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"
Other than my MAudio 7.1 card not working with the master volume and no one anywhere on the Net knowing or caring to help, I was able to dump my Windows XP system for Mandriva easily.
KDE blows away the XP desktop, although some stuff like options being buried in four or five levels of sub menus needs to be addressed.
However, it is not in the same universe as my dual G5 OS X system.
Please KDE guys, buy a Mac, steal one, whatever it takes. You have matched Microsoft, big whoop. Time to move on to the big leagues in desktop software.
Too bad that Apple got the boot from IBM, I don't see their desktop system lasting much longer now they are dumped into Intel land and their hot, slow chips. Oh well.
Basically, it means that any Free/Open Source software project that is even remotely interesting has been packaged. I haven't had to build any package from source in years ...
So if I read this right, this amazingly easy installation procedure (which is pitched as a strength of FOSS) does not have any dependency on the Free/Open Source development model because the installation packages are binary. Further, while it is true that the user is relieved from having to figure out which packages work with his/her system, there is a significant burden on the application developers and/or packagers to support every Tom-Dick-and-Harry distribution. Just the testing alone (which I would bet does not get done on the lesser-known distros) is a massive undertaking.
So in the end I remain unconvinced that the Linux world is even in the same ballpark as Windows when it comes to ease of use, installation-wise, for the end users. And further, the direction the Linux world is taking is to be more Windows like (binary install packages, software manager, uninstallers). The main difference is Microsoft relieves the application developers from the burden of having to build installers for umpteen platforms - typically they only have to build 1. And the average Windows user doesn't have to worry about picking the wrong distro
Here are some anticipated user reactions:
How come you can get the CDtoasterExtreme package and I can't?
What do you mean if I want that application I have to install a new operating system? But then I lose some of the applications I already have?
I subscribe to the notion of a binary installation. However, until the Linux world can harmonize on a SINGLE package that runs on ALL Linux distros they will be far behind the Windows world in this regard.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
This article is a joke. I firmly believe that I got what I paid for so I wouldn't normally complain here. But this is nothing like my experience.
Simplicity of the installation process? Last year I installed a Mandrake 9 on a VM. I had a functional install which I used for 2 weeks and then forgotten. This year I had to dust it off and install some new software for it.
Poof! The installation system is broken, the software repositories don't work, nothing upgrades not only automatically but even most things fail during manual installation due to library dependencies and even the Mandrake websites no longer exist. End result: I cannot install software on a year old Linux system.
The windows zealots don't get a lot of focus here on slashdot. They're the ones you're seeing right now, saying "Linux needs to do $CHANGE in order to get into the desktop market". $CHANGE is generally some form of comparison to Microsoft Windows.
Windows zealots don't get Linux, though a lot of the slashdot ones are actually linux users as well. They're thinking in terms of markets, and beating the competition. Linux, in its essence, is not about beating anyone. At the very core, linux is about sharing code. As long as code is being shared, linux is a success.
However, every time there's a linux article with any semblance of relating to user friendliness or The Desktop, out they come, with their redundant ideas about How to Save Linux, How to Make Millions from Linux etc.
I admit that I am a little anti-windows, though I do still keep it on my hard drive and use it from time to time (using it right now coincidentally). Having said that, a few years back when I moved to linux, I didn't hang around windows sites saying that $X was wrong with windows, or that I didn't like $Y.
So what's with all these people who for the most part don't even use linux, let alone contribute anything to it, trying to dictate to us changes we should make to our operating system (mostly in order to homogenise it with windows).
Also, the usability issue is long dead. I've used Mandriva and SuSe, and I lost IQ points as a result - that's how absurdly easy they are to use. They piss all over windows software installation, which starts at google, and ends at "Next", "Finish", and are full of little touches that literally astound windows users, like having an icon appear on the desktop for your USB stick, instead of that frankly useless little window (even though this obviously uses the same mechanism, it amazes everyone I've showed it to so far - they actually ask how it's possible, just because windows doesn't have dynamic icons).
When will you zealots understand this? They've spent years listening to you, and you're still there, demanding more windows-like, and less thought. I've got news for you all: it's got nothing to do with usability. Moving to linux used to be like learning a new language, especially because of the command line, but also because of the general look and feel. It's now so windows-like that it's more like learning a new dialect, for example the difference between Latin American Spanish and Peninsular Spanish. As such, my opinion is that by now, these little niggles are not so much deal-breaking flaws, but rather excuses not to do the work required to acclimatise oneself in a new environment.
It... lovely... soft... ravishing!
Anyway, where was I? Oh yeah - leave my OS alone, stupid windows zealots.
I know a lot of people who bought new computers after being spywared rather than attempt an XP reinstall. I think this casts the whole "easy to install" question in a totally new light. The real question is - who installs their own operating system? We (mostly Linux users, a few Windows power users and astroturfers thrown in for good measure) have come up in the years of installing your own operating system - installing DOS 5.0, doing your first '95 upgrade, etc. We live in a world where people don't do that anymore. No one installs XP. They buy the computer with it already on there. Most people don't back up their data and have to rebuild their entire digital universe from scratch when they change from one computer to the next, so the pain of doing so is reserved to and part of the trauma of buying a completely new computer.
Why do people do this? What is so hard about Windows XP installation? 2 things:
Modern Windows multi-step phone home licensing is beyond what the average user wants to mess around with. I think that is clearly deliberate. But the most important problem with installing XP is that when you are done, you aren't done. You have to put all your programs back on it. Windows installs without an office suite, imaging editing software for your digital camera, software to talk to your blackberry, etc. etc. etc. This is an area where I think Linux has a very big advantage which has not been exploited from a marketing perspective. The software repositories for something like a Debian or Gentoo are truly amazing. You are a few clicks away (in the case of Synaptic, for example) from a universe of software most Windows users can never imagine. All Linux systems install with a MS-compatible office suite by default, and have thousands of other programs to choose from to do everything from games to development to desktop publishing. Windows doesn't even come with a decent text editor.
As with so many things, therefore, comparing the installation of Windows to that of Linux is like comparing apples to oranges. Software freedom is a qualitative matter rather than quantitative, and, as usual, you can never accomplish through a Windows XP installation what is possible when you install Linux.
Who wrote this article - Baghdad Bob? I use both Windows and Linux on a regular basis, and I like both of them. But software installation is one of the most horrible, frustrating deficiencies of RPM-based Linux distributions. Sure, if you stick to your distribution's official software repository you're unlikely to find yourself in RPM hell. But sooner or later you will need/want to install an application that is not available there, and then good luck to you.
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.
./configure; make; make install and hoping there's no error.
It's not completely true. If the Linux distro you use has the package you want, it's now always easier (and cleaner) to install it on Linux than on Windows. You usually don't have to write anything about where you want to install it, and the files are stored in a more consistent way.
That said, try to remove a software cleanly on Windows, it will mostly fail.
But in the case the software is not available for you distro, then I agree that it's simpler to click on Setup.exe than download and install development librairies, open a console, do the
I hate all sigs, mine included.