really NEED the GUI when a text instaler does the SAME thing? Hit enter 10 times or the OK button 10 times (which the enter key should do anyway)...you're agreeing to the same question, no?

Re:how about this?

[DoctorFrog]

In essence it isn't. As long as the thing makes installation easy, I don't much care if it's GUI or CLI. A menu-based text interface would be fine by me. What I don't want is to have to work out what obscure text switches I need to use to install something.

On the other hand, I like text. Most people migrating from Windows probably fear the command line. (I don't have any evidence to back this up, but that's my impression.) There's no logical difference between a well-designed text-based installer and a well-designed graphical installer, but for some people there is a psychological one.

Re:how about this?

[xtremex]

OK..you have a point...you can do ./configure to use the standard options, or if you want more control, the COOL stuff can be added with command line switches. Learning the command line, ANYONE can be a power user. It's not hard..one just has to get away from thinking a GUI means easy. An example is in order..I odn't know of ANY way to do this in Windows.(never tried to find out actually)..but how do you find which directories take up the most space?
du -sm $(find $1 -type d -maxdepth 1 -xdev) | sort -g
Put in file and make it a shell script...
THAT's the power of the command line.

Re:how about this?

[Anonymous Coward]

What many people forget is that it's not about questions of efficiency or simplicity, it's about thinking like a human vs thinking like a computer.

The whole idea behind a good GUI is to convince the user that they're not interacting with a computer...they're interacting with buttons and windows and documents. GUIs are an acknowledgement that humans are visual and tactile. The mouse becomes an extension of our arm. Do you understand?

The difference between a graphical interface with a button that says OK and a command line message thats says "Hit enter to continue" is that command line messages constantly remind us that we're using a machine. Programmers are the only ones who would never forget anyway.

Re:how about this?

[tenman]

I hope I never have to try and install and configure (usually part of the install script) apache via a million clicks.

Re:how about this?

[Apro im]

I don't know about you, but I'm a "make menuconfig" kinda guy myself - CLI can do so much, but mostly linearly - and each thing must be done in turn - which is annoying, especially when there's host of options I don't care about that I don't want to be prompted about.

I agree with whoever said that there's a comfort area - additionally when inputting install directories (or file locations), it's nice to have a browse button - especially when you don't have tab completion in your CLI script - which most don't... I could go on about the benefits of non-linearity, "back" buttons, etc, but you get the idea.

On the other hand, I love the ability to do things using CLI/curses interfaces (I consider them to be different since there's more of a "2-D" nature to curses interfaces) for the versatility it gives - keep on doing a task? Write a script. Need to do something from a remote location? ssh in! So many wonderful uses.

CLI and GUI (or for that matter, curses-based interfaces) are not interchangeable - each has its place and function. I personally love programs ilke aumix which adjust to the capabilities of my current situation - i.e. if $DISPLAY is defined, and I dn't force it to run in a terminal, it will use a GTK interface, or I can use a curses interface, or do everything from the command line.

Re:how about this?

[DoctorFrog]

Good point! You're right, when I use a mouse to move a little arrow onto a particular spot on the screen and press the button, I often forget that I'm using a machine.

Of course, I'm not a programmer, so I don't associate pressing buttons with machines; usually when I press buttons I'm interacting with another human being.

I have discovered a clue, though; when you push a machine's buttons it doesn't usually slap you! ;-)

Re:how about this?

[xtremex]

When it comes to Kernel config, even though I'm a CLI guy, I HAVE to use make xconfig. Usually I only have to change ONE setting, so make menuconfig can take me forever...

Re:how about this?

[Penguinshit]

In reality, no real difference.

In people's perception, a million miles.

Sorry, but that's what we're dealing with. For sure for us it's no a big deal. But "The Masses" need to push buttons with pictures. It's just that simple.

How do they make any money?

[glrotate]

I know they've got deals with various Unix hardware vendors, but how does Ximian plan on making money off of Red Carpet?

Re:How do they make any money?

[FreeLinux]

Red Carpet can make money by offering subscriptions. Subscribe and get access to the high bandwidth, high availabilty site.

Ximian also plans to make money through the sale of things like it's Exchagne Connector which allows Evolution clients to utilize Microsoft Exchange 2000's services including the calendaring features.

Re:How do they make any money?

[kerskine]

Actually, there are two ways we make money on Red Carpet:

• Red Carpet Express, which offers customers fast, dedicated bandwidth for getting software updates.
• Red Carpet CorporateConnect, which is a hosted service that enables organizations to manage their own internally developed software in addition to getting updates of Linux, Ximian, and other software offered by Red Carpet.

Re:How do they make any money?

[tenman]

they should also make a...

• Red Carpet Alert, which should send a user an alert. After a Red Carpet install, alerts should popup to notify users when newer versions are available.

A cron task would check the Red Carpet database and then compaire it to what is available for download. If thier was a difference, it would alert the user with a visiual notice, then go back to sleep. Users should be able to cancel the notification one of three ways. Download the newest versions, Elect Never to update current version, or put in a version tag (regexp). The version tag would allow the user to specify "notify me when XYZ app gets to version 2.5.

my .02.

Re:How do they make any money?

[Xiphoid Process]

i imagine that in the future they will make deals with commerical vendors, where the commercial vendors would pay ximian to list their products, seems to make sense.

Re:How do they make any money?

[vstanescu]

The problem is that the high bandwidth means a bigger subscription fee to their ISP and the high availability site means expensive hardware, that will be 99.99% up, so the more money you require will be spent on these things. The gain is not big enough to keep a business running. Just my opinion..

Re:How do they make any money?

[rat7307]

Ximian also plans to make money through the sale of things like it's Exchagne Connector which allows Evolution clients to utilize Microsoft Exchange 2000's services including the calendaring features.

And spell checker??? sorry...couldn't resist

The Easier the Better

[donnacha]

"Do you believe that all Linux distributions should use such a friendly series of dialog boxes in order to attract more users to Linux?"

God, yes!

The potential of OSS won't be truly realized until it's actually easier to deploy than commercial offerings.

I was particularly impressed by PostNuke's no sweat installation procedure... it made me realize just how much more far-reaching it's effect on society is going to be if society is actually able to use it.

Re:The Easier the Better

[qqtortqq]

Why do you want ALL distros to use it? I use debian because it is complete, yet minimally so. I want my configuration to be done with joe or vi, not pretty menus. This is good for a redhat or mandrake, distros that are geared towards n00bs.

Re:The Easier the Better

[donnacha]

Why do you want ALL distros to use it? I use debian because it is complete, yet minimally so. I want my configuration to be done with joe or vi, not pretty menus. This is good for a redhat or mandrake, distros that are geared towards n00bs.

Well, obviously, it should be a choice but, when you get down to it, we're all n00bs outside our specific areas of expertise and most people just don't have time to develop macho,hacker cred.

I may be envisaging too rosy a picture here but, it seems to me that all the people who spend so much time contributing to OSS projects do so because they want to see as many people as possible benefiting from "what computers can be".

It's just plain wrong that, for instance, millions of office workers in poorer countries are laboriously doing by hand tasks that can, with simple, existing tech, be automated. If the only path towards eliminating this waste is an "easy" option from M$ that costs $$$$$, or a free alternative that's too tricky to actually implement, the waste will remain.

Re:The Easier the Better

[Anonymous Coward]

Me thinks you use Debian because Debian 'stable' is over two years old.

Me thinks you use Debian because you like the feeling of being 'unique'.

Debian is the bastard child of the OS of Bitches...

Linux, it's what's for Bitches.

Re:The Easier the Better

[Anonymous Coward]

All linux distros are geared towards n00bs.

Linux IS UN*X for Dummies.

I prefer UNIX, not Linux.

Proudly running *BSD since 1993.

Re:The Easier the Better

[Anonymous Coward]

dumbass... NO free *BSD distro can claim to be UNIX because you have to pay some organization to be a certified UNIX.

Re:The Easier the Better

[Darth_Burrito]

It's just plain wrong that, for instance, millions of office workers in poorer countries are laboriously doing by hand tasks that can, with simple, existing tech, be automated.

Your comment reminded me of a ManPower temp assignment I got a while back. It was a 2-3 day temp assignment that involved data entry. When I arrived at the business and received my instructions, it turned out that they wanted me to take all the data in an "ACT" database and manually enter it into an Access database. At any rate, this made me start twitching uncontrollably. I started off doing the assignment the way I had been instructed (that's just what you do when you are temping). As soon as my supervisor left for lunch, I did an export/import and was done by the time she got back. The moral of the story is, people waste enormous amounts of time because they don't understand the software tools they have.

Here's another example. My sister was temping for an online information publishing company. They had been outsourcing their Resume/Job application stuff to a third party who was going out of business. They needed to move something like 10-20 thousand applications/resumes from the third party to a new provider of the same service. After talking with both the old and new vendor, HR came up with this wonderful idea. The original vendor would email the publishing company all of the applications/resumes. The publishing company would then print them out and ship them to the new Resume/Application company. The new company would then manually scan all the resumes into their system using scanners/text recognition. The whole process took a little over a month. I kept telling my sister that it could probably all be done in a couple days with proper coordination and maybe a little perl script, but then of course, she'd be out of a job.

Re:The Easier the Better

[donnacha]

The moral of the story is, people waste enormous amounts of time because they don't understand the software tools they have.

I guess that what we really need is for a sense of what computers can do to infiltrate down into mainstream culture. In the West we have something of a headstart, insofar as the average boss's pointy-headedness represents at least some sort of advance on the situation, say, ten years ago.

Most of the world, however, has a long, hard slog in front of it. This isn't helped by the culture of dispowerment that Microsoft promotes under the ingenious guise of empowerment. Open Source software doesn't deliberately disempower it's users as it has no particular motivation for doing so whereas proprietry products essentially want to lock the user in for the longer term.

Where OSS often falls down is in assuming that anyone with an interest in it will already be a hacker. This is just plain wrong, especially when you take the poorer majority of the human race into consideration. They don't have the necessary skills/cultural exposure for OSS or the $$$ for M$ and, therefore, for most of our species computers may as well not exist.

The best thing about Open Source software is that it doesn't lock it's users in.

It's main failing is that it locks them out in the first place by setting the skills bar unnecessarily high.

Re:The Easier the Better

[tenman]

I know I'm waisting valuable page-estate, but I second that...

You Dumbass!

Re:The Easier the Better

[aed]

Absolutely not.
The 'installers'* from LinuxFromScratch and Gentoo make the *BSD installers look like UN*X for Dummies.

It's all a matter of choice, so many distros, so many installers.
I've always been running SuSE linux, but i think 8.0 will be the last version i've installed.
They took out the old Yast1 installer, and now you have to use the new, graphic/X based, Yast2 installer, which i don't like. at all.

So now i installed Gentoo, all the way from stage 1, plain and simple :-)

Again, all a matter of choice.

(* There *are* no real LFS and Gentoo installers, apart from a document or a book telling you what actions to perform to compile and setup your system)

Re:The Easier the Better

[_lookface]

and the moral of the story is, the more you learn the less montomous your works becomes. As an added benefit you'll probably get more free timeat work or alternativly end up as a nerd glued to your computer screen at home.

Re:The Easier the Better

[__past__]

The BSD installers are Unix for dummies.

OpenBSDs plain text-based installer is one of the most simple to use tools I know of. While the graphical installer of $CommercialLinuxDistro still tries to detect the correct X settings before startup (it would just have to ask, I'd tell it!), I already have my OpenBSD system installed by answering some 5 simple questions, and am happily exploring the system in my comfy shell.

How hard can it really be to understand that "colorful" doesn't mean "easy"?

OK, then again, it might be more "Unix for dummies who know what a 'disklabel' is".

Re:The Easier the Better

[reallocate]

Yes, yes, yes. Preferably preserving the ability to go mucking about at your own risk. Otherwise, hide as much of the nitty-gritty details as possible. Even people who enjoy getting down into the weeds are wasting too much time getting things to work and not enough time using software. Re: Linux, all the different distributions trying to do the same thing in different ways just muddy the waters.Dstributions need to agree to use the same installation program, to put the same files in the same place, etc. Standardize, standardize, standardize.

While I'm ranting, I'll beat on this dying horse: someone needs to figure out a standardized way of installing new software that works smoothly across distributions. RPM's, deb's, gentoo's emerge, FreeBSD's ports don't cut it. I've used 'em all, and they all fall short.

well, duh!!!

[AikenDrumGotWired]

Yes.

YES

[Apreche]

This is exactly what every piece of linux software needs. If I could install any piece of linux software with a friendly series of dialog boxes just like with install shiled in windows, I would use linux much more often. The number 1 reason I don't use linux as much is because I don't want to have to manage all of the different versions of software. Mozilla has a nice graphical installation, so do some other things. Not having to deal with rpms and all the other types of source and binary packages would be a great weight off my shoulders. You apt-get guys and you linux gurus might disagree. But I hope this is a trend that continues and becomes the standard for linux software.

Re:YES

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about most the other command line lovers, but I myself only disagree when our other options are taken away. Yes, some users need the friendly install, but don't punish those of us who want configurability for those who don't.

Re:YES

[morgajel]

actually, apt-get does make it simpler, just not in a graphical way.
I use apt-get and debian because it takes the work out of maintainence. However, I'm thinking of actually switching to another distro for my girlfriends computer just because it will be easier for her to get use to.

Re:YES

[discstickers]

What about Apple's even easier system? Some applications are just a drag and drop installation (including MS Office). Even the apps that come in packages are uber-easy. It even does prebinding for you.

Re:YES

[xtremex]

The install is only 1% of the entire system. An install takes anywhere from 10 minutes to 45 minutes. The REST of the time, you're using it. I cou'dn't care elss what pretty pics the installer has...once it's installed, I like the power of linux.

Re:YES

[__past__]

If I could just install any piece of Windows software by typing "make install" instead of having to use useless installers, I would probably use it more often, too.

Especially if that would include that I could tweak the installed software to my pleasure (and I'm not talking about ./configure, I'm talking about vi), or just installing it without having to start a GUI. But I guess Windows just isn't user-friendly enough.

Hint: There are quite a lot of kinds of users, and not a single way to please them all.

Not to mention that compilers are sexy, but I guess you have to be a geek to understand ;-)

Re:YES

[stickyc]

If I could just install any piece of Windows software by typing "make install" instead of having to use useless installers, I would probably use it more often, too.

As a medium-skill Linux user, I'm still scared sh!tless of text-editing ./configure to change the install-to location or to not install a certain component without totally crapping out dependancies or even worse, making a stupid typo. Wheras with Windows, it's usually 3 clicks, a navbox and I dont have to worry about a thing.

no...

[aveng0]

some of us actually want to know what our operating system is doing to our computers... as surprising as it may seem.

Re:no...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what the src is for!
Who actually buys something because it's harder to use than another product?!

Re:no...

[russx2]

... but some of us don't care or even need to know. I don't see what the fuss is about, why not just include this easy-install with distros and provide an 'advanced' option for just that - advanced users.

Thus satisfying the geeks among us as well as your average Joe Bloggs who just wants a stable, usable OS with minimum effort.

Re:no...

[kubla2000]

Hrmn. Well, it's not as though redcarpet is *replacing* debs or rpms. It's a GUI, nothing more, nothing less. That it's easy to use and looks sharp is a nice bonus.

You're still able to install things by building from source or via deb or rpm. It's merely giving you more choice and making it conceivable that your mum can keep her own system up to date / install software for herself.

Re:no...

[theRiallatar]

Actually, most people don't want to know. That's why they're Joe-average consumer. Give them an OS that's easy to install, easy to update, and does everything they want it to, and you've got a winner. Gee, who's that sound like? Wonder why Microsoft's on top... They catered to the mass market.

Re:no...

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a feeling that if someone answered no to the question, it was gonna get modded as flamebait...why ask the question if you don't want an honest answer???

Re:no...

[aveng0]

good point, i completely agree with the responses to this
thread. how an easy installer makes a lot
easier, however if other groups try to copy
ximian's model, and don't do a good job, then
big fussy problems will happen... things
will be happening beyond your control, and
you won't be happy. so I think if you're
going to make an easy installer, do it solid, and
do it right! :)
-david

Re:no...

[xtremex]

Although, I'd prefer if Ximian had a command line option. It's a real pain to ssh in and export X JUST to update damn software! If they had a ximian-update -all option, I'd be in heaven..how is that harder??

Hiding the system from the user.

[Kyber]

What I beleive has been one of the major problems with bringing Linux to average computer users, is the fact that no distribution has been willing to "Hide" much of the system from the user, much because this would also mean hiding much of the power of Unix. But imho, this is exactly what we need, and I am glad to see a new trend striving towards that.

Re:Hiding the system from the user.

[Anonymous Coward]

It IS possible to give users the option to see what's going on under the hood if they want to be power users, but hide it from the rest. Nobody seems to get that it can work both ways...

Re:Hiding the system from the user.

[Kyber]

Indeed. But most people would rather spend more time improving their software than writing two separate, or atleast one more advanced installation program. In a perfect world, we would all have a common package/installation format. But until that day, I would prefer having only simple installation wizards (and be forced to strace which files are put where), to having only .tgz with a README that left me all alone in Linux.

Re:Hiding the system from the user.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
What nice super pretty installers should do is not HIDE what's going on. A much better analogy to strive for is: "Installers should be like putting a table cloth on the table. The table cloth may cover the table up, but a) you can look under the table cloth (installers should have full text logs of EVERYTHING they do that you can read while installing or after the fact) and b) the table cloth protects the table from the slob's who sit down to eat (the installer should make sure the install won't hose up the system). Furthermore, if you table is rickety no clotsh (installer) is going to fix that. So you'd better make sure the infrastructure is there before you worry about making it pretty.

Re:Hiding the system from the user.

