Slashdot Mirror
Mandriva Linux 2006 Review
Anonymous Coward writes "In light of the many misunderstandings about Linux, software repositories and installation of packages, part one of this season's Mandriva Linux 2006 review includes an extensive background article about it. It explains why the nature of Free Software leads to a more userfriendly software installation setup for Linux distributions in general, as compared to proprietary systems such as the current desktop market leader. The process is illustrated with Mandriva Linux tools. This first part of the Mandriva Linux 2006 review also contains information on the installation and benchmark figures against previous Mandriva/Mandrake products and much more"
In terms of software installation, I believe that the problem they're getting at is that you have to obtain the software yourself. Of course, this is something of an oversimplification (in particular, in some cases, this could be easier than using package management), but their emphasis is on the fact that all the software you want for your system is available in one place, and is easy and consistent to install.
Windows installer packages fix the second one of these gripes, whereas with the first, I suppose there are pros and cons.
Background of this article makes it really unreadable.
When theory and reality disagree, reality wins. Windows software is, in general, at this moment in time easier to install than Linux software. If you disagree with this statement, you are at best guilty of wishful thinking.
That said, there seems to be an unhealthy fixation in the Linux world with the "ease of OS installation" or "the ease of application installation." While these of course are important things, of course they represent only a relatively small portion of the whole "usability score" for a given OS/work environment. While most linux vendors have made admirable strides in the realm of OS installation (I'd argue, despite the likely claims of many here, that application installation still has a ways to go) to the point where the installation is now within the realm of 60% of computer users (compared to, I'd say, 70% for windows and 10% or less for linux 6 years ago), larger problems remain, such as the lack of true credible alternatives in many key software areas (gimp, for example, is a lousy photoshop clone) and a lack of true interoperability (like the fact that I can cut and paste items from powerpoint to photoshop to my email to into an MS-Access cell to ... relatively seamlessly).
I don't really know myself, but turn this around: Linux installation often gets critizised for being hard to install, and for sometimes featuring a menu driven but text based installer. You even get asked for what kind of machine you are installing (server, workstation, ...) and how much of your hard disks you wnat to use!
And the Windows XP is basically the same. You have to partition the harddrive yourself with a text based installer. You cannot go back to an earlier step throughout the whole installation, only during the second half. You get asked lots of questions, about the timezone, your network setup, and other hard to grasp concepts.
Yes, this might sound like a rant, but we are talking about OS installation mechanisms. They cannot magically determine what you want, only make it easy to prepare the questions for you. And quite frankly, Windows is not much better in that regard than an enduser friendly Linux distribution, but Linux often gets critizised for it by the "mainstream" IT press. Another thing the mainstream I press usually ignores is that one of these hard question installers ask is for the kind of machine, and then install all kinds of software that is appropriate, as in an office suite or SMB server. On Windows, you get asked all the difficult questions again upon each single application install (okay, meabe not for an SMB server, but you get my point).
This is a rather lengthy FA, and I doubt anyone outside the linux community understands and reads it in its entirety, but it is agood one nonetheless.
Most people buy their computers with Windows pre-installed. To them, the installation process simply involves paying for the computer.
Difference is, windows is usually pre-installed.
I use Windows 2000 Professional, so the activation code is a non-issue with me. Furthermore, I disagree with the article's author regarding the process of installing software in Linux being more intuitive than the process of installing software in Windows.
Matching the available software to your particular version of Windows isn't typically much of an issue. Unless you're using an older version of Windows, any new Windows software is XP-compatible (unless it's something developed by some freak of nature who intentionally writes software for Windows 3.1 only in his parents' basement.
As for needing to know the software's title, isn't that pretty much a requirement in a Linux environment, as well? The software summaries given in the typical Linux distro do not go into full detail about a program's feature set, so I don't even feel as though this is a relevant issue.
Furthermore, I highly doubt that the average newbie Linux user could figure out what he/she needs without visiting a forum or randomly installing/uninstalling various software packages until he/she finds the one that has the desired functionality. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that they'd hafta ask around more when looking for Linux software.
If a certain software title isn't included within a particular Linux distro (*cough*Opera*cough), you must then download and execute the software, also as an admin (by providing root's password). Furthermore, do note that any software installer can potentially include a virus of some sort. I seem to remember hearing about a particular Korean Firefox package for Linux containing a little something...
As for wizard installers, I like being able to choose how much of a particular package I'd like to install. Furthermore, what's wrong with it prompting for an installation directory? I, personally, like to choose the installation directory for certain applications, as it helps from an organization standpoint.
I can't believe that Linux users actually break a using a Windows wizard installation into multiple steps. You know, you don't have to change a thing. You can click Next or OK to your heart's content, only getting burned if you install an untrusted package.
And I really wish Linux users would stop bitching about having to reboot a Windows machine after certain software installations. Boo hoo! You know, you don't even necessarily have to reboot immediately. You can install other packages before rebooting for another. Besides, a Windows boot doesn't take nearly as long as a Linux boot, so what's the big deal?
As for the registry, yeah, it sucks. You know, though, it really isn't all that bad. I, personally, make plenty of changes within my registry upon reinstalling Windows, as I feel comfortable enough with it to do so.
Depending on the hardware, most devices are typically detected and installed automatically in Windows XP. It isn't perfect, but do realize that Windows XP has been out for several years, and it's bound to be out-of-date in terms of driver support. However, you can typically find device drivers on Windows Update, anyway. *shrug*
I'll admit that the system tray issue is quite common amongst the less experienced Windows users, but that's strictly due to their inability to take the time to pay attention to what they're doing. Full-auto software installations in Linux only encourage this sort of irresponsible computer use.
Perhaps the funniest thing about the article is that it assumes that everything in a Linux software installation will always go just fine. What if something goes terribly wrong? Would the average user know what to do then?