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"

Comments

Nature's way.

[kahei]

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.

Nature has many ways to deliver a warning. The bright stripes of the coral snake, for instance, warn us of its poison. The yellow markings of the wasp warn us that if we touch it it could sting us. And sentences like the above warn us that the discussion may be just a teensy bit over-focused on The Destiny Of Free Software And The Slaying Of The Redmond Ogre.

Ah, Mother Nature, your resourcefulness never ceases to amaze :)

Re:Nature's way.

[jolyonr]

I have found a blue error screen is a natural warning of low-quality software.

Well, not to defend an evil empire or anything,

[ScrewMaster]

but what is so unfriendly about the Windows XP install, in particular?

Re:Well, not to defend an evil empire or anything,

[zootm]

but what is so unfriendly about the Windows XP install, in particular?

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.

Re:Well, not to defend an evil empire or anything,

[cyxxon]

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.

Re:Well, not to defend an evil empire or anything,

[ooh456]

The process of installing Windows is long and complicated compared to most Linux and even BSD distros I've tried.

And instead of getting easier with each new version its getting more difficult. The last time I installed it a few months ago I had to spend 10 minutes on the phone punching codes in and then listening to a voice generate me an activation key. And since I called from Sweden the message was in Swedish. Nice one. You think normal serial codes are annoying? Now that was annoying. Enter your serial code, Bork Bork!

What's more, Windows typically does a worse job at auto-configuring than Linux. I remember a few months ago I couldn't even install Windows XP SP-1 which cost me $300 on a machine because the new hard drive I bought were serial ATA and I didn't have a floppy drive to load the 'special drivers'. Since it was a computer I was building on a budget, I refused to buy a floppy drive just so I can load some whack drivers. I mean, I haven't used a floppy drive since 1996.

Guess what... a standard Debian Linux CD-ROM which I downloaded and burned for free could see and format the Serial ATA drives with no problem. It got all my drivers right as well because it just automatically downloaded the latest versions as necessary from one of about 100 mirrors around the world.

As for software, a Windows installation can take a whole day and cost thousands of dollars as you install your productivity applications and whatnot each of them with a separate serial code and a reboot of your computer. With BSD or Linux distros you just pick the apps you want and they install and auto-configure along with the rest of the operating system. I think I rebooted my Debian box one time when I was editing my FSTAB file.

That, my friend, is what is so unfriendly with a Windows install. It takes longer, it is tedious, and loads up a bunch of marketing crap that maybe 5% people think they want. Oh yeah, and you have to speak Swedish if you install Windows in Sweden. So no traveling, okay?

Re:Well, not to defend an evil empire or anything,

[heanol]

Difference is, windows is usually pre-installed.

Re:Well, not to defend an evil empire or anything,

[xs650]

but what is so unfriendly about the Windows XP install, in particular?

I don't see a lot of difference on a new install with fresh software, in fact Windows has the advantage because it usually installs and just plain works with no treaking. If everything works without tweaking, a Linux install can be easier, but in my experiance, there is usually some piece of hardware that causes headaches in a Linux installation. It doesn't matter that the reason for the problem is lack of drivers from the hardware manufacturer, all that matters to the user is that he has problem that he didn;t in Windows.

On the 2nd, 3rd, 4th ... time the OS is installed, Linux installations start to have some real advantages. I just reinstalled Orifice XP in a 4 year old notebook computer for the 3rd or 4th time, this time because I replaced the hard drive. Everytime, it gets to be bigger job. It's re-enter the silly bazillion digit authorization number (assuming you can still find it), download and install a big arsed batch of updates, dowload and install a 90+ meg service pack 2, then download and install the next big batch of security patches etc. Then search the web to find out how to get rid of some of the crap the XP automatically loads and starts running for you.

By comparison, to reload a Linux flavor after a hard drive change, you get the revision of the distribution you want and just load it. Chances are it, unlike Windows, will be easier to reload than it was the first time because Linux distros are fairly rapidly improving their user freindliness while Windows loading is a bit more user hostile than it used to be. Then on top of that, office software and a bunch of other usefull stuff gets loaded in less time than it takes to just get the Windows OS loaded.

Re:Well, not to defend an evil empire or anything,

[stinky wizzleteats]

but what is so unfriendly about the Windows XP install, in particular?

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:

• The license code.
• You dont' have a functional computer when you are finished

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.

Re:Well, not to defend an evil empire or anything,

[kubevubin]

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?

Very nice page for the beginner

[imr]

I thinks it's a very good idea to describe the softwares installation process under linux, which may be puzzling at first to grasp when coming from windows but is really a no brainer afterwards.

As for the online documentation that the article describes, it is contained in the distribution, just install with the "Software Packages Installation wizard" those packages :
mandriva-doc-Starter-fr
mandriva-doc-Drakxtools-Guide
mandriva-doc-Command-Line
mandriva-doc-Server_Conf_Guide

The first 2 being the most importants for the beginner. Once installed, they will be accessible in the documentation menu.

Also, if you need help and support afterwards, go to the mandrivaclub forums, you don't need to be a paying member to post there, you just have to register a login as in any online forum.
It is a community driven forum, yet with the en/us forum admin being a paid mandriva employee, an uber help machine and an "original doom" speed freak.
http://forum.mandrivaclub.com/

Chip board, or pine?

[basingwerk]

How can Linux compete with the current desktop market leader, which surely must be either chipboard or pine?

Re:Chip board, or pine?

[meringuoid]

How can Linux compete with the current desktop market leader, which surely must be either chipboard or pine?

Well, I've been using pine on Linux for years, from back when I used to telnet into my shell account just because I didn't have the disk space on my machine for a mail client, but I haven't heard of chipboard. New project? Is it on freshmeat yet?

Background

[Jacek Poplawski]

Background of this article makes it really unreadable.

When theory and reality disagree... reality wins.

[mumblestheclown]

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.

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).

Nah...Windows Wins This One

[Dante Shamest]

Most people buy their computers with Windows pre-installed. To them, the installation process simply involves paying for the computer.

2006?

[PHanT0]

Seriously... I mean, I know M$ can't release an OS in the same year that it's name implies