[Anonymous Coward]

not it's not, you faggot. go back to windows XP/

Re:Hiding the system from the user.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just keep in mind that every time wizards make it easier
for the idiots, it also makes it more difficult for
the unix people to fix things when it something
is broken. I say who cares about "the masses switching to unix",
let them keep using Microsoft, so that our operating
system does not become just like Microsft, in which case I will
probably prefer the real thing and start using Microsoft.

Re:Hiding the system from the user.

[Kyber]

An interresting anology. And I fully agree. A friend of mine has been working on a new generation of XML based package/build/installer system that does this in a well-defined fashion. I hope he succeeds. (Unfortunately the system is still alpha, or I would give you the URL).

Re:Hiding the system from the user.

[Kyber]

This is a point of view that I really hadn't thought of before. And it is a good one.

<anti-ms-rant>

However, the best thing I can see coming from the "Linux snowball effect", except for the freedom it brings me as a programmer, is giving MS some competition. I don't like microsoft. This is not why I use Linux, but I do think they are well, evil. They just don't play nice, and the majority of the wired world pays the price for it. So thru the wonders of market economy, this is consumer power in action.

</anti-ms-rant>

Also, this may (in the extension) help prevent segregation of society, where the world might otherwise consist of those who can afford being part of the wired world, and those who can't.

Wrong Idea

[Moneky-Boy]

I don't think the applications should be writen to "buy" more users. They should be writen for stability and functionality first. Then start worrying about making it pretty.

Re:Wrong Idea

[spd_rcr]

we're sort of past the point of showing the world how neat & feature packed linux is, the hype is over, if you want to keep money rolling in for development, you have to start making pretty releases rather then beta 0.9.9.9.2 ...
programs will never be 100% stable, hell microsoft & most other software 'vendors' make their releases closer to the alpha level.
there is a need to buy new users or time will leave linux in the same sad shape as all the other promising operating systems, amiga, BE, etc...
the only real problem w/ ximian is that it's all about gnome, w/ the previews from kde 3.1, i just may switch sides.

Vorbis 1.0 is done!

[Cardhore]

Who cares because Vorbis 1.0 has gone gold!!! Whoo hoo. Here is a windows binary. Try encoding at the lowest quality value...about 64kbps second and be AMAZED! Otherwise get the source from CVS

It's definitely worthwhile

[JonathanF]

Anything that streamlines a function of Linux to make it more accessible - so long as there's an alternative to it (such as another distro) in one form another - is worth having. The number one obstacle to broader Linux acceptance is the option of user-friendliness throughout the entire OS, so addressing that by itself will probably bring many more people to the fold.

Red Hat users note

[GigsVT]

If you corrupt your box with this Ximian Gnome, you will not be able to upgrade Red Hat without uninstalling Ximian beforehand, or manually replacing all Gnome RPMs after the upgrade.

This is something they don't tell you in all those "friendly installers".

Other things may break, such as the Red Hat Network, when a Gnome related updated comes down the line. Of course if you plan to only use Red Carpet after installing Ximian, then that's not a problem.

Re:Red Hat users note

[Empty_One]

Same as with Mandrakes RPMdrake. Once you go Ximian, if you try to update using RPMDrake, it freaks out, bucause all the versions are different. Makes it a pain to try to update to Cooker.

Re:Red Hat users note

[PrimeEnd]

I have done exactly this recently on three boxes with no trouble. Of course YMMV.

What I did was do a standard RH upgrade to 7.3 on a fully up-to-date ximianized system. The RH installer complained that "third party applications" might no longer function. I had the option to continue and did. The system was quite functional when I was done. I ran redcarpet and had to re-subscribe to my Ximian channels and then do a substantial number of Ximian updates at that point. If I had continued without the Ximian updates it is possible I would have had problems.

Re:Red Hat users note

[Anonymous Coward]

You can install Xmian Red Carpet without installing Ximian Gnome. That way, you can intall programs such as OpenOffice and update your computer with the latest RedHat security patches using red-carpet without losing the ability to upgrade Red Hat Linux.

http://www.ximian.com/products/ximian_red_carpet /

Re:Red Hat users note

[martinflack]

If you corrupt your box with this Ximian Gnome, you will not be able to upgrade Red Hat without uninstalling Ximian beforehand, or manually replacing all Gnome RPMs after the upgrade

If you use rpm -qa along with the --queryformat option and grep for vendor "Ximian" you can build a list of Ximian rpm's post-install and then ask up2date to avoid updating those packages. This is what I did, and it works beautifully. up2date keeps my base system humming and Ximian Red Carpet just updates the desktop components.

Try something like this to get you started:

rpm -qa --queryformat "%{NAME}\t%{VENDOR}\n" | awk '$2 ~ /Ximian/ {print $1}' | sort | perl -pe 's/\n/;/'

This is what my actual list looks like right now, although it may have a couple non-Ximian additions.

pkgSkipList=kernel*;ORBit-devel;perl-PDL;libvorbis ;gnome-audio;nautilus-mozilla;eel;eel-devel;libgla de-devel;mcserv;gftp;libghttp-devel;Gtk-P erl;libole2;gnome-libs-devel;gdk-pixbuf;gnome-core ;gnome-pim;libgal18;gnome-core-devel;libgtop;gdk-p ixbuf-devel;libgtkhtml16;pygnome-libglade ;gmc;mozilla;gtkhtml-devel;audiofile;gaim;pygnome; gal;libgtkhtml20;helix-sweetpill;control-center-de vel;ORBit;nautilus;libxml;ammonite;bonobo ;abiword;gnome-games;monkeytalk;gtkmm-devel;gnumer ic;xscreensaver;libgal11;libgnomeprint11;libgtkhtm l17;imlib-devel;ximian-menus;gnome-games- devel;ximian-utils;libgal7;bug-buddy;libogg;audiof ile-devel;libglade;rep-gtk-gnome;ximian-wallpapers ;glimmer;libgtop-devel;grdb;imlib;bonobo- devel;nautilus-devel;gtk+;gphoto;gnet-devel;libsig c++-devel;mc;libgal12;libnspr4;libghttp;libunicode -devel;perl-Parse-RecDescent;pygtk-libgla de;gnome-vfs-devel;GConf-devel;sawfish-themes;mozi lla-psm;ghex;oaf-devel;libvorbis-devel;control-cen ter;libogg-devel;libgal13;gal-devel;xchat ;g-wrap;gtk-engines;libgtkhtml13;red-carpet;gtk-th emes;gedit;Guppi;glib;librep;gnome-applets;gnucash ;libnspr-devel;gnome-print-devel;rep-gtk; xmms-gnome;gimp;ximian-doorman;dia;libole2-devel;g nome-pim-conduits;aspell;mozilla-mail;gdm;ggv;gnom e-libs;gnome-media;esound-devel;gtkmm;pkg config;gimp-devel;ximian-faq;libgal8;scrollkeeper; grip;gnome-pim-devel;gnome-vfs;GConf;xmms;mozilla- xmlterm;imlib-cfgeditor;pan;slib;libxml-d evel;libgtkhtml15;libunicode;gtk-engines-thinice;o af;gimp-perl;libgal6;mozilla-devel;sawfish-themer; gnucash-devel;gtop;gdk-pixbuf-gnome;gtkht ml;rep-gtk-libglade;gnapster;gnome-print;gnome-use r-docs;glade;librep-devel;pygnome-capplet;pspell;e og;pygtk;libgal14;gnomeicu;libgnomeprint1 5;pspell-devel;memprof;gtk+-devel;gqview;libsigc++ ;pygnome-applet;gnet;xmms-devel;librsvg;esound;saw fish;glib-devel;gnome-utils;pilot-link;

What would be even better is an up2date configuration command called skipVendor (or something similar) so the user doesn't have to make this list.

Why don't I just use Red Carpet for everything? Simple. They made a GUI and I can't cron red-carpet. (For these types of programs you really need a CLI first, then a GUI.) If a security patch for sshd comes out, my automatic up2date will grab it that night and install it. I'll never use Red Carpet for system stuff because I shouldn't have to babysit those type of updates.

My previous comments notwithstanding, I think Ximian is an excellent company and they make an excellent desktop, and I hope they do very well.

Re:Red Hat users note

[Anonymous Coward]

If you corrupt your box with this Ximian Gnome, you will not be able to upgrade Red Hat without uninstalling Ximian beforehand, or manually replacing all Gnome RPMs after the upgrade.

I believe this only applies to earlier versions of RedHat. Current releases don't have this problem.

I'll make the obligatory Debian plug as well - dpkg never had this problem. Debian users regularly source from as many as a dozen different points, and all selection and resolution of conflicts happens automatically.

Re:Red Hat users note

[Brummund]

Ah, simple installation.

Can't wait to tell some relative over the phone: "And then you just
rpm -qa --queryformat "%{NAME}\t%{VENDOR}\n" | awk '$2 ~ /Ximian/ {print $1}' | sort | perl -pe 's/ \n/;/'

Re:Red Hat users note

[MSG]

dpkg never had this problem.

Don't be an elitist asshole. If you don't understand what the problem really is, don't comment on it.

This problem has nothing to do with rpm. The problem that Red Hat advertises WRT Ximian is that an upgrade may not upgrade all of the GNOME packages, since Ximian's may be newer (and this is the correct behavior, according to any packager). However, because some packages may be updated, and others may not, you don't have a tested, known-stable GNOME platform. dpkg and apt don't do anything special that prevents that from happening.

Re:Red Hat users note

[Khalid]

I was able to upgrade from Red Hat 7.1 to 7.2 with apt-get for RPM (http://freshrpms.net) indeed I had to remove manually Ximian Gnome and use Red Hat Gnome instead.

Re:Red Hat users note

[Anonymous Coward]

> If you corrupt your box with this Ximian Gnome, you will not be able to upgrade Red Hat without uninstalling Ximian beforehand, or manually replacing all Gnome RPMs after the upgrade.

So, you mean that Red Hat is actually updatable ?

I've yet to see a redhat system that is not running in rpmhell after a few months. Forever beta. One always need to update some obviously broken package, then the system fell in pieces.

Re:Red Hat users note

[Felix The Cat]

So write a shell script around it with a friendly name, like "find_ximian_packages" or something.

Meowp.

Re:Red Hat users note

[mestar]

we are so lucky that there is no dll-hell on linux. :)

Re:Red Hat users note

[m_evanchik]

Regarding your disparaging RH as corporate assholes.

I used to think that way about them too, until I found them to have the most functional distrobution out there.

In fact, RH is much more supportive of open xsource software standards than the "united Linux" also-rans. At least RH supplies source code. United will not.

RH, while famous in our own little Linux world, are not very corporate at all. Your larger sized supermarkets (not a chain, just a single store) have more revenue.

RH is functional and is dedicated to open-source standards.

Back in the day...

[ABetterRoss]

When I was using linux regularly, I had difficulty imagining NOT installing Ximian. The installation is smooth, and the Red Carpet upgrade process made my life an order of magnitude easier (well, easier as far as Linux was concerned, it didn't make real life any easier...).

Easy is good for veterans too (TM)

[The-Dork]

I have used Linux for over 6 years now, from the Slackware days of kernel 1.2.13. Over the years, the installation and configuration of hardware, X, desktop etc. has become easier. But package handling is still not perfect due to failed dependencies.

Although I can always figure out what the problem is sometimes I just wish that somebody would take that burden upon himself/herself to make my life easier.

Ximian installs are good since I just need to select the packages and I am ready to go, though it has failed me sometimes.

Re:Easy is good for veterans too (TM)

[GigsVT]

But package handling is still not perfect due to failed dependencies.

up2date XFree86
up2date gnome-core

For apps that are self-contained in the Red Hat installation repository, dependancies are no problem at all.

For apps that are outside the installation, but have dependancies inside the installation tree, Red Hat 8.0 will have a new feature in rpm which will tell you the name of the RPM file to fill the dependancy, not just the "whatprovides" name. This should be a help when the filename isn't always indicative of the "provides" field in the spec.

Re:Easy is good for veterans too (TM)

[loply]

I honestly cant believe that in this day and age people are still whining about dependencies.

Have you not heard of Debian before? Or Gentoo? Your argument is utterly invalid. I have been using Linux for nigh on 2 years and have not experienced a single dependency related problem, excluding the ones Ive helped RedHat users with on IRC!

Re:Easy is good for veterans too (TM)

[The-Dork]

Have you not heard of Debian before? Or Gentoo?

Why does it have to come down to a distro war? I use Redhat, i am comfortable with it but i am truthful enuff to admit that dependencies are still a problem with it, especially with library versioning.

Besides I really donot have the time nor CPU cycles to compile a whole distrbution such as Gentoo at office (though i do use it at home).

You have to understand that I am bored of tinkering around. Some things should just work now. I would like to move on to newer problems like configuring anti-aliasing rather than remaining stuck up with still trying to configure X.

Re:Easy is good for veterans too (TM)

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you fucking STUPID ? The guy is telling you gentoo solves the dependency problem. Forget DeadRat, and get Gentoo.

Re:Easy is good for veterans too (TM)

[The-Dork]

See thats your problem. You think everybody is a jerk like you are.

There is a reason why i use RedHat and I wont change just because you tell me to.

Re:Easy is good for veterans too (TM)

[joto]

Why does it have to come down to a distro war? I use Redhat, i am comfortable with it but i am truthful enuff to admit that dependencies are still a problem with it, especially with library versioning.

It's not a distro war. It's just a suggestion. RedHat does have problems with dependencies. Debian does not have problems with dependencies. Debian just works, and keeps on working, no matter how much you upgrade it. apt-get update; apt-get upgrade have never given me troubles. And it has saved me a lot of time, compared to earlier times when RedHat, Mandrake or Slackware forced me to do a reinstall every 6 months (if I wanted something new to play with). I realize that there are other reasons to like RedHat (such as commercial support (nah, probably not), or that it's the preferred target of most commercial application vendors (yes, that's really a good reason). But if solving the dependency problems are more important to you, then Debian is the way to go.

Re:Easy is good for veterans too (TM)

[Robert The Coward]

I to have been using linux in Slack 1.3.? I can't rember anymore. Well I have used on my test system just about ever Distro out there. And as long as you stick with the Default Set of App for any Distro then dependencies are fine but you go outside of those then you run into problems. You don't see it in Debian as much as Debian includes just about ever Open Source Program out there. But I have Tried to install programs that there aren't .deb for and trust me Dependecies Problems do happen in Debian.

The public won't use Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Until it's simple to use. Most people either can't, or don't, want to learn the ins and outs of an operating system. As foreign as that concept is, there are people that have interests other than puttering around, and they are just looking for a good tool.

It's like the difference between a car enthusiast who tunes up his/her own engine, and the averge joe/jane who just wants to get to work. Some people just want to go to work, and don't much care either way about an OSS revolution.

Re:The public won't use Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. There is a huge market for OSS in corporate and home user desktops - markets where eliminating the $100 Microsoft tax will sell machines. Think about it - why should a GUI OS, a word processor and a web browser NOT be a commodity item? Why do users pay $100 for this when there are OSS versions of each which could be had for free?

I don't use Linux because frankly, I can't be bothered with the mind-numbing arcana of getting a system running and usable. I tried it a few years ago, and got X working in 320 by 240. Aparently it wouldn't go any higher with my hardware, or my drivers, or my configuration.

For OSS to gain any significant marketshare it needs to be simple, easy and fast. Are there any good reasons why it can't be?

Re:The public won't use Linux

[spd_rcr]

unless it's packaged up mac OSX style. all pretty & sleek, smiles when you boot up, & a command line for kernel hacking if you want it. hey if it was open source & would run on inexpensive (non-proprietary) hardware, i'd ditch my linux & windows dualboot in a heartbeat.

Re:The public won't use Linux

[tonedevil]

I tried it a few years ago, and got X working in 320 by 240. Aparently it wouldn't go any higher with my hardware, or my drivers, or my configuration

Of course nothing has changed in the last few years and never will, no new drivers no new installation routines, so your comment is very acurate and timely.

Re:The public won't use Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, considering the article is asking "does Linux need easy-to-use installers?", I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that installing and using Linux is already very easy? If so, why was the question posed in the first place?

Re:The public won't use Linux

[Jennifer Ever]

For OSS to gain any significant marketshare it needs to be simple, easy and fast. Are there any good reasons why it can't be?

Perhaps because there's hardly any money to be made selling free software, and thus no real incentive to try to beat huge companies like MS and--to a lesser degree--Apple at their own game (i.e. making friendly GUIs for home-users who don't know how to edit text files). Many companies out there trying to make money on Linux do so by offering support services anyway--i.e. selling their knowledge of how to properly tweak all those text files for optimal performance, stability, and security. It's not entirely in their best interests to make things fast or easy. And yes, there's work being done on fancy GUIs for everything, but the market for Linux and BSD is still primarily server-centered, and the server market cares a lot less about GUIs than does the desktop market.

Additionally, most of the people developing OSS software in their free time are plenty comfortable with a CLI and probably would rather spend time improving the performance/stability of their software, rather than developing GUI wizards for every minor task.

And, in all honesty, Windows isn't that simple either. Windows 2000 takes years to install, requires downloading a few hundred MBs of patches and updates, is bitchy as far as IRQ sharing goes, etc etc etc.

Regardless, it doesn't matter whether you're going through a GUI or CLI--you still have to know what you're doing to be able to configure your system properly. Ask anyone who works in tech support--half the time, a GUI is just a nice little wizard for customers to fuck up their systems, requiring you to spend twice as long with them as you otherwise would have, as you have to undo the damage they've already done, and then take them through installation/configuration from the point they would have otherwise been at, had they stopped clicking buttons when they reached the limits of their knowledge. Lock a person in a room with a big red button labeled "don't push me" and a spiral notebook and pen that says "don't write a novel on me"--I assure you, they'll hit the button a thousand times before they touch the paper.

Definatly!

[Idimmu Xul]

Although I feel that things like this should be at the distribution level, when you install it, rather than as a seperate 'add on'.. but yes, if I have a GUI (I use Debian's GNOME2 incidently) then I really should beable to point and click, rather than bring up a console, extract the source, and do the usual and ./configure; make; make install.. people that want to tweak should beable to edit what ever script though but Ximian's Red Carpet is definatly a way to global world domination, without nuking Redmond!

Re:Definatly!

[qqtortqq]

What about apt-get? I'm sure there are GUIs for it out there.

Re:Definatly!

[joto]

Probably, but I don't see much of a reason for it. There are two operations: "apt-get update" and "apt-get upgrade". Having a GUI would mostly be like Windows (press Next to continue, Next, Next, "I agree", Next, Next, Next, Next, Next, Next, Next, Next, Finish). I never saw much of a point in that. If I could type "install -yes" in windows, I would do that as well.

Well, it's already here in a lot of ways

[billatq]

I hate having to manually install things myself, so I use gentoo linux with a nice bsd style fake ports system, so when I want to install gnome for example, I just type "emerge gnome". Personally, I find that a lot simpler than waiting for that gui client to load up and then check through a bunch of boxes. The idea is simply great though. I think debian also has a lot of this, except that the packages are too often slightly out of date. When I ran red hat, the ximian red carpet was a godsend. Personally, I think it should come standard with red hat, for all those newbies who have trouble dealing with dependencies themselves.

Re:Well, it's already here in a lot of ways

[Anonymous Coward]

forgot one thing: when you type 'emerge gnome' you will download source packages and your computer will be useless for the next 8 hours recompiling.

i just dont get the gentoo system, why dont they have i386 binary packages?

Re:Well, it's already here in a lot of ways

[mrscorpio]

Because if you want binaries, there's other distros to go with.

Plus, you can get a lot of binaries, by instead typing "emerge foo-bin"

Chris

Re:Well, it's already here in a lot of ways

[nagora]

your computer will be useless for the next 8 hours recompiling.

Go to bed!

i just dont get the gentoo system, why dont they have i386 binary packages?

Are you using a 386?

TWW

Re:Well, it's already here in a lot of ways

[aed]

Are you using a 386?

Considering the fact gnome will take 8 hours to compile on his system, he probably is...

Re:Well, it's already here in a lot of ways

[__past__]

I honestly hope that this won't end up in a flamewar, but I have a question to all gentoo-users that I wanted to ask for quite some time now.

If the outstanding feature of gentoo is its BSD-like package management, why don't you use BSD in the first place? For example, FreeBSDs ports tree is quite mature, huge (~7,300 ports last time I checked, and there isn't the distinction between libfoo and libfoo-devel common in the Linux world) and comfortable, especially with the help of portupgrade and friends.

I my understanding (as a BSD user coming from Linux) the cool thing about ports/pkgsrc/emerge is the elegance through simplicity. You just know whats going on on your system. (Try that with Windows ;) You have a chance to tweak things, and - important if you, like me, use some rather obscure packages noone else would ever think of including in a distribution - it's braindead easy to create a port/pkgsrc/whatever-gentoo-calls-it yourself.

IMHO, this elegance is found in every place of BSD systems. For example, the kernel config file is, well, just that - a simple, documented file. No make menuconfig. No xconfig. No applying loads of cool patch sets found anywhere on the net.

So, for someone who likes ports/pkgsrc/emerge, I'd say a BSD ist a cool system to use it on ;-). However, I only read comparisons between Gentoo and other Linux distros, not between Gentoo and the BSDs. Could anybody using both please share his/her opinions about the relative merits?

Re:Well, it's already here in a lot of ways

[athakur999]

your computer will be useless for the next 8 hours recompiling.
Go to bed!

Or better yet, hit ALT-F2! I've had no problems running my computer with a compile in progress (especially when you do "nice emerge").

Re:Well, it's already here in a lot of ways

[qurk]

On the contrary, I am two weeks into trying out Gentoo and have discovered that having a mostly bare naked kernel configuration to start with it takes about 1/4 to 1/5 the time it took to recompile the linux kernel as it did with distrobutions that have modules and hard-wired support for practically every computer configuration under the sun.

I don't really want i386 packages to start with, for one thing they aren't optimized for my pentium II 300 and also I've been having more success with programs getting along with each other compiling it all as I go. Also I can check out the default settings Gentoo has for the ./configure part of the install and change before installing, which has helped a few times.

Besides even with my old p2 300 cpu with 160 megs of ram I have no problem with running other programs while letting emerge download, compile, and install other things. I like to check on that virtual terminal from time to time to see what package it's finally got around to compiling but it certainly doesn't slow down mozilla, xmms, or anything else to a noticeable point :)

Re:Well, it's already here in a lot of ways

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey,

"If the outstanding feature of gentoo is its BSD-like package management, why don't you use BSD in the first place?"

I like the linux kernel, its more up to date, and I couldn't get FreeBSD installed. Every time I installed, following the directions as best could, and it never once worked. I had gentoo installed the first time I tried.

Maybe I was doing something wrong, but 5 tries installing, with FreeBSD 4.3 and 4.4 (two different images of 4.4 incase there was a problem with burning), and it didn't work, that just made me not like it.

Meh, I've been happy with Gentoo, it does what I want. Besides, I think Tux is a cooler mascot than that FreeBSD devil.

Re:Well, it's already here in a lot of ways

[billatq]

Perhaps a bit late to respond, but I'm a linux user coming from BSD. I like the ports system, it does indeed have more ports than gentoo does, and the kernel is indeed faster. However, some things simply don't work properly with FreeBSD, i.e. Nvidia kernel modules. I'm sure they're on the way, but I want them on my system now like everyone else. I like new software, ports is fairly quick but sometimes things nearly take forever to update. Last time I looked, vmware workstation still had version 2 in ports. Now, I can't really complain to the maintainters that much as they have their hands full porting things but I want certain software and I want it on my machine. Openoffice was still broken last time I checked, and before you go and say 'well why are you using that', let us not forget that you have to stay compatible with the people that use microsoft office crap. I want to be able to just grab something, compile it from source and have it run. Most of the time, this just doesn't happen with BSD. It's a great operating system, wonderful for servers and things, but not necessarily the desktop.

Ximian Rules....

[reaper20]

If the Ximian release of gnome2.0 is anything like their 1.4 release, we should really be in for a treat. They manage that slick easy to use polish without dumbing everything down. My only complaint is the 'doorman' or whatever it's called goes a little bit too newbieish.

Other than that, I always point users to the Ximian stuff, especially if they're coming from windows. It doesn't behave like windows, but it's set up really professionally.

My complaint is this: Why aren't distro's packaging ximian gnome as the default gnome distro? We all know Redhat kind of ignores the linux desktop, concentrating on the server stuff. If I was them, I'd package ximian and have an instant polished gnome desktop. Redhat employs enough gnome hackers, that in a sense, they're already subsidizing the cost of Ximian gnome anyway.

Not to take anything away from the RH gnome install, but why reinvent the wheel, Ximian has done most of the work already.

And I think everyone agrees that jimmnac and tigert could be the best linux artists anywhere ... droolworthy work from those two.

Re:Ximian Rules....

[battery841]

Ximian and Red Hat, in some ways, are competitors on two fronts.

First, Red Hat provides the Red Hat Network which is a competitor to Ximian's Red Carpet CorporateConnect.

Second, Red Hat provides "priority downloads" with the Red Hat Network, so you can download packages from Red Hat faster. Ximian on the other hand, offers Red Carpet Express to help speed up Red Carpet downloads.

Re:Ximian Rules....

[I_redwolf]

My complaint is this: Why aren't distro's packaging ximian gnome as the default gnome distro? We all know Redhat kind of ignores the linux desktop, concentrating on the server stuff. If I was them, I'd package ximian and have an instant polished gnome desktop. Redhat employs enough gnome hackers, that in a sense, they're already subsidizing the cost of Ximian gnome anyway.

Not to take anything away from the RH gnome install, but why reinvent the wheel, Ximian has done most of the work already.

Ximian is a company with a product, that product being Ximian Gnome. It's not freely available to be packaged without the consent of Ximian. If RedHat agreed to this they would then become Ximian's whipping boy. What would be smart of Redhat to do is acquire Ximian and make it it's desktop division if they think the desktop is going to go somewhere; then we can yell and scream about how RedHat is like Microsoft. Anyway the whole acquistion process would have to take place now as Redhat risk losing market and mind share to Ximian. Ximian would gain a foothold if they decided to do their own Linux Distribution just to make things easier for themselves and not having to support all the other distro's out there (this would also mean they would have to grow and likely lose focus on what they are good at). The primary people who use Ximian are also the primary people that would switch. So to make a long story short if Linux on the Desktop is coming then Ximian will have everyone by the balls in a corporate sense; but for right now you just play your position and you play it well and that is what RedHat and Ximian are doing. Obviously people will still be able to choose KDE, XFCE, Enlightenment 17 whatever else there is and for the people that don't use DE's then Window Managers etc or just the command line.

Re:Ximian Rules....

[I_redwolf]

Oh by the way.. the above is what a free market is about.. One company doing what they are good at really well and another one doing something they are good at really well.. Mergers have taken the place of general scientific/public discussion of ideas in places like forums. So you get a little bit more bottom line, cut more people outta a job and a less quality product. Gotta love CEO's and the board.

Re:Ximian Rules....

[Knuckles]

It's not freely available to be packaged without the consent of Ximian.

It's all GPL, 'nuff said. OTOH, it wouldn't be a /nice move/ to do it without consent

Re:Ximian Rules....

[I_redwolf]

No.. Gnome is GPL, the stuff Ximian adds to Gnome might be GPL; lets say it all is. Ximian is trademarked and if Redhat is using Ximian Gnome in it's products then there has to be consent from Ximian, then Ximian could decide to allow Redhat to do so or not.

Re:Ximian Rules....

[Knuckles]

Everything is GPL so far, except Ximian Connector. IANAL, but I'd think you are right that RH can't call it "Ximian Gnome" if they use it.

Re:Ximian Rules....

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if its all GPL, then couldn't RH just use Ximian's code, repackage it and use it as the default install? Its simmilar to Mandrake using RH as the basis for their distrobution (i think, anyways).

Re:Ximian Rules....

[JCCyC]

My complaint is this: Why aren't distro's packaging ximian gnome as the default gnome distro?

There's this, but I don't know if anybody made a RH 7.3 version.

Flexibility Is Key

[MasterOfMagic]

I agree that wizards are good for people that don't know the basics about configuring packages and programs. They are a good way to get people to use software that they might not otherwise may be able to set up properly. However, wizards often suffer from WYSIAYG (What You See Is All You've Got). If a setting that may be important for a small number of users is left out of a wizard, then you hinder their ability to configure. However, general GUI configuration utilities are good too. For example, SWAT is a great example of a GUI configuration utility that is not a wizard.

While graphical is good for beginners and some advanced users, you also should provide flexibility. Configuration files were made to be edited by hand! This is why Linux is so popular, flexibility. By hiding configuration behind a wizard and storing that configuration in a proprietary, non-text format like some large software vender who shall remain nameless, configuration files provide for flexibility. Not to mention that big configuration files (sendmail.cf for example) allow the user to learn from their mistakes, and it is a right of passage to set up one correctly for the first time. It used to be the same for X, but now with all of the wizards (which don't work on all new cards :-)), people don't have to learn to use their computer.

Re:Flexibility Is Key

[Pengo]

Configuration files were made to be edited by hand! This is why Linux is so popular, flexibility. By hiding configuration behind a wizard and storing that configuration in a proprietary, non-text format like some large software vender who shall remain nameless, configuration files provide for flexibility. Not to mention that big configuration files (sendmail.cf for example) allow the user to learn from their mistakes, and it is a right of passage to set up one correctly for the first time. It used to be the same for X, but now with all of the wizards (which don't work on all new cards :-)), people don't have to learn to use their computer.

This is exactly why Linux is NOT popular. I would hardly say that most people want to sit and jack around with config files. If you want the flexibility , install from the source.. but it's going to be efforts like Red Carpet that take Linux to the masses, not the continued 'Flexibility' you speak of.

When Linux can breach 25% of the desktop market on the merit of this flexibility you speak of, I will eat my words.

Re:Flexibility Is Key

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that flexibility is key, but in order to success in the Desktop there should be a standard!! A la unitedlinux, LSB, and so on.

This is the new trail

Really old -> Spectrum -> Amstrad -> PC (MSDOS) -> Windows 3.1 -> Windows 95 and Linux 0.99 slackware -> Linux 2.X (redhat) -> Suse, Mandrake, Debian.. what FS? XFS, ReiserFS.. oh men! Let move to FreeBSD! Cool!!! Still there is something missing here... my new Sony PDA does not work!!! Ok let's move to Apple OS X

The answer is Apple!

Do not waste time reading howto.. just count the hours spend * you potential value = $$$$$$$$

Re:Flexibility Is Key

[Andrew Allan]

I hope for your sake, that you print out your words before you eat them. Otherwise, chewing on your screen is going to be mighty painful...

Re:Flexibility Is Key

[Rutulian]

Whoa there! Did you read the parent post or did you just see "edit config files by hand" and immediately jump on the "Linux can only be used by elitist computer snobs bandwagon." The parent was saying that gui config tools are GOOD. But he also said that the text config file should remain behind if you want to edit it by hand; I have to agree.

Due to their nature, gui config tools can only provide a subset of all possible configuration options and remain intuitive and easy to use. If you need to do some advanced configuration you are better off with a plain, well-commented, easy to read text file that you can edit with a simple text editor. If you insist on trying to make everything graphical you will end up with unmanageable behemoth that is the Windows registry.

Re:Flexibility Is Key

[martinflack]

Configuration files were made to be edited by hand! This is why Linux is so popular, flexibility. ....

This is exactly why Linux is NOT popular. I would hardly say that most people want to sit and jack around with config files. ....

You know, I hate to say it but I think you're both right. The existing popularity of Linux is due to its stability, and much of that stability comes from traits it picks up from Unix brethren. That includes smaller separated programs and data transparency (both in input/output and configuration). Transparent configuration means, almost by definition, text file configuration. I happen to love it.

But Pengo is taking the word "popularity" as a measure of abolute popularity, and he's correct, the "masses" can't handle text file configuration.

I don't really see any need for change though. If Linux is an OS run by text file configuration, for which you can access a smart GUI wizard _if you want to_, then IMHO we will create the greatest OS in all time. And that seems to be the way we're going. I'll tell you right now how I would treat that - I would have a handful of configurations that are very important to me, like httpd.conf, smb.conf, named.conf, etc. that I will insist on hand-editing and make it my business to know all the commands for, and then I'll just use whatever's convenient for all the rest. For maintaining my web servers at work I need to know exactly what's in the config's, but when I come home and configure my home X server for casual use, I sure as hell don't need to edit the file, I'm happy to use a wizard.

The difference is in the importance of that app to me. Note that, for example, to other users Apache will be a side item and so they will not open httpd.conf but use a GUI for that.

Ahh. Freedom from registry bullshit but with the convenience of clickety-click when I choose it. Let's all join hands and sing Kumbaya...

Re:Flexibility Is Key

[gosand]

...now with all of the wizards..., people don't have to learn to use their computer.

Not everyone wants to learn to use their computer, they just want to use it. That is a huge difference, and one that is keeping Linux off the desktop. I recently built a new computer for my parents, and I was *this* close to installing Linux on it instead of Win98. But they use it to email, look at pictures, check their stock prices, and surf the net a little. That's it. It was hard enough switching them over from Netscape 4.72 to Opera 6.02. I still get statements like "Well, it wasn't like that before", or "this just isn't what I am used to".

I have a Windows and a Linux machine, and I spend much more time on the Linux machine (it is always running). I only boot up Windows when I want to play a game, or get pics off my digital camera because I haven't gotten gphoto to work with my camera yet. But I don't expect everyone to want to tweak around with Linux. You shouldn't either, and neither should the developers. The great thing is that we recognize this as a fault, and some people, different types of people with different ideas, can try to solve it. I don't mind the pretty gui install that came with Redhat 7.3. I liked that it was easy to install. Sometimes I like to have my hand held, and other times I like to compile things and mess with config files. The beauty of Linux systems is that you have the option. As long as distros have both options, tech and non tech configurations, I will be happy.

Re:Flexibility Is Key

[Reziac]

I hate wizards exactly for the reason noted -- they usually only know one way to do things. But GUI config tools are another matter. Here's a concept I've been waggling that I wish someone would grab and run with:

A configuration manager that has a GUI with the checkboxes and such suitable for new users, while *simultaneously* displaying the actual result in the config file that is actually being edited.

That way, as a new linux user, I can get the config job done without tearing out the last of my rapidly-greying hair, while *learning* (by being shown what I really just did) how to hand-edit that config file, if I so choose.

You know how Dreamweaver 4.0 updates both WYSIWYG and raw HTML windows as you type in either window? So even if you don't know the first thing about HTML syntax, you have *opportunity* to learn as much about it as you wish, just by watching the raw HTML display of what you just typed. Anyway, what I have in mind is something like that, except that the user would only be "typing" (selecting checkbox options or whatever) in the GUI part.

Alas, IANAProgrammer. (But when/if this ever flies, I *am* "the beta tester who can break anything" :)

Re:Flexibility Is Key

[slank]

These two things are not mutually exclusive:

• Configuration files were made to be edited by hand! This is why Linux is so popular, flexibility.
• I would hardly say that most people want to sit and jack around with config files

Creating a more organized and standardized way of formatting config files (anyone heard on something called "XML"?) would help programmers, users, *and* lusers.

Imagine a human-readable, programatically-ediable, self-documenting config file. Might make installers and package managers a little easier to write.

Re:Flexibility Is Key

[MasterOfMagic]

I would hardly say that most people want to sit and jack around with config files. If you want the flexibility , install from the source.. but it's going to be efforts like Red Carpet that take Linux to the masses, not the continued 'Flexibility' you speak of.

You make a single assumption: that I think GUI tools and wizards are bad. I'm not saying that they're bad, but I am saying that they hide options that are important for flexibility. Wizards are good for people that have never used a piece of software before, or that do not care about learning that piece of software. (In the MS world, that seems to be about 75% of the users, hence the reason that wizards are so popular in that world.) GUI tools are, indeed, very helpful, however, many projects take this a step to far and make is so that you have to use all GUI tools to configure an application, or have to go out of the way to learn a specific "registry key" or edit a certain hex value at an offset in a binary file. This is what is bad.

Furthermore, wizards hide many things that are important. Can you imagine a wizard interface to all of the options in sendmail.cf? In this case, it may not be viable. In this case, text files are very useful for configuring.

"Flexibility" is a very generic term. Linux is very useful because of it's flexibility, which should be preserved. Yes, wizards are a part of flexibility, but don't count on me using them. I would launch into a long list of ways the flexibility of Linux is used, but that would make me a Linux bigot/zealot/karma whore. I'm sure that many Fortune 500 companies didn't choose Linux for servers and workstations because of "that thar' wizard thing".

Re:Flexibility Is Key

[MasterOfMagic]

There is a single standard. It's called ./configure. Yes, this means that you have to compile from source. It's not that hard. I feel that if you get a compiler for free with your operating system, you should use it.

For the desktop, I agree there should be a standard, and that is educating people in how to use their computer. The reason people have problems with computers is because they don't have to learn to use them. Of course, I am probalby feeding the troll, but I feel it needs to be said: next time a friend/girlfriend/brother/sister/mom/dad/relative/ complete stranger asks you for computer help, try to teach them something. Trust me, it's easier that whacking them with a clue-by-for constantly.

Re:Flexibility Is Key

[tuxedo-steve]

Configuration files were made to be edited by hand! This is why Linux is so popular, flexibility. By hiding configuration behind a wizard and storing that configuration in a proprietary, non-text format like some large software vender who shall remain nameless, configuration files provide for flexibility.

There is absolutely no reason why we can't have the best of both worlds in this regard.

Linux should have configuration wizards. It will make it more accessible and easier to use for those less inclined to hack configurations themselves. But these configuration wizards should write to a well-documented text configuration file. There is no good reason to write to a closed binary configuration file, and equally there is no good reason not to make wizards available to those who would use them.

There's no trade-off necessary here. We can have the best of both worlds.

Re:Flexibility Is Key

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people don't need to run sendmail at all. Making it easy to configure doesn't change that fact. Most users should have a very simple mta that just forwards to the appropriate, always-online, not-another-open-relay, mail server that their ISP provides. Whoever administers that ISPs mail server might be in a better position to appreciate editable configuration files.

Re:Flexibility Is Key

[Pengo]

Dude, your definition of easy software is wizards? You misunderstood what I am saying. Intututive software is what we need, and not needing to dig around in text files.

Again, this elitist attutude is not helping anybody.

Making it easier..

[iONiUM]

Isn't that just trying to make the interface easier to use? I believe then you're attempting to compete (in the -COMMON- market) with OSX, and Windows.
In my opinion, that's not what linux is about. It's an incredible server solution, and a desktop solution for those with enough knowledge to know how to use it. Making it install easier won't help them learn make, .confs or anything, and they'll be just as lost when trying to make and install some program that doesn't have a nice install.
Linux is great, don't get me wrong, but it's not for the common user, it was never meant to be I don't think. It's much more of a "geek" OS... easier installs would be nice though, but I don't think they'll attract a huge amount of new users to it..

Re:Making it easier..

[Maggot75]

Great troll there.
"Let's just keep Linux for the nerds!" Had me going there for a bit.

Re:Making it easier..

[loply]

Hes right though. I dont think you can "have everything". Do we want this to be a hardcore, technical OS which is therefore highly powerfull and flexible - or - do we want to dumb it down so that its configuration and use is accessible to all and therefore less powerfull.

Nobody has ever achieved both of these to any great extent in one OS. I dont think its possbile to have Linux style power with Windows style newbie-friendlieness (note: newbie friendly != user friendly).

Re:Making it easier..

[loply]

Edit:
(Atleast, not in one distrobution).

Re:Making it easier..

[Maggot75]

Well, I have to say that I disagree, to a certain extent. Ease of configuration and use does not make a system less powerful.
Granted, it's going to take time to implement a GUI-driven configuration, but I think this is time well spent. I'm not implying that Alan Cox or Linus Torvalds should stop all other work to do that; I just think that efforts such as Ximian are a great contribution to Linux as everyone's operating system.

Re:Making it easier..

[foregather]

I think that Red Carpet shows exactly how it is possible to have one distro that is easy, powerfull, and flexible; no one is saying get rid of the command line, we just want a GUI that wraps around the command line so well that we never have to know it exists. That way if I need to do more than my GUI program has pull down menus for I can just use the command line or disable the "start X at boot" option but if I don't have the knowledge to get Linux running and no inclination or time to learn that knowledge I can just boot up Gnome and have is work from day one.

Re:Making it easier..

[xtremex]

I agree, look at SMIT on AIX...perfection of system configuration

Re:Making it easier..

[ezberry]

Mac OSX achieved both power and ease-of-use/newbie-friendliness. It's got the perty Aqua interface that couldn't confuse anyone and the whole BSD core beneath it. In fact, OSX is exactly a technical OS that is easy to use.New users won't have any idea what they can do with a terminal while experienced users may work solely from the BSD side.

Re:Making it easier..

[Reziac]

Why does it have to be an either/or situation? Just because a method that's easier for average users (including newbies) is *available* doesn't necessarily mean the OS is "dumbed down".

Frex, in Windows I can either use TweakUI (handy GUI that present options in a format the average user can understand) or RegEdit (hand-edit where you REALLY need to know exactly what you're doing -- anyone here want to claim the registry is "dumbed down"??); in DRDOS, I can configure the system by using the installer configuration doodad, which makes config decisions easy for newbies, or I can hand-edit the config files myself (again, needing to know what I'm doing) and achieve the exact same end result.

Now, if DOS and Win32 can both manage this, why not linux??

I swear, the real problem is linux bigots who measure their self-worth by the degree of superiority they feel because THEY can handle an abstruse OS, but lowly average folk can't.

Re:Making it easier..

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, making systems more accessible frequently does mean making them less powerful. This is a function of the way in which peoples' minds work...

A computer program is designed on the whole in order to support a human being in executing a task in order to reach a given goal, itself made up of subgoals. That necessarily means that in order to design this program, the software designer needs to come to an understanding of how the so-called 'typical' user tackles that task; what subgoals do they identify when faced with the given goal?

Okay, so this is basic design theory; but the point is, the software is not supporting merely a goal (except in a few rather radical cases) but a progression of steps leading to a certain goal. This means that anything that is not considered to be a sensible method of progression by the 'guinea pig' users brought into the design process is unlikely to be supported. As we all know, naive users are unaware of the potential of any given piece of software. Therefore, that software, when made as usable as possible, has explicitly had the 'unnecessary' and complex chopped away, replaced by defaults and assumptions on the designer's part.

So yes, ease of use and GUI configuration generally does make a system less powerful. Like it or not, pico or vi and the command line are about as flexible as it gets; cutting down on your options (progressing directly, say via control-z, from /etc/hosts.allow to /etc/passwd, because you just thought of something to do... quite common, but can you imagine a GUI in which that's just a keyclick away? Then imagine a GUI which links in EVERY POSSIBLE sane fashion from system access permissions to everything else... it isn't happening).

Bear in mind that people link between subgoals (and identify them) very differently depending on their specific knowledge and understanding of the task they're attempting to carry out. That's a fact. It's annoying for a system designer but the fact remains that each user has a sane reason to be doing it the way they do. Now, you might argue that everybody should just learn the same way of doing things, and you might be right, but in all reality computers just aren't that simple.

Sorry to bother sniping at you here, I'm just tired of so-called specialists in the subject of usability (not you, others who have studied the field and should know better) advocating a Windows-Style Everything for 'usability reasons'. I study this stuff for a living, and believe me, if it were really as simple as making wizard-style interfaces then my grant would dry up faster than you can say "ohshit".

Re:Making it easier..

[Maggot75]

It's okay. I don't disagree with you, not at all. I'm just saying that there may be a good reason for you to have a grant at all. :)
I hope I never came across as advocating for a GUI for everything. I just think there are very many mindless UNIX tasks that can and should be easily shortcut via the use of a more effective user interface, be it graphical or not.
It could well be my misconception, I left Linux behind three years ago when my box became too outdated to run everything that I wanted, it may well be that Linux has caught up.

No

[M&amp;M]

Do you believe that all Linux distributions should use such a friendly series of dialog boxes in order to attract more users to Linux?

No. I don't think all distributions should include such dialog boxes. Not all users want all the hand holding. There should be different distributions for different types of users.

I'm not comfortable on a Red Hat or Mandrake box because I like to do things myself. On the other hand, those who just want to "do stuff" wouldn't be comfortable with a Slackware or Debian box.

Just my opinion

Re:No

[spudnic]

I'm curious, what exactly can't you do yourself on a Red Hat box?

Just because they include some tools to try and be helpful to regular users doesn't mean that you have to take advantage of them. I can configure my install to do just what I want. If I'm setting up a server, it gets no X at all. No fluff. There is no problem in hand editing any configuration files. No problem installing anything out there. You're not restricted in any way that I can see.

You made the statement, so please tell me, what task does Red Hat force you to use their tools to accomplish it rather than doing it yourself?

Re:No

[M&amp;M]

I'm curious, what exactly can't you do yourself on a Red Hat box?

Okay, you're right. It probably wasn't a totally fair comment. But I seem to recall that most config files in Red Hat say at the top "Do not edit." I could be wrong (am probably am), as it has been a long time since I have used Red Hat. I simply didn't like it.

But, my basic opinion remains the same: not all users want all the hand-holding. For those that do, I think the efforts being made are great. But for those that don't, well, we don't that stuff forced on us. Therefore, not all distributions should include them.

That's all I was trying to say. I apologize for not saying it clearly.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

It is my experience that RedHat (I haven't used it since 6.0 though) and some other GUI oriented dists want you to use the GUI tools and therefore the config files are sometimes not as readable as a more hardcore dist such as Slackware. But that's just my opinion! :-)

KISS and the GUI M$ approach

[Devoras]

Keep It Simple Stupid! The more transparency to hide more of the detailed options from the users will help, especially considering I just installed WinXP onto a machine (as a test - to see what all the fuss was about) and it was a breeze. M$ may make crap operating systems, but they do know how to make good interfaces (maybe I should have stayed awake during my first year HCI lectures). But the option of hiding all the 'difficult' settings shouldn't come at the price of not letting the more knowledgeable user from being able to access those functions that are hidden, i.e. take WinXP vs. Win2k user accounts, hmmm lets go from multple user options to two -> 'root' and 'user', they hid so much stuff they lost it (a bit like their ethical backbone i suppose). Remember guys, KISS!

Re:KISS and the GUI M$ approach

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi! I'm Devoras and while I had the balls to admit I installed XP to the /. crowd, what I fail to mention is that I didn't bother to RTFM, so to speak.

What I should have done was to right-click on "My Computer" and select "Manage".

Wow! I found the Microsoft Management Console! Oh, and look... no wizards to help me! Spoon!

what happen to slashdot we love of the past??

[Anonymous Coward]

that's 2 years now slashdot's been really borin. two years since anythin interestin every been on it and i read it every day!!!

Great, but has its downside

[warmcat]

Installing Ximian is sticky in the same way that Installing an updated IE on a Windows system reached in and changed operating system components.

I had Ximian on Redhat 7.3, then when I upgraded to the Limbo beta the installation notes warned of dire conflicts between unnamed ximian RPMs and recommended removing Ximian from the machine.

There is no option I could find to roll back Ximian, the same way that there was no option to roll back an IE upgrade on Windows.

In the end I used GnoRPM to nuke eavery rpm with .ximian in the name and was able to successfully update to Limbo. But it ate a couple of days threshing around.

Worth bearing in mind that Ximian is a major brain transplant for your OS and that may have impacts later. But on the positive side, it was very slick and the red carpet thing was nice.

But I am happier with the stuff in Limbo, it rocks!

Re:Great, but has its downside

[chabotc]

The easiest way to do this (disclaimer: only do this when upgrading your distro or the like, restoring it all by hand would be a nightmare!)

# rpm -e `rpm -qa | grep ximian` --nodeps

This will remove any package with 'ximian' in the name from your system. (Used my self it more often then i'd like to)

If only ximian had a 'restore original configuration' option in redcarpet, then i wouldnt be so afraid of using it! I love ximian gnome, their gnome2 snapshots and all their polish, but the idea that upgrading or changing my instalation is gonna be a nightmare is a showstopper for me.

Re:Great, but has its downside

[mickwd]

Be VERY careful if you're doing this, and realise what it's doing.

What if you had some distro-installed library packages which Ximian came in and updated? If you do the "rpm -e ... --nodeps" trick above, those libraries will be removed. Any non-Ximian programs which happened to rely on those libraries (but which worked fine with the updated library versions Ximian provided) will no longer work, since you've removed those libraries and not replaced them with anything.

This is a good way to "break" a lot of your favourite programs.

Re:Great, but has its downside

[sd4l]

Something like:

rpm -qa|grep ximian|xargs rpm -e

Should have done it and saved you a couple of days (you may have to add a --nodeps on the end, haven't actually needed to try it (wanted a fresh install for RH7.3 as I needed to install new HD anyway)).

rpm -qa : queries all RPMs installed and gets a list

grep ximian : only show RPMs containing ximian in the name

xargs rpm -e : for each RPM found, erase it.

monkey see monkey do?

[anoopa]

Just cause Ximian does what they do (and very well I may add) doesn't mean all of linux has to (imho).
Ximian could just be the base for a public distro (?) with it's ease of use, slick look, and great design (it still has some quirks though which need to be ironed out).

I've used the ximian desktop, red carpet, and evolution and love them all!!! I had this setup running at home for my parents and they loved it, had to run doze after sometime since they needed to use a doze program for some exam (and no I don't have enough resources to run wine : )

Ranting on...I wish there was Dreamweaver for the pengbox and I'd have no problem getting the boss to approve pengboxs as desktops at work.

ease of use

[alexc]

i feel that ximian has been doing some good stuff to make linux easier to use. they have ximian setup tools which can help many end users. By making system configuration easier, i think it might help linux grow on the desktop

Back to Dos

[RebelTycoon]

Do you believe that all Linux distributions should use such a friendly series of dialog boxes in order to attract more users to Linux?

I think that it is vital that we keep the FUD about Linux being difficult to configure and setup true. I mean, why make it easier for end users, if they aren't geeks and contributing to the OS community, do we care?

Wizards are for weenies... That is why evil Bill uses them so heavily, its not to make it easier for people to use his software... Its to limit feature creep... If you can guide the user right down the hall and not have him looking into each office along the way, you can reduce testing costs, less security etc.

Damn, I hope Linux will start having more Wizards... It saves so much time and gives users a feeling of satisfaction and confidence... and with the Cancel button always there, a way to back out should they become concerned.

What a dumb question to ask... Should we make software easier to use..

Yes!!!!!!!!

I got rid of Ximian

[Greyfox]

I had a couple of major problems with Ximian's distribuion of gnome and ended up taking it off my system. Way back when, it corrupted the RPM database on a machine I was using. Though I found a few posts on the web about the problem, which was apparently due to an upgrade of RPM, no one had any solutions. I finally ended up formatting the system and installing Debian. Another time I installed it on Debian then later wanted to remove it to go back to the "Standard" version of Gnome. Removing Ximian and its assorted package dependencies turned out to be no easy task. So now I avoid Ximian. Apt-get does just about everything red carpet does anyway.

Of course, I wouldn't ask my Mom to use apt-get. I'd put it in a cron job for her.

That last question...

[wrinkledshirt]

Do you believe that all Linux distributions should use such a friendly series of dialog boxes in order to attract more users to Linux?

Actually, the type of interface is less important to me -- I'd just be happy if it were all done the same. In the end, I think what's keeping users away from Linux isn't the pretty boxes so much as the feeling that there's WAY too much to learn. Ximian can only go so far to remedy that.

Definitely

[aelfwyne]

There is nothing wrong, IMHO, with making anything easier to install. In almost any case, there are going to be failsafe defaults that the distro/application *could* use. Forcing the user to choose between numerous options that he/she may not have any clue about without getting online (typically with a Win machine, if the OS isn't setup yet) and reading FAQs, is most likely going to deter the user from using Linux/BSD, etc, for very long.

As for those who say they want to be able to know what is going on in their OS -- That's why you click the "Advanced" box that should always be supplied, silly.

Of course, the caveat on my post is that the link appears to have already been slashdotted, or is otherwise unavailable from my location... and so I haven't actually seen how Ximian does it, but ANY attempt to make things easier to get going with X is a good attempt in my book.

Correction

[JoshuaDFranklin]

TuxReports has snapshots of the Ximian installer.

TuxReports had snapshots of the Ximian installer.

Re:Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

Just go here rather than through the modules.php of PostNuke.

http://www.tuxreports.com/xim_slashdot.html

There were over 3900 sessions for the MySQL database. So, it was faster to put this up.

Hope it helps.

Installation and setup/configuration for new users

[phaxkolumbo]

Obligatory gnome/KDE-comparison follows...

KDE has a quite nice 'first-run' dialog, which explains and configures the basics of KDE (ie. theme, mouse behavior, visual effects etc.).

I've seen newcomers pick KDE up quite easily and make it 'their own' because of that small customization wizard. I wish more software had these 'wizards', no matter how hard you hate the term. And yes, i wish gnome 2 had that too... it took me a while to get my desktop going.

and it helps me learn!

[snowdropper]

I agree. I have only been using Linux for half a year, but one of the main reasons was that I wanted to be able to know exactly what was happening in the OS. Probably what I like best though, is that there is a challenge element in there, if I want my OS to do something, I know it can be done, but it requires me having to learn something new in order to accomplish it - so by not making everything automated and accessible by clicking a button it's helping to extend my knowledge of the system itself. That can't be a bad thing can it?

KDE needs this badly

[WCMI92]

I've been using Linux for the past 3 years. Love it dearly. I used to use Ximian GNOME, but have come to prefer the more mature and cleaner GUI of KDE (personal preference, NOT intended as a flame). Unfortunately, KDE is very hard, at least in my experience, to upgrade. I've used Red Hat and Mandrake distros, and have settled into using Red Hat mostly. I've never sucessfully upgraded a KDE installation on my box. Yes, I should try harder to learn how to do it, but I usually wait for another distro to come out with the upgraded version. Seeing as how painless Ximian GNOME is to install and to maintain/upgrade, I see no reason why KDE shouldn't have something similar. This is KDE's greatest weakness, IMHO.

Re:KDE needs this badly

[WildBeast]

mod him up. This is so true, I usually prefer KDE better but when new versions of KDE and GNOME come out, I always manage to easily and successfull upgrade GNOME but KDE on the other hand, I don't think I've ever managed to upgrade it. But sure enough their's usually a new version of Mandrake that comes out a little while later bundled with the newest KDE version. So I download it and voilà everything is installed and ready to go.

Yeah you can call me dumb if you want, but if I can't upgrade KDE properly I'm sure that many others can't either. Do I really have to install a new Linux distribution every time a new version of KDE comes out? That's kinda ridiculous.

Re:KDE needs this badly

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't ever been able to succesfully upgrade KDE either. I had my first experience configuring mandrake 8.0 to work with a usb dsl modem, and that took me two weeks to finally get working. It was ultimately satisfying that I got it all hooked up, and was on the internet, but the average computer user I would think has no patience for this kind of troubleshooting. People just want their machines to work. I haven't upgraded my system since then because it is just too hard.....

Re:KDE needs this badly

[mickwd]

[ Warning: RPM-specific ]

Yes, i know there should be an easier way for newbies. Inexperienced users should have a simpler way to install/update KDE.

But I'm constantly amazed by the number of people who profess to be experienced Linux users who have difficulty with something like this. Jesus, is it so difficult to grasp that "programs" depend on libraries? Especially when the RPM installer tells you exactly what dependencies are not being met.

I don't want to just add another whinge to this argument, so here's how I update KDE with RPM (on Mandrake), in the hope some-one out there will find it useful:

Treat the KDE packages as three different levels of package:
- the support libraries (including libqt* and (lib)arts*);
- the central/base package (kdebase* and kdelibs*);
- all the other kde* packages.

Download all the packages into one directory (say /download/kde).

Install the library/support packages first (including the devel packages, if you want them). When installed, move the packages into another directory (say /download/kde/done).

Then install the central kdebase* and kdelibs* packages. Move them to the other directory (/download/kde/done).

Then install the others (with rpm -Uvh *.rpm, or whatever, from /download/kde).

If you're updating, either upgrade all the packages together, or upgrade as above with "--nodeps --replacefiles", or do it the hard way:
rpm -qa|grep kde
rpm -ev [each of the KDE packages]
- leaving kdelibs* and kdebase* until last
Then upgrade/install the new packages.

Of course, on Mandrake, you could also use the badly-underestimated 'urpmi' command. But that would be too easy........ ;)

Jesus, is this really so difficult?

Re:KDE needs this badly

[chowells]

I'm working on an installer, see http://mail.kde.org/~howells/kalypso for some very preliminary screenshots.

Unfortunately the amount of fragmentation in the Linux distro market makes this kind of thing bery difficult to achieve without running your own download server, although hopefully we'll manage with some apt4rpm stuff. (I really need to write an essay on why RPM sucks sometime).

Re:KDE needs this badly

[Anonymous Coward]

"These are just some front end screen shots. The back-end doesn't do anything useful yet."

Oh my... that is a truly great summary of the entire KDE project ins just two sentences. Koffice in particular - screen shots, nothing useful.

Perhaps one day, you KDE boys will stop publishing screen shots to impress newbies and/or idiots (like slashdot editors) and actualyl do the hard work in the back-end.

tasty tarballs

[berb]

nah, I love the smell of tarballs in the morinig, smells like compilin'

Re:tasty tarballs

[Anonymous Coward]

tux don't surf

Take a note from Apple

[dowobeha]

I run a Mandrake box. My wife has on OS X laptop. No point for guessing which system is easier to install new software on (hint - it's not the one that has an AMD inside).

I love Linux. I love GNU. I love open source software.

But my next machine will be a Mac.Why?

Because package management is a breeze. I don't have to know the difference between /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin. Because I can drag a program I'm tired of to the trash can.. Because I can go to one location - the Applications folder - to find any new program I install. Or, if it's a command-line app, I can go to one location - /bin - for everything.

If the open source community wants to know how break into the desktop market, look no further than Mac OS X. Whether you like the system or not, in OS X is a *nix system that has a highly user friendly interface, excellent graphic-based package management, and all the other bells and whistles that the mass desktop market craves.

Re:Take a note from Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

...go to one location - /bin - for everything... ...how break into the desktop market...

Sounds more like they broke *nix to me.

Re:Take a note from Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny.

Linux Bitches call it *NIX

UNIX folk call it UN*X.

I think I know which one you are...

Re:Take a note from Apple

[SirRichardPumpaloaf]

Actually, OS X does the /bin /sbin /usr/bin /usr/sbin thing pretty much the same way as any other unix I've seen. The original poster is confused.

Re:Take a note from Apple

[garcia]

I am so sick and fucking tired of hearing this.

Why? Because as much as we all love MacOS X, how wonderful its GUI is, how fast it is, that is Unix based, etc, it does NOT run on i386.

Unfortunately I will most likely never be able to afford a closed hardware system like Apple. Their machines are great, their OS is finally great, but that still doesn't allow me the freedom of CHOICE, less expensive hardware, etc.

Macs are great and all but Mr. J is just as bad as Billy.

Re:Take a note from Apple

[dowobeha]

I stand corrected. Guess I've just never had the need to look beyond /bin and /Applications. :)

But then again, that's the point for a lot of desktop users. They don't want to have to mess with the more obscure file locations to find apps, and the fact that I didn't even need to know that those app dirs were hiding there is a testiment to how well Apple has the system set up.

Re:Take a note from Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

w00t! for you. You must be Slowaris admin then...

Re:Take a note from Apple

[dowobeha]

I didn't say "Buy an Mac." I said to take a note from their book.

I personally like Macs. I know others don't. But either way, you're missing the point.

Mac OS X has a good, solid, easy-to-use interface. I wish that I could say the same of GNU/Linux.

KDE, Gnome, rpm, ... They all are improving. I would encourage anyone who wants Linux to have a better foothold in the market of the average desktop user to look at Mac OS X. See what works. See what doesn't. Then try to incorporate the good parts of the OS X user experience into KDE, Gnome, Linux, etc.

Hope that helps...

Re:Take a note from Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah you have the freedom of choice to choose between AMD or Intel. Big deal.

Re:Take a note from Apple

[spektr]

Because I can drag a program I'm tired of to the trash can.. Because I can go to one location - the Applications folder - to find any new program I install.

Does that mean that OS X applications don't use any shared libraries? Sounds like 1990. Or do they put a hell lot of hard work into their package-management to let everything fit together? Sounds like Debian.

Re:Take a note from Apple

[FooBarWidget]

"Or, if it's a command-line app, I can go to one location - /bin - for everything."

You may call this "easier" but this is not a good thing to do! Why do you think there's a difference between /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin and /usr/sbin? Flexibility!
Yes, you can argue that that makes things harder, but flexibility is exactly the reason why people like Unix! A lot of Unix users will be unhappy if things get dumbed down like that, for the sake of "userfriendliness".

Re:Take a note from Apple

[IamTheRealMike]

Does that mean that OS X applications don't use any shared libraries? Sounds like 1990.

For the record, I'm anti-mac - we don't need another repeat of the Windows debacle. However, this is a technical issue, so I'll try and be unbiased. Here is what I've learned from asking the same question:

Mac's don't have shared libraries as such, the closest there is (in os x at least) is Frameworks. Frameworks are collections of features, I'd guess they're made up of shared libraries but I'm not sure. Frameworks can be installed by dragging them into the frameworks folder (in the library). However, I've never heard of anybody actually doing that, basically Apple are the only ones who put new frameworks on the system.

Many Mac apps are atomic, ie they are stored in a folder with a special attribute. To "install" them, you just drag the appfolder to the Applications folder. This is great from the users point of view, it keeps things simple. I looked into it for my autopackage project (see another post i made for details). However, it turns out this is a technically extremely poor way of doing things. It means there is virtually no code reuse on the Mac, as there is no dependancy tracking engine. It means that apps distributed as appfolders also do not have any install process AT ALL, so they cannot ask for EULA agreements, check your system for stuff it needs, alter its configuration and so on. The appfolders system is good enough only for very simple apps.

So Apple ship an "Installer" program also. This is used by some more complex apps, but I'm not sure what it's capabilities are. Usually, the result of the install program is simply a new appfolder, except in cases like XDarwin which add files outside the Mac namespace. Sometimes if neither of these approaches work well enough, Mac programs ship with InstallShield style installer stubs, with the problems this entails (no headless network install for instance).

So we can see that the Mac has the most inferior software management system of all the platforms (even linux, which at least tries) from a technical perspective. From the users point of view, it is ideal. Typical Apple design here - I'm not going to comment on whether this is a good or bad thing.

Conclusion: the Mac has the simplest and most direct method of managing software you can get, but at a big sacrifice, as there is no code reuse (there is no equivalent to COM/CORBA as far as I can see either) and apps are incredibly limited as to what they can do during installation. Because of this, some apps work around the appfolder system by using installer stubs, negating the whole point of the system (simplicity, consistancy ) in the first place.

Re:Take a note from Apple

[hysterion]

If the open source community wants to know how break into the desktop market, look no further than Mac OS X. Whether you like the system or not, in OS X is a *nix system that has a highly user friendly interface, excellent graphic-based package management, and all the other bells and whistles that the mass desktop market craves.

The unbelievable truth is that there is a project doing just that, and that's GNUstep. (See also LinuxSTEP, and the overview at GNUstep.net.)

I fully agree... To go beyond command line Unix, NeXT and its stepchild OS X set a alternative standard to the (unnamed) platform which (unnamed) others have been busy cloning (with great success, too). Here is hoping that observations like yours will finally create enough of a synergy...

Re:Take a note from Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Mac OS X has a good, solid, easy-to-use interface. I wish that I could say the same of GNU/Linux.

AQUA is slow as fuck

Re:Take a note from Apple

[Ranger Rick]

Macs have shared libraries as well. The frameworks contain them, and abstract them for ease-of-upgrading (frameworks can contain multiple versions of libraries for backwards compatibility).

You can also build non-framework dynamic libraries and put them in /usr/local/lib or /usr/lib just like you can on any other unix.

Re:Take a note from Apple

[IamTheRealMike]

Macs have shared libraries as well. The frameworks contain them, and abstract them for ease-of-upgrading (frameworks can contain multiple versions of libraries for backwards compatibility).

You can also build non-framework dynamic libraries and put them in /usr/local/lib or /usr/lib just like you can on any other unix.

I never said Macs didn't have shared libraries. What I said was they aren't used to nearly the same extent as on other platforms. Also, frameworks are largely only addable by Apple. How do you ensure your program always has a particular framework? There is no way, except by using an installer stub like InstallShield/Wise. It's easier to simply say "requires 10.2" or whatever, which isn't really code sharing.

Re:Take a note from Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to take a look here to see how this stuff is supposed to work on MacOS X

Re:Take a note from Apple

[buchanmilne]

Because package management is a breeze. I don't have to know the difference between /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin.

When is there ever a time (as a USER, not a DEVELOPER or ADMIN) when you need to know the difference between /bin and /sbin and /usr/bin? What, do normal users type the full path to all the binaries they run?

Because I can drag a program I'm tired of to the trash can..

Which is exactly why I will NOT allow a Mac onto our network. If users can write to system files, they can install trojans (whether they know it or not), and that's a BAD THING.

Because I can go to one location - the Applications folder - to find any new program I install.

Why do you need to find it? Why don't you just run it when it appears in your menu after installing it?

Or, if it's a command-line app, I can go to one location - /bin - for everything.

Why do you need to "go" to /bin? In any case, 97.5% of the binaries on your mandrake box go in /usr/bin, the rest (except for mozilla and openoffice.org, which are so big they get their own directory in /usr/lib/) you shouldn't have to know anything about (as a USER).

Anyway, why don't you run Mac OSX now? You can't, while your wife could also be running Mandrake ...

There is a way to go yet before linux is the eaiest OS in the world to use, but IMHO, it's not because software is hard to install .People confuse compiling software from source with installing binaries. When do normal users compile something from source on MacOSX or Windows? Installing software on (most distributions of) linux is much easier than on any other OS (especially if you have packages available locally or via a network, so you don't have to change CDs), but of course compiling from source is a different thing, and people forget this when comparing installation of software under linux to other OSs.

IMHO, the thing that needs to be sorted out most is a good API to configuring all aspects of the machine. GConf has mostly sorted out Gnome, but something still needs to be done so that a normal user can configure samba, apache, postfix, openldap, and many more without having to fire up an editor. And I don't mean webmin or linuxconf.

Re:Take a note from Apple

[dowobeha]

Anyway, why don't you run Mac OSX now?

Long story. Basically I built an i386 Linux box so I could use IBM's ViaVoice Java SDK for Linux for free.
Kinda sad, as I never did get the stupid thing to work quite right.

Re:Take a note from Apple

[dowobeha]

>>Because I can drag a program I'm tired of to the trash can..

Which is exactly why I will NOT allow a Mac onto our network. If users can write to system files, they can install trojans (whether they know it or not), and that's a BAD THING.

User permissions still hold in OS X. A user can only mess with files that they have permission to mess with. Same as in Linux. You have no more danger of Trojans in OS X than you do in the other BSDs or in Linux.

Re:Take a note from Apple

[dowobeha]

There is a way to go yet before linux is the eaiest OS in the world to use, but IMHO, it's not because software is hard to install .

I disagree. For better or worse, most (not all) programs on the Mac are self-contained. I can double-click on an installer, let it do it's thing, then double click on the icon in /Applications.

Is the right approach for every package ever written? No. Is this what the vast majority of user applications need to do to overcome the stigma that Linux apps are hard to install? Absolutely.

Like it or not, easy-to-use graphical interfaces are the road to acceptance in the desktop market.

Re:Take a note from Apple

[Nameles]

VIA has extremely cheap chips now. If I could only find a dual or more proc board that supports VIAs....

Re:Take a note from Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

> VIA has extremely cheap chips now

Yes. That are bugged and crashes.

But sure, they are cheap.

Re:Take a note from Apple

[fferreres]

What? You think you'll never ever save enough to buy a Apple? What you didn't get an education or what? You don't have hopes? Come on, you can have the dream of making a lot of money by just studing, beign nice, making friends, making an effort in every job you take and then pushing your area of knowledge into the fields you are weak (and the ones that you specially don't like or that you think you are not endowed enough).

You could probably by 10 macs a month if you really really wanted and had a bit of luck (and a lot of persistence).

Beign said that, you shouln't but a mac just because you afford it. I don't think I will buy one!

Re:Take a note from Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

> Conclusion: the Mac has the simplest and most direct method of managing software you can get, but at a big sacrifice, as there is no code reuse (there is no equivalent to COM/CORBA as far as I can see either) and apps are incredibly limited as to what they can do during installation

Oh, boy, you are so counfused.

First, code reuse via shared object libraries is not the same as COM/CORBA. (For the record, the equivalent of COM/CORBA on OSX is Distributed Objects).

Second, Frameworks are basically versionned DLLs, with associated support files. Apple can install new Frameworks and developers also. But frameworks are a Cocoa thing, and few applications are ObjC.

Third, Frameworks were already present on NeXTstep . Some things have been learned about them. The most important is that placing the frameworks in a shared location is good from an developer point of view. But, for the user, having the application self-contained is the most important thing. A few hundred of megabytes are going to be lost, but that's life.

Fourth, the prfered way of installing an application is via dmg (disk image) files. Those can present an EULA if needed.

Fifth, applications should postpone their installation needs to the first launch. This way they don't need an installer, and they can be moved from disk to disk without any problems.

Sixth, the base OSX contains many things that are optional on a linux system, which means that the applications don't have to reference a lot of external shared libraries. For instance, the base frameworks contain:

* A XML parser
* The PNG library
* Zlib
* A very powerfull object framework (CoreFoundation)
* A multilmedia library (QuickTime)
* A GUI toolkit (Cocoa)
* OpenGL
* and a lot more

The only people that have to share Frameworks are vendors with a suite of products (like Omni). OmniWeb have abou 6Mb of code in frameworks. Those frameworks are located inside the application bundle. 6Mb is about nothing those days. Of course, a power user could move them in a shared place if he want to use less physical memory when running two omni apps at the same time.

Re:Take a note from Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

> NeXT and its stepchild

Brillant.

Re:Take a note from Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

> > Because I can drag a program I'm tired of to the trash can..

> Which is exactly why I will NOT allow a Mac onto our network. If users can write to system files, they can install trojans (whether they know it or not), and that's a BAD THING.

You're not very bright, are you ?

Since when user own applications and/or the trash are system files ? Hint: chmod works under Mac OS X too, Mr BOFH wannabe.

> Why don't you just run it when it appears in your menu after installing it?

Last time I tried a linux box, there was a lot of entries in the gnome menu that pointed to nothing. (And I tried KDE too, and it had the exact same problem). And the menu from most WM behave the same.

And windows start menu is fun too, specially when it starts to take three or four columns.

> There is a way to go yet before linux is the eaiest OS in the world to use, but IMHO, it's not because software is hard to install

It is not _only_ because of that. But thats part of it. Installing software on linux is a pain. Even in binary because of dependancy hell. Works if the distro is recent, but after a few month, it breaks apart.

Re:Take a note from Apple

[tutal]

Many Mac apps are atomic, ie they are stored in a folder with a special attribute. To "install" them, you just drag the appfolder to the Applications folder. This is great from the users point of view, it keeps things simple. I looked into it for my autopackage project (see another post i made for details). However, it turns out this is a technically extremely poor way of doing things. It means there is virtually no code reuse on the Mac, as there is no dependancy tracking engine. It means that apps distributed as appfolders also do not have any install process AT ALL, so they cannot ask for EULA agreements, check your system for stuff it needs, alter its configuration and so on. The appfolders system is good enough only for very simple apps.

I think you are missing the point. As a programmer the most important thing is not how pretty your code is (although important for upgrades) or the re-usability of libraries, it is that the user can use it. This is why Apple is doing software development right, whereas Linux is not. It seems as though the entire OS/FS community puts user needs on the back burner. If making code less neat, and more teadious is what it takes to get users to Linux, then fine. As programmers we must abandon our arrogance for once (and yes, programmers are among the most arrogant people I have ever met), and get down to the reason why we are here, to solve the user's problems, which in Linux/GNU's case is a GOOD Free OS.

Re:Take a note from Apple

[kaluta]

Installing software on (most distributions of) linux is much easier than on any other OS

This is a bit much. Installing from binaries is not much easier - ask any newbie what they dislike most about linux and they'll tell you it's the difficulty of installing new software. Dependancy hell is not fun for a newcomer to linux.

Re:Take a note from Apple

[mabinogi]

Why is it not a good thing to do on a desktop operating system?

A lot of things about Unix are legacies from a time well before anyone would have a home PC running a multi-user operating system.

Look at the way that only root can open ports 1024. That makes a lot of sense on a multi user machine with a lot of untrusted users, but very little sense in a home, or desktop environment. In fact, it opens up potential security flaws when the user wants to run services such as http or ftp. (Though good servers drop the privleges as soon as they've bound the port, it still doesn't make any sense to require it in the first place).

the /bin /usr/bin /usr/sbin/ etc issue is the same. It's a valid precaution in a multiple untrusted user situation, but in a desktop environment, it doesn't make much sense, and only adds confusion.

Re:Take a note from Apple

[FooBarWidget]

> Why is it not a good thing to do on a desktop operating system?

It may be good on a desktop OS, but Linux is a server OS. Things like that are not good things to do in a server OS. It's not a good thing to remove something that may be a weakness when used as a desktop OS, but is actually a stregth when used as a server OS.

Re:Take a note from Apple

[Nameles]

Haven't had one crash on me yet.

$30 for an 800mhz chip, not bad.

Hmmm... That's a Hard Question!

[io333]

Do you believe that all Linux distributions should use such a friendly series of dialog boxes in order to attract more users to Linux?

Uh... ouch, this is making my head hurt. Hold on... I'm thinking about it. OH!! I know the answer:

"No. Absolutely Not. All Linux distributions should require the user to write their own install scripts. That way they can be COOL just like the average linux guru!"

apt-rpm

[Bloody Bastard]

Try to install apt-rpm in your computer, if you are still using Red Hat. It will find all dependencies and install them automagically.

http://apt-rpm.tuxfamily.org/

This is a port from apt-get (Debian) to use RPMs, first implemented in Conectiva Linux (Brazilian distro). For Conectiva, there is also Synaptic, a front-end for apt-rpm.

Re:apt-rpm

[WCMI92]

"Try to install apt-rpm in your computer, if you are still using Red Hat. It will find all dependencies and install them automagically.
http://apt-rpm.tuxfamily.org/
This is a port from apt-get (Debian) to use RPMs, first implemented in Conectiva Linux (Brazilian distro). For Conectiva, there is also Synaptic, a front-end for apt-rpm."

Thanks a TON for pointing this out to me! I've installed it, and am playing around with it. Quite powerful. I messed with urpmi on Mandrake, and liked it for some things, but it would not work with upgrading KDE..

Re:apt-rpm

[Bloody Bastard]

Yes, this is great stuff!

You just have to find out where are the repositories you need, like freshrpms.net, and them add them to your sources.list

I'm used to update my distro to the last packages (OpenSSH, for exampled) using this tool.

Re:apt-rpm

[Daengbo]

The apt-get uprgrade from RH7.2 will be incomplete. Much of the material will actually be KDE2 with the kde2-compat module installed. I tried for a month to fake out apt-get so that I could install kdeedu for my school, but it had no success. If you are using RH7.3, the story might be different, but I ended up doing exactly what you always do -- upgrade the distro (this time to Gentoo)

Install weenies!

[budalite]

Heck, no. I think that, not only should the Administrator be the only one to install, modify, or save anything, but that he/she should have to take an Assembly coding test prior to each and every install!!! No, better yet. Prior to booting! Yeah, that'll clear the old Linus genepool.

Standard installers

[chrisseaton]

I think there is a need for a unified installer project, like Install Shield. Open source of course. It could either be a library, like MSI, or a scripted app, like Install Shield itself. What does everyone think?

Re:Standard installers

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we already have standard installers. It's called rpm, and all it needs is a GUI wrapper to be called when the user clicks on it in the window manager.

Sure, it'll look pretty, but how hard is "rpm -i your-app-1.0.3.i386.rpm"? If a user can't fathom that, maybe they shouldn't be installing random shite anyway.

Re:Standard installers

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with this is that it still drops the user to a shell to install the application. May as well have them ./configure'ing their software, only 2 extra command lines. I really like the idea of an InstallShield-like installation system, I've been using AdminStudio on Windoze boxen the past few weeks and it has made everything so much easier. I agree that linux needs a library that can handle this kind of registry.

One of my biggest complaints about RPM packages is that they lack options. If I want to install a KDE game it is all or nothing from the RPMs, I just want to play Asteroids why do I need 20 other games hogging up my disk space?

Re:Standard installers

[Anonymous Coward]

> Sure, it'll look pretty, but how hard is "rpm -i your-app-1.0.3.i386.rpm"? If a user can't fathom that, maybe they shouldn't be installing random shite anyway.

Ah, but for so many packages, "rpm -i your-app-1.0.3.i386.rpm" is just the start of the process - then there's the fun of dealing with allll the dependency-related error messages, finding the needed RPMs, trying to install them, dealing with their dependency-related error messages, ... lather/rinse/repeat.

rpm is the tool invoked by this discussed standard installer, just as dpkg is the tool called by Debian apt. Neither dpkg nor rpm are the top-level solution to this problem.

Re:Standard installers

[__past__]

It's called "make".

Re:Standard installers

[decaying]

bash-2.03# make uninstall
make: Fatal error: Don't know how to make target `uninstall'

There are only a few installer packages

[crovira]

for the Mac & Windows. Some are "blessed" by the OS Distributor and some are crafted according to written guidelines provided by the OS Distributor. The OS X installer is GREAT in that respect.

The situation MUST become the same for Linux. There must come to be some "blessed" slick GUI installer that can also run "headless" from a command line.

It should implement a state transition engine and run from a state machine which goes from an initial state "not-installed", through paths for the distros, dependencies to a terminal state of "software registered."

To make the situation complete, it must detect the distro (and therefore the install paths, dependencies and destination directories,) the GUI in use, if any, and be able to completely install AND UNINSTALL by walking backwards through the installer log undoing what was done and cleaning up all debris.

The installer "experience" is standard for the user because everybody is using the same packages or near clones of these packages to install any and every ol' thing.

And this is a lot easier for a user (or a SysAdmin,) to deal with than the ideosynchratic and often badly written readme.txt files written by somebody who just doesn't "get it" and can't remember what he didn't know when he first started out.

And the excuse that "it wasn't easy to write so it shouldn't be easy to install" is the refuge of lazy-ass, elitist, nerdy schmucks who don't have friends to watch over their shoulder, correct their grammar and actually try and test out their installation instructions to detect all the "missing" information.

Its called QA folks and you'd better get used to it or you're wasting your time pretending that you're IT pros.

Re:There are only a few installer packages

[GigsVT]

lazy-ass, elitist, nerdy schmucks

Oh yeah, so sorry that something you got for free isn't up to par. Thousands of hours of work have been made available for you to use for free, they even gave you access to the source code, so that you can do whatever you like with it, with few restrictions, and you bitch because you can't take a few minutes to figure out how to install it.

It would be a little different if you had paid the developers for their time, but the way I see it, you are an arrogant bastard for saying something like that to people who are donating their work for the benefit of everyone.

Re:There are only a few installer packages

[IamTheRealMike]

Interesting you should mention this. I'm working on something called autopackage, which does exactly this.

The situation MUST become the same for Linux. There must come to be some "blessed" slick GUI installer that can also run "headless" from a command line.

Check. Autopackage is (currently) written largely in bash, but has a clean split between the backend and front end for exactly this reason. The BE and FE are actually two separate processes which communicate via a simple protocol based on unix named pipes. Right now, there is only a terminal front end, but when it's released as an OSS project (soon) I'll be looking for people to help me write KDE and GTK based installers.

It should implement a state transition engine and run from a state machine which goes from an initial state "not-installed", through paths for the distros, dependencies to a terminal state of "software registered."

Check. Autopackage deals with dependancies differently to other package managers, as it doesn't have a huge central database of everything that's on the system (it keeps enough information around to uninstall packages though obviously). Instead, it probes the system for everything the package needs - for instance it currently checks for libraries using ldconfig. If it's in the Linux Linker cache, the check is passed. This means you can install stuff from the source, or even just copy files from a friends computer without worrying about your package manager database getting out of synch.

To make the situation complete, it must detect the distro (and therefore the install paths, dependencies and destination directories,) the GUI in use, if any, and be able to completely install AND UNINSTALL by walking backwards through the installer log undoing what was done and cleaning up all debris.

Check. An autopackage is actually a program that you run (don't worry, the overhead is tiny). If you have autopackage installed, the scripts are processed and the user is greeted with a friendly GUI installer (if run from X) or if run from the command line you get the tty front end. If you don't have autopackage installed, it'll offer to automatically fetch everything the user needs from the net including a distro profile.

The profile contains all the information needed to slot files into the correct places, and perform the correct actions for adding menu items etc. If there is no profile for the users distro, I intend to have a way of letting the user easily create one (though this will probably not be an operation that can be performed by a total newbie) and then optionally upload the resultant profile for checking and inclusion. This deals with cases where people have built their own systems, or have customised them a lot.

The installer "experience" is standard for the user because everybody is using the same packages or near clones of these packages to install any and every ol' thing.

That isn't going to happen soon, which is why autopackage will integrate (at least to some extent) with RPM and perhaps Debian too. However, I intend to eventually create something similar to the apt repositories, except decentralised so it acts more like DNS rather than having huge libraries of packages that must be manually updated. I hope, dream, that one day Linux software authors will provide an autopackage as standard as well as the source tarball (they are pretty easy to make), which will plug into the autopackage network and allow you to install and update them using an apt type system.

Umm, what else? Oh yes, it's pretty flexible about asking the user stuff. The user can be asked questions during the install like which prefix to use (defaults chosen from the profile), or for commecial software they can be asked for license keys, to read EULAs and so on (commercial software is coming to linux like it or not, so i thought I might as well add these features). However, I had a bad experience once where I spent a whole week installed IE5 on each and every machine in a company by hand, so rest assured, being able to do automatic remote installs is high on my list of priorities.

I still have some basic foundation and design work to do on it, but I'm hoping it'll be out on freshmeat and ready for hacking by the end of the summer. If you're interested, then please email me. This should go a long way to solving the software management mess that Linux has somehow got itself into.

Re:There are only a few installer packages

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I have some gripes with this flame. I guess this makes this post a flamming flame over a flame of a flame. Marshmallows, anyone?

...and you bitch because you can't take a few minutes to figure out how to install it.

...and six months of reading help files, dissecting source code, and begging the "l33t" for help to get it working right.

It would be a little different if you had paid the developers for their time, but the way I see it, you are an arrogant bastard for saying something like that to people who are donating their work for the benefit of everyone.

And if more newbies could actually get their systems up and running, they might just be able to contribute back to the community.

Re:There are only a few installer packages

[spudnic]

> This means you can install stuff from the
> source, or even just copy files from a
> friends computer without worrying about your
> package manager database getting out of synch.

So say I copy package A from another machine. I then install package B, which requires something that package A has. Your script just sees that it exists and continues on with the install. Then I uninstall package A. Without a database to keep track of dependencies, how do you know what will break by doing an uninstall?

Re:There are only a few installer packages

[Papineau]

The problem I see with all those package repositeries (such as Debian's, RedCarpet, Gentoo portage's, freshrpms, autopackage's, etc.) is that you must wait for somebody to do the work of the packaging for you if you want to install something. Sure, it's more convenient when it's already done, but if I see something in source form (or even a binary tar.gz), I'd like to be able to install it correctly (ie, using my package manager) alone, possibly sharing the method used (spec file or equivalent) afterwards. Doing a RPM or a deb is actually quite easy for standard packages (the configure; make; make install kind of packages). But it could be even simpler. I'd put my efforts on that part of the packaging system.

Once you have an RPM or deb, the steps needed to actually install it are very easy (GnoRPM, cli rpm, RPMdrake, etc.). Limiting the source of the packages a user can install on their system by using said repositeries, even if they're comprehensive and large, is a counterproductive step IMHO. Because there will always be something newer (newer version of something already packaged, or just something not yet packaged) which you'll want.

Re:There are only a few installer packages

[IamTheRealMike]

So say I copy package A from another machine. I then install package B, which requires something that package A has. Your script just sees that it exists and continues on with the install. Then I uninstall package A. Without a database to keep track of dependencies, how do you know what will break by doing an uninstall?

You don't. If you do copy stuff from another machine, then it wouldn't be in a database anyway, so you still wouldn't get any warnings if you deleted it if you were using RPM.

The approach autopackage takes here is that having a database of everything on your system is a bad idea, as that db will invariably get out of synch. The system is the best database. So let's say we have the situation you described. You somehow remove something that another program needs, and you do it manually so there are no warnings. Suddenly, a program will break. In this case, you run the apkg-verify command, which will look at the dependancies of this package (let's say you install package "genst" that needs libxml, and you remove libxml).

The verify command now loads up the package skeleton for libxml as it knows this is a dependancy of genst (the package skeletons describe uninstall info/file lists/dependancy tests). It runs the test in the libxml skeleton, and sees that it fails. It now offers you the option of redownloading and installing the package.

This isn't the ideal approach, as the user would much rather have been warned beforehand. However, other than by overriding the "rm" command (which could be done, but I doubt it'd be popular) there is no way of stopping the user mangling their system in such a way. Being able to copy files from another machine or install from the source will always have this problem, as it's not registered in any database.

If you can think of a better way of doing this, then please tell me. I've been thinking about it for most of the afternoon, and for the rare cases in which you delete things like this (most users would use the uninstall commands and not copy files from other computers) the verify mechanism would work, and not require too much implementation effort.

Re:There are only a few installer packages

[IamTheRealMike]

The problem I see with all those package repositeries (such as Debian's, RedCarpet, Gentoo portage's, freshrpms, autopackage's, etc.) is that you must wait for somebody to do the work of the packaging for you if you want to install something.

Exactly, this is why the autopackage network would be different. Rather than having huge teams of packagers like Debian has, which will invariably miss stuff, it works in a way similar to DNS. Let me explain:

You install package "genst" - it generates simple source trees by the way, and I'm using it for development because it's simple. Genst has 2 dependancies, on libxml (developed by the gnome team) and on the dialog utility which has floated around in various versions for a long time and doesn't really have an official home site anymore.

In the autopackage, some dependancy checks are made to ensure you have the correct versions of libxml and dialog. If these tests fail - now what? In the Debian system, your computer would try and download the needed files from ftp.debian.org, a huge collection of packages, all hand maintained.

For autopackage however, what happens is that a resolution process begins. Each package has what's called a root name which looks like this: "@gnome.org/libxml/2.0" or "@advancedresearch.org/dialog/0.9". It leverages off DNS for keeping names unique by the way. Your computer now attempts to turn this root name into a URL from which the necessary package (which could be an RPM) can be downloaded. The difference is that that's all the autopackage network does: responsibility for building and maintaining the package is the software developers responsibility whenever possible. That's why I'm focussed on letting the production of autopackages as simple as possible, so the developers themselves can package their software with minimal effort. I think the attraction of being able to offer a binary download that'll work on all distributions will be enough to get started with, along with some gentle persuasion ;)

Anyway, the route by which root names are turned into URLs is pretty flexible, for instance your distro could override it (similar to apt.sources) so that if you try and upgrade X, it'll get the package from the distro servers rather than the xfree servers. Hopefully we'll end up with a hybrid system, whereby most packages reside on the project servers, rather than a central database, and therefore the packages are always up to date.

I'd like to be able to install it correctly (ie, using my package manager) alone, possibly sharing the method used (spec file or equivalent) afterwards. Doing a RPM or a deb is actually quite easy for standard packages (the configure; make; make install kind of packages). But it could be even simpler. I'd put my efforts on that part of the packaging system.

Nice idea, but not always practical. For starters, most people don't want to compile software from the source. When it works it takes ages. It often doesn't work, and you must install large numbers of -devel packages to get the C headers etc. RPMs are also limited - there's no way of customising the install based on user interaction for instance.

Limiting the source of the packages a user can install on their system by using said repositeries, even if they're comprehensive and large, is a counterproductive step IMHO.

Exactly, that's why autopackage tests the system directly rather than having a big repository. You can get the files you need from anywhere, not just your package manager.

Re:There are only a few installer packages

[j7953]

This isn't the ideal approach

I can say from my own experience that the user experience of running a "verify" command is actually surprisingly good.

You probably know about the new installer technology for Windows (Microsoft Installer). One of the applications installed using msi is Microsoft Office 2000.

I'm using Office 2000 (no flames please) and once had a problem with Excel, it would crash whenever I tried to use a certain feature (don't remember which one). Well, all MS Office apps have a menu item "Detect and Repair" (or something similar, I have the German version, where it is called "Erkennen und Reparieren") in the help menu. So I tried that. It asked me to insert the Office CD, which I did, then it copied some files and then asked me to quit and restart Excel. Amazingly, it did solve the problem!

Of course I would have preferred to know what exactly was wrong and what files were replaced/reinstalled, but still, I must admit that I found the repair feature quite impressive. I guess that for users who don't even want to know the details of what's going on, the feature works perfectly.

as the user would much rather have been warned beforehand.

I'm not even certain about this. One thing about human interface design is that warning dialogs don't work. Windows does have such a warning message, whenever you remove .exe or (I think) .dll files, it warns you that this might cause applications to stop working (which is rather silly -- deleting any file might cause them to break, this isn't limited to DLLs and executables). I always simply click "Yes" when that dialog appears, and I guess most users do that.

It would be very hard, if not impossible, to design that dialog in a way that makes sure that it is always read and understood by all users (including those users who do not know what dependencies are).

And since unless you actually prevent users from deleting required files (which wouldn't be accepted by the majority of users, nor would it be a good idea technically), there will always be at least one case where files got deleted accidentally, so you need the "verify" feature anyway. So why not make it the easy-to-use default for solving installation problems?

Re:There are only a few installer packages

[Arethan]

Sounds a bit like my project LInstaller. Except I'm going the C route instead of bash script. I decided to use GTK+ 2.0 as the GUI side of the installer, but I'm currently rethinking that decision. The main problem I'm having is shared object filenames. Most distros are fairly similar, but I'll be damned if 90% of the libraries on any system don't have their "soname" field properly filled in. Hence compiling any application against them will produce binaries that insist on an exact version, rather than any version of the same major version.

I suppose I could try to find an ELF header editor, so I could manually change the program dependancies to the correct values.

On a side note, Mandrake didn't seem to provide libXft like Redhat does. Apparently Mandrake decided on their own Xft'less way. *shrug* Doesn't matter now, I've already switched back to developing on a Redhat system.

Re:There are only a few installer packages

[IamTheRealMike]

Hmmm, interesting viewpoint. I hadn't thought of it like that - thanks! Maybe it isn't such a bad idea after all......

Re:There are only a few installer packages

[Anonymous Coward]

See the source for the command "ldd" to see the proper way to test for library dependence.

Keywords are "Variety" and "Choice"

[eyepeepackets]

I would agree that such installers could be made available on most, if not all, distros providing variety and choice remain paramount. For example, I don't care if Slackware puts in such a noobie installer providing I still have the choice to use the basic installer I've been using for the past six years.

The big advantage to variety and choice is that noobies have room to grow and experienced users don't have to wade through a bunch of GUI crap they don't need or want. I don't see that variety is exclusive of choice or vice versa unless you have a package manager like RPM getting in the way, in which case more work needs to be done on the package manager as well.

No!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're a true newcomer to computers or Linux, *any* dialog boxes are scary and difficult. Just install stuff with good defaults and let people customise later when they've explored a bit and feel comfortable doing so.

Install vs. Upgrade

[spring]

Ximian's installer is, indeed, quite slick. What seems to be ignored, though, is that I upgrade my software far more often than do I perform clean installs.

Ximian does a great job of pushing out periodic updates and upgrades, but no one seems to handle major upgrades (e.g. RedHat 6.2->7.0, SuSe 7->8) well, except for Debian and some of the BSDs. A major upgrade leaves all kind of binary cruft all over the place, and tend to screw up configuration files. Yuck.

I hope that after getting in initial installs correct, Ximian and the distribution companies turn their attention to making upgrades smooth.

One nice start would be to move to a common, structured configuration file format, perhaps a set of XML schemas / DTDs. That would make transformations from version to version a bit easier.

Who needs installers?

[Wesley Felter]

Do you believe that all Linux distributions should use such a friendly series of dialog boxes in order to attract more users to Linux?

Actually, I'd like to see Linux preinstalled on more computers so that users don't have to install at all.

Friendly GUIs are great, but...

[Yobgod Ababua]

please please PLEASE don't forget to leave a command-line or scriptable alternative.

Some of us have large clusters of systems to maintain, and running a GUI on every system involved is almost as annoying as installing MS software.

All I really want for work is a little command-line tool that helps settle RPM dependencies and select updated packages for install.

For home use, the red-carpet interface is definately one of the better ones I've worked with.

Re:Friendly GUIs are great, but...

[Ranger Rick]

http://apt-rpm.tuxfamily.org/

Package installer version 66.6

[dowobeha]

...

/* Package installer version 66.6 */

printf("Translating all source code for requested package.\n);
printf("--- Successful ---\n");
printf("Half of text in requested package will print in Esperanto. The other half will print in pig-latinized-Klingon.\n");

printf("Creating random name for package executable...\n");
printf("Searching drive for obscure installation location...\n");

printf("Oops! There are 348,899,001 extra dependencies that this package relies on. Do you wish to go through them one by one?"\n);

printf("Just kidding. Compilation was successful. Package is hiding in...\n");

printf("...You don't actually think I'm going to tell you where to find this, do you?! Hahahaha!\n";

....

Frankly, it doesn't look much easier to me

[mithras the prophet]

I'm just getting used to typing xf86cfg and /sbin/fsck and all that.
But looking at the screenshots, this 'improved Ximian' appears to be just as complicated. How am I supposed to remember to type:

connect to local MySQL server through socket '/tmp/mysql.sock'
/home/linuxz/linuxtests-www/pnadodb/adodb-mysql.in c.php on line 106

Not just for newcomers

[vluther]

But for experts as well, sure we know how to use configure; make; make install; but how tedious is that ? The homegrown RPM tools for the RPM based distros take time to learn and are slow, and if you're an expert already you know how to use the rpm commandline faster than the GUI. But wouldn't it be nice to just click on setup.sh or just run setup.sh and have the program do everything for you ?. If anything, have a GUI frontend to configure, so configure -d gives you all the options and you just check on them ?.
I think linux needs something like a VISE installer, that will follow the LSB.

Gaming Platform

[Anonymous Coward]

if linux were a more popular gaming platform,the young
people would become more intrested, hence the future
of linux.
more people are not attracked because they don't
know what linux is or does. we need some heavy
pr.
short and to the point instrucion on installation
would be great. too much detail gets too complicated. when i first
installed suse, i couldn't understand the book
so i slapped in the install disk and went into the
text mode install and winged it. got it installed
and then read about x and two years later i'm still confused!
but i'm in love!

The simplest solution

[Otter]

Seeing as how painless Ximian GNOME is to install and to maintain/upgrade, I see no reason why KDE shouldn't have something similar.

The best answer, IMHO would be for Ximian to swallow a little pride and provide KDE packages. They're trying to run a profitable business; KDE has no money for bandwidth and no desire to compete with Red Carpet, Up2Date or any of the other commercial services. It would be a win/win outcome. Adding yet another update service would be the worst outcome -- like a bunch of people have said, it's usually problematic to have more than one in use on any one system.

In the meantime, I've been loving apt-get for RPM ever since Yellow Dog switched to that as their preferred method.

Re:The simplest solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Why on Earth would Ximian want to support the KDE project in any way? KDE is stuffed with flamers and lamers who have done nothing but slag off Ximian from the moment they got started. TrollTech, TheKompany (Shawn Gordon, who claims to have thought of absolutely everything before Ximian and spends most interviews bitching abouttheir VC money), not to mention the many jealous KDE users who regularly pollute gnome/Ximian stories with garbage.

Support KDE? If I had my way, the whole poisonous fucking project would be dumped into the sea.

Re:The simplest solution

[drunkahol]

I have to agree with this. Ximian have VERY little incentive to support KDE.

Even if you were to put aside for one moment that one of their MAIN products is the DIRECT competitor to KDE.

I have been using Red Hat 7.3 and Ximian GNOME for a while now and Red Carpet allows me to keep bang up to date with the GNOME 2.0 developments and many other packages that I just HAVE to install the development versions of. Can't say the packages have always been stable, but Red Carpet is a fantastic product.

Just for the record - I applaud KDE and GNOME developers in equal measures. But I also have equal measures of disgust for the ignorant spunk jockeys who write crap about the other side. Each project is good and deserving of praise.

GNOME gets the nod on my desktop.

Naw

[B3ryllium]

I think most people here would prefer to install linux by manipulating the hard drive with magnets ...

Re:Naw

[damiam]

Nope, I prefer to burn the install CDs with my laser pointer, and let them take it from there. Saves time.

Re:Naw

[Reziac]

And *real* programmers use "copy con program.zip" :)

Re:Naw

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding, Nothing beats installing NetBSD 1.0 on an Amiga!

Maybe apt-get is good enough for Mom...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but I prefer Gentoo's "emerge".

Let's see you you do this w/ apt-get

root@gentoobox media # emerge -s quake
[ Results for search key : quake ]
[ Applications found : 3 ]

* app-games/quake3
Latest version Available: 1.31
Latest version Installed: [ Not Installed ]
Homepage: http://www.idsoftware.com
Description:
Quake III

Woot!

already?

[MrVinz]

wow, something that people been yelling for years.. are they finally going to make things more user friendly? The ONLY thing keeping me from changing to linux (windows user now of course) is the userUNfriendliness.

Seen the setup of KYLIX? (Delphi for linux) that's how it's s'posed to be.

Cheers.

I don't need no monkey accessories

[Subcarrier]

If I wanted something that is easy to use I would buy a banana.

If I wanted to make Linux accessible to monkeys I would shape it like a stick and place it under a banana tree.

Seriously, though, a nice user interface never hurt anybody. Just let us geeks keep our command line and we'll be happy.

Re:I don't need no monkey accessories

[Anonymous Coward]

????????
existance of wizard != death of CLI

maybe i've completely missed your point...

Hmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

For fscks sake. The situation IS the same in Linux!

Obviously you aren't an IT pro either, otherwise you'd know about the likes of rpm and apt etc, and their handling of the "state" of packages. Stop whining about a problem that doesn't exist.

You're probably talking about a slick little package installer GUI (like the Winblows Add/Remove Control Panel), and guess what? Most distro's have one of those too.

Many apps are available as source with a readme or what not, but that's ok by me. Expecting *developers* to standardise like that is ridiculous, especially when many apps are cross platform and/or source only, and even Linux currently has about a billion variations.

If you want pre-packaged convienience go use a *distro* that provides it. That's what they are there for.

Supporting open source earns me...

[Anonymous Coward]

+$80K/year. Reading those HOWTO's turned out to be damn valuable after all!!!!

refuge of lazy-ass, elitist, nerdy schmucks

[Anonymous Coward]

to all in the "refuge of lazy-ass, elitist, nerdy schmucks" make sure this know it all doesn't get a copy of the code whent the slick gui does come into existence. reason with but do not insult "the refuge of lazy-ass, elitist, nerdy schmucks".

pussies

[Anonymous Coward]

You bunch of fscking pussies ...until you've edited your XF86config file by hand, you don't know what living is!

Red Carpet in great but the Installer isn't.

[^MB^]

Last time i tried Ximian (a month or two ago) it was a nice clean interface, and for the most part Red Carpet was happy to update my programs and install new ones.

From time to time, everything i tried to update would fail the checksum test, but that might have been a bad server.Other times it would deny the existence of programs it had updated before.

Unfortunately the install proccess wasn't pretty, it insisted on downloading all the temporary install files to /var, and couldn't be persuaded to put them anywhere else. This was quite a pain when your /var directory is only 200MB.

Overall, i enjoyed Ximian but it is far better than regular Gnome, but it does have some flaws which need to be fixed...

-Nick

Re:Red Carpet in great but the Installer isn't.

[TeddyR]

I agree wrt ximian still needing some work...

but UM... here is where the power and verstile nature of the Linux file system structure comes to play. You have at least two possible options.

1-symbolic links... [first move the redcarpet dir, then link the location that the app expects to find the files to the new location]

mv /var/redcarpet /someotherdisksdirectory/redcarpet

ln -s /someotherdisksdirectory/redcarpet /var/redcarpet

2- Mount a bigger disk in /var/redcarpet [/var/redcarpet would be an empty dir.. then move the redcarpet dir as above and then mount /dev/hdx /var/redcarpet

Watch out mandrake users!!

[pardasaniman]

Ximian was an easy install for me, however I made a fatal error. I installed it over an existing GNOME in Mandrake 8.2. Although Ximian now officially supports mandrake, I had a few issues after I installed the deely. I had problems using sawfish and somehow certain parts of GNOME configuration were no longer working. Such as changing GTK theme. I find that whenever I was on Monkey Talk for assistance, I never found anyone to talk to. Along with all this, Mandrake's Software Installer would not upgrade Ximian packages. Red carpet sounded great to me at first. It took me a good 3 minutes during loading time, but it presented a very nice and easy to use system. However it does not compare to Software Manager for Mandrake. However for all this I got an up to date GNOME system. I think Ximian is great for distros that do not come with GNOME, but if GNOME comes with your system just use the packages that were on CD. If you really want to, and you use Mandrake, just use the cooker packages to get the latest GNOME. PS: To people who are going to flame me for using Mandrake: It is the only choice for a newbie with little patience to configure everything.

Re:Hiding the system from the user

[Anonymous Coward]

because this would also mean hiding much of the power of Unix

This is a common statement, but some quick thought reveals that it isn't true. Having a simple, graphical method to do something does not exclude having a harder, text-only method. The easy and the hard method can and should exist in parallel, because they cater for different audiences.

The easy method caters for more casual users. If you only install a printer driver once in your life, you probably do not want to learn all about configuring it. Picking up the mouse and clicking a bit will be far easier (and a far better use of your time) than spending the afternoon reading the fine manuals.

On the other hand, if you have to perform a task hundreds of times you will be better off with a scriptable, text-based solution.

Many elitist shit-heads, excuse me, 'hackers', think the first audience either does not exist or has no right to use Linux. Fortunately the more enlightened minds appear to be growing in number ;-)

HMMMM, LETS SEE

[cyberbob2010]

Do you believe that all Linux distributions should use such a friendly series of dialog boxes in order to attract more users to Linux?"

Well, do we want people to like Linux or not? Every modern Windows based program (what most of todays cassual users use) has a tutorial or help boxes and is designed to hold the users hand. Hell, look at the setup for windows.

• People like ease of use

and no matter how you look at it, people are going to prefer something that is easier to use to something that geeks like us might find to be superiorly coded and/or secured

Only one installer question should be needed:

[Skapare]

Only one installer question should be needed:

Do you really want to install (insert name of program to install here)?

Any more than that, and half the world would not be able to install it right.

easier with power

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

Linux is the only OS that has a chance of being both extremely easy to install and at the same time very powerful (or difficult to install).

The reason is simple. There is not only one bunch of guys dictating what it looks and feels like.

All you have to do is install the old Corel Linux or the new Xandros Betas to know how simply installing linux can be. Lindows is another example.

If you install with a polished GUI that does not mean all the tweaking is precluded. You can still tweak all you want. And, that is the way it should be.

The objective needs to be to make installing linux as easiest as possible to also be attractive to the masses. That will create the critical mass necessary for a full range of desktop applications. But, that does not mean the "hard way" has to be blocked. It does not.

Installing isn't the problem anymore

[nagora]

How many people have had real trouble installing anything on a Linux box, really? Not upgrading (that can quickly get seriously bad), but the initial install.

I've recently installed OpenOffice, Gimp, Gimp-Print, QT3, Ogg v 1.0 (released today!), and Ghostscript - some source, some binary - and all I had to do was follow the short instructions in the INSTALL/README files.

It just doesn't get much easier than that on a system that's worth having.

Like I said, though, upgrades of binaries quickly becomes a nightmare with things like KDE where there's lots of interdependacies between lots of packages but installing isn't that hard any more.

Even then, if you are Joe Average you'll probably just wait for the next point-release of the whole distro and that will generally update everything in one fell swoop anyway.

Maybe even upgrades are just a problem because the sort of people that use /. are the sort that fiddle with their systems all the time and get themselves into trouble.

TWW

Re:Installing isn't the problem anymore

[Dr. Shim]

But there are problems installing. Not all the time, but occasionally. There always are problems! That's part of using a computer!

Re:Installing isn't the problem anymore

[nagora]

There always are problems! That's part of using a computer!

Yes. To read some of the comments here one would think that Windows users never had a problem with their installs.

TWW

Re:Installing isn't the problem anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

> But there are problems installing. Not all the time, but occasionally. There always are problems! That's part of using a computer!

The idea is to not get complacent or resigned about it, but treat such problems as the areas to be improved, and then work to improve them.

"Good enough", isn't. Strive for better, that's what we should do..

If the installation doesn't work...

[Anonymous Coward]

then that 1% might as well be 100%. You can't use something you can't install!

Enby in Waltham

Re:The Easier the Better (Offitopic: -1)

[tenman]

So maybe you should start the OSEB (Open Source Education Board). Start a board that would talk about how to properly expose different levels of users, the appropriate skills. You'll have to pick "best of breed" apps to teach the use and pricipals of, but maybe after they get out of the class room (if that's how you choose the do it), they will branch out on their own. Oh yeah, you'll need a teaching crew, that not only knows what they are doing, but can read/write/speek in many languages.

Good luck with all of that!

Now back to the topic at hand....

what's easy is what wins

[Anonymous Coward]

people are too busy too concerned with how an os works. they just want it to work. and they want a system that provides their basic needs at a good price. a pc with windows provides this. apple is too expensive and closed. linux is too complicated (for now).

ask any housewife or kid what they prefer, they are the ones who will dictate desktop dominance.

but that's ok....isn't it?

TuxReports put up page for Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Please use this page for viewing the images. This allows the images to be seen without going through the MySQL database. Should be easier and faster.

http://www.tuxreports.com/xim_slashdot.html

Re:The Easier the Better (Offitopic: -1)

[donnacha]

You'll have to pick "best of breed" apps to teach the use and pricipals of, but maybe after they get out of the class room (if that's how you choose the do it), they will branch out on their own. Oh yeah, you'll need a teaching crew, that not only knows what they are doing, but can read/write/speek in many languages.

Good luck with all of that!

Or we could always, just possibly, make the software easier to install in the first place and let the people take it from there.

from /usr/lib/anaconda/upgrade.py

[toolz]

# I'm going to try to keep this message as politically correct
# as possible. I think the Ximian GNOME is a very pretty desktop
# and the hackers there do an extraordinary amount of work on
# them. But it throws a huge wrench in our upgrade process. We
# just want to warn our users that there are packages on the system
# that might get messed up during the upgrade process. Nothing
# personal, guys. - msw

red-carpet rules...

[destiney]

Red Carpet makes all other package management systems look silly, including rpm, and up2date.

In a world like ours with Joe and Bob trying to unify/standardize their linux (United Linux, LSB), and Fred and Sam trying to stabalize theirs (Debian GNU/Linux), users are left to figure out what might be best, safest, easiest to use.

If your a newbie, do yourself a faver and use Ximian Gnome, red-carpet in particular. I use KDE, but still use red-carpet to keep my system up to date when a new security hole needs patching, or to do cool stuff like install ruby.

There is life beyond apt.

Doesn't my hometown have beatiful girls?

Remember the intermediate Linux user

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many of us Linux users who aren't newbies but also aren't kernel hackers. I have configured kernels, X, mice, etc. but I would rather just use MuPAD, or program in Python. Configuration is the price I pay for Gimp, Ghostview, ... Worth it to me, but not cheap.

I suggest that complete nested installation menus need to be provided. A nice example to start with would be the Logitech optical mouse with three buttons and a wheel. The system would check hardware, config files, and ask questions. It then would tell you what changes need to be made in the various config files and perhaps offer to make the chnages itself.

Do we...

[Erpo]

have a standard installer? There's rpm, there's deb, there's pkg (or whatever slack uses), there's the ports system, and there are probably more. I agree that the community could benefit greatly from more standardization. I just don't think we have it yet.

Re:The Easier the Better (Offitopic: -1)

[Penguinshit]

Well, let's also face it -- just making the OS easier to install isn't the whole battle; it needs to be easier to USE. Mac OS X is a pretty good example of the direction to go. The overlying OS9 interface is totally usable for the majority of the Mac users, with the stability and power of the underlying BSD system. If the user wants to get fancy and start to fully exploit the system, he or she is easily able to do that. However, if the user just wants to trot merrily along with canned application installations and uses, that's available too!

This is where Linux needs to go for mass-adoption. Not just a quick-and-easy installation, but quick-and-easy installation and manipulation of applications as well.

Ximian are lamers

[Chris Z. Wintrowski]

>Do you believe that all Linux distributions should use such a friendly
>series of dialog boxes in order to attract more users to Linux?

No, but I believe that any company willing to
create such a series of dialog boxes for the
installation of their product should do so such
that they work across all Linux distributions,
instead of making them dependent on software like
RPM that is not distro-universal.

The fact that Ximian's installer is still dependent
on RPM shows how lame Ximian really are. What sort
of company puts together a product and unnecessarily
restricts the installer to one particular package
system thereby immediately cutting off important
Linux distros like Slackware, all of the *BSDs,
and any other un*x not running RPM?

If the people at Ximian would actually pull their
hands out of their asses and write a proper
installer, then maybe their product would be
worth considering.

I use checkinstall

[dmaxwell]

Checkinstall is slick set of scripts wrapped around installwatch. Basically you do the ./configure and make parts as usual. Instead of "make install" you type "checkinstall" and pick slackware, rpm, or deb from a menu. It then installs the package and builds an rpm, deb, or tgz if it needs to be reinstalled later. The best part is that the package can be removed using the distro's normal package manager.

It can even take an alternate command if "make install" isn't what installs the package. The other nice thing is that the resulting package can be installed on other machines running the same distro.

It isn't good for "core" stuff like glibc but it's great for all these little proggies and utilities that I try out from Freshmeat. I used it with good results to get the latest Audacity and Galeon when they weren't in Debian testing.

Re:I use checkinstall

[IamTheRealMike]

Yeah, checkinstall is neat, I love installwatch in particular. This solves the problem partially by allowing you to combine source and binary installations, but it doesn't solve all the other problems as well. Also of course, if there isn't an RPM for your distro, you still have to get it to build from the source which can be a hassle.

Definately a cool program, and useful for now until we sort this situation out once and for all. Kudos to the guys who wrote it.

It's about time...

[neilb78]

'bout time someone realized that people other than Linux geeks might want to install a program or two :-)

Take a note from GNU

[extrasolar]

All software should be free.

(if you don't know what I mean by free, then click on my sig)

Re:Take a note from GNU

[dowobeha]

Free software is wonderful. Apple's interface is wonderful.

Solution: Free software should look to Mac OS X for some ideas on how to make a good interface.

Re:Take a note from GNU

[extrasolar]

"Free software should look to Mac OS X for some ideas on how to make a good interface."

Absolutely. And, well, my senses say that something like that is cooking.

Re:Take a note from GNU

[dowobeha]

Any specifics? I have been kicking around the idea of putting together a GrannyLinux distro.

I love the Mac OS, but I would love even more to have something as easy to use that's free.

I'm talking about something that is easier for the real newbie to use than even the Mac.

The kind of thing that (unless you click into Advanced mode) would make your average /.er shudder with revulsion at the dumbed-down, limited-options, ultra-easy-to-use interface. The kind of thing that my grandpa (who has never used a computer) could figure out how to use by himself out-of-the box.

I've got some ideas... Let me know what you think.

Cheers, Lane Schwartz (dowobeha)
los20 @-@-@ cam._nospam_ac.uk

Re:Take a note from GNU

[extrasolar]

Well, I thought you meant the technologies Mac OS X is using, like their PDF display engine.

As far as ease of use, we have that. From what I've heard, GNOME 2 has taken out a lot of its configuration options. Additionally, Sun has been doing a lot of usability studies on the GNOME interface.

Really, with KDE and GNOME, GNU/Linux is very easy to use.

Just remember, ease of use comes at a price. Making things too easy just isn't worth it.

Re:Take a note from GNU

[dowobeha]

For you and me, KDE and GNOME, along with any of the good standard distros makes GNU/Linux a great, pretty-easy-to-use choice.

But that's not good enough.

What I'd like to put together is Linux for Technophobes. The machine that Joe Schmoe, who has never used a computer, can walk in to Wal-mart, take home his new box, and be able to use it for email, web browsing, and word processing with zero assistance from anyone else.

He should open the box and find a simple (a la iMac) one-page sheet that shows him how to connect the mouse and keyboard.

A simple wizard sets up the net connection with him.

I'm picturing a very simple interface for the Basic mode. One big button that says Email and has a picture of a mailbox. Another for the web browser. Maybe a couple more apps, but not many.

And, if you click on the Advanced mode button in the corner, you get switched to KDE or GNOME.

I agree!

[Anonymous Coward]

Although, I think the idea of Xiaman is a bit simplified. The major problem I have with is installing, yes. But lets look at it a bit deeper. Its' not the installer, but the *people* writing how-tos.

Lets use 3 examples. #1 Opera - 1 RPM, a command, and a few minutes. Boom. We have a browser. Easy!

#2 A relatively obscure program like TinyFuge. It's a tar-gz file. But one thing it has. It has *well* written installing HOw-tos. It tells you exactly how to install it. Step by step. I *never* had a problem installing this. Yes, it compiled, and I had to decompress it, and such. But never had a problem.

#3 E-donkey. You download a file, - then what? Where is the install directions? You have ONE file, with no extensions, no directions, nothing! Even a friend who works in Solarius couldn't install it.

Now lets talk Ximan. I agree 100%. Yes it may be easy to install Gnome or KDE manually, IF you know how, have the time, and experience. That's one thing that one fellow is missing. 99% of the people wanting to come into linux, don't have. I've got almost $200 in books, and none will tell you how to install easly. Even linux for dummies, and idiots/linux tells you. They don't get go into the program itself, but sticks with KDE.

And none shows how to upgrade KDE, or Gnome. So like others, I have to wait till Redhat or such brings out a new distro to upgrade.

One thing I've always thought, how about a OS X style distro? But I agree, it should be like a tablecloth. Cover it, but don't hide it. Let us get our hands dirty if we like, but make it so that you can install, deinstall programs. A lot of us want to just *use* the computer. Some of us have to work for a living, and want to be away from the computer to have a life. (sorry don't mean to growl.)

But the point is, there is lots of us, that wants out from under MS's thumb, away from the viruses, the security hazards, the 'upgrade or else' and especially the crashy, slop that MS calls an OS. We want an OS that will allow us to work with our computers, to do things we want to do. If it's gaming, word processing, or even yes tinkering with it (like you linux gurus)

Just my $.02US
Shadowwalker Delaforge (stuggling linux user.)

Re:Hiding the system from the user

[Kyber]

As I wrote in an earlier thread to my post; I do agree. And the two solutions can happily co-exist. But as long as there is no common standard for linux(/bsd) installers with multiple frontends, is it really realistic to expect people to provide different installers? (Although, in a perfect world, they might...) And if they only provide one installer, I do prefer seeing a _simple_ graphical installer. Because 'everyone' can use that, and if I really want to know _exactly_ what it does, it won't take more than 2 minutes to find out. (Or, to put it in other words; I don't mind a little more effort if it means I can share my freedom with more people ;)

WESTLAKE you moron.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're gonna post old news, at least learn how to spel the names of the people you are talking about.

Geez.

Don't ever use --nodeps like that

[Nailer]

Two better options:

• Install apt-get from freshrpms and use to uninstall Ximian. Dependencies will be satisfied as necessary.
• Reinstall ximian Gnome after your Red hat upgrade

Good luck

[Nailer]

We already have a standardized packaging system and I don't think autopackage will change that. Why not create a good apt-get frontend? Or, if you need to actually change somethign within RPM, submit your changes to the RPM maintainer. I wouldn't install autopackage on my system the same way I wouldn't install any other unpackaged app: the effectiveness of *any* management system is linked with its ubiquity.

SuSE 8

[Drunken_Jackass]

I've used Red Hat and Mandrake distros, but i have to say that my recent experience with SuSE 8.0 Pro was an absolute dream. From the initial installation to the Yast2 manager, software installation and removal is as good as i've seen in a Linux distro. While the Ximian initial installation is pretty slick - piping the page source to the shell, and the Red Carpet installer is nice too, i prefer Yast2 over both red carpet and up2date.

I don't think i'll be quick to change to another disto after having found SuSE. You've gotta check it out!

Will wait for Ximian's Gnome 2.0.x

[mylogic]

To each his own. I enjoy that I have the option of tweaking an application the way I want it it work, however the real question lies with this:

How many end users, meaning workstation users actually do this? I want the ability to install a powerful desktop management software tool like gnome2, however I cant justify clouting my system with libraries that remain even after a "full" removal. We get into the very same problem we saw back in windows 3.11 where removing a program REALLY didnt remove all of its contents. What we are looking for is a system that doesnt need to cleaned, but one which is self contained within a packaging system. Ximian has the right idea and thats why i will wait until they put out GNOME 2.0, rather than painfully going though each rpm, each tgz, each bz2 file. It just plain sucks, Ximian offers a CLEAN approach to installing GNOME2.0. To them and however they do make money, I say thank you!

All the linux community wants is easy package management that handles dependencies somewhat transparent. For those of you who have wasted hours of your precious life trying to install these components separately, my hat goes off to you...

Beware, the trend of OSS is in danger by commercial entities claiming stake to what is rightfully GPL'ed...SLASHDOT I do believe this another issue.

FreeBSD AND Mandrake you guys ROCK!!

strormpkg

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this any better than stormpkg or the other package managers for debian? How well does this do a dist upgrade?

Yes!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

YES, YES, YEEES DAMNIT!! Not FORCE the use of it but at least provide the option.. if there's one thing I hate its being put in front of a console when I want to install Linux, I just have to 'smell' what to do eh, no wonder normal pc users cant get linux installed..

Hiho! It's off to work we go...

[sydbarrett74]

...and at the end of the day, 99% of people just want to get their work done. We /. readers forget that we're in a vocal minority. Most people could care less about 'flexibility.' They simply want to get their work done. That's why Mac OS X has taken the world by storm (and Linux has failed to outside of the small geek subculture). Case in point: I had a party the other night, with a mixed group in attendance: everyone from engineers to musicians to sculptors. When I mentioned Linux, I got mostly blank stares. However, when I mentioned OS X, people said, 'Oh yeah! Macs rock!' In fact, my next non-Windows system will most likely not run Linux. It'll run Mac OS X.

The problem is when different installers disagree

[TeddyR]

My only problem with red-carpet is that it considers the -ximian version as an update to the ones that the distro has for the EXACT same release.

What happens is that redhat's up2date putss the RH version of the item, and then redcarpet wants to reinstall it as the -ximian version.

I understand that they do this to make sure that the dependancies are completely known to their system so that their own apps dont break... but still... annoying...

PS: this also makes it so that when upgrading a RH72+ximian system to rh73, you get that annoying warning... Luckily going ahead with the update (ignoring the warning, which installs RH versions of some of the same files that red-carpet had updated); and then RERUNNING red-carpet again on R73 gets things working correctly again by reinstalling the -ximian versions of things...

Moneytalk

[NewbieSpaz]

I noticed that the article talks about "moneytalk" every time they really mean monkeytalk. I was confused at first, thinking it was a competitor of GnuCash or something.

Cute graphical installers...

[raddan]

...are important for stability and consistency in installation. Even pros make mistakes. Ditching the UI so you can call yourself L337 is just stupid.

Besides, who really wants to spend their time pouring over XFree86 configs?

Re:Cute graphical installers...

[Junta]

I disagree. While graphical installers make things better for the novice, for the advanced user it has little to offer and constricts in so many ways. People don't just choose to use a terminal over a gui just to be l337, I and many more people use it because it is faster to get stuff done and also it can be highly configured and scripted to do things automatically.

I mean, a gui has to give all the options through visual elements, meaning a lot of buttons/menus to navigate. The only way to keep any reasonably powerful application from being unwieldy is to stick options into many submenus. While this helps those who do not know what options or available, or need prompting to remember what to do, for people who do know and remember, the command line allows entering it directly. Hell, with a nice shell and good completion functions, tab completion could show what can be done at any point. GUIs are nice to complement command line utilities, but people using the command line are not simply doing it to be 'elite'.

(You are misinformed) Re:Ximian are lamers

[Anonymous Coward]

The installer also works on debian, solaris and (i think) HP-UX. You are MISINFORMED.

Re:(You are misinformed) Re:Ximian are lamers

[Chris Z. Wintrowski]

>The installer also works on debian, solaris and (i think) HP-UX. You are MISINFORMED.

The only reason Ximian have gotten up off their
lazy asses and supported Debian is because Debian
lusers comprise a very large portion of GNU/Linux
users - their target demographic.

The only reason why they support Slolaris is
because Sun are the main corporate contributor,
supporter, and user of the GNOME desktop. To not
support Solaris is like giving Sun the finger,
something that Mr. de Icaza wouldn't be too happy
about.

Ximian only support these two non-rpm
un*xes because they absolutely have to. It seems,
as far as they are concerned, everyone else can
fuck off and figure out how to install 200MB of
shit from scratch.

As I have said in a previous post on the matter,
and explained to one of the Ximian guys personally,
all that's needed is a script that'll automate the
retrieval and building of the sources for non-rpm
systems. It doesn't even have to be a 30MB GUI app,
just a shell script would do.

But no. Ximian either don't care about non-rpm un*xes,
or they are just a too frickin' lazy. Either way, they're still
a bunch of lamers.

Re:Ximian are lamers - To the Moderator

[Chris Z. Wintrowski]

Ah, yes! I'm now a troll!

Well, whoever moderated me down, I wonder if you
realise my point and can see things from the other
side of the coin.

As Slashdot is the mouth-piece of the GNU/Linux
hoarde, I seriously doubt anyone out there has
balls enough to step up to the plate and criticise
the community we're all part of. Unless we can
put ourselves under the microscope, and scrutinise
the things we do, ultimately we're going to continue
in this cess pool of half-baked software written
by a bunch of lamers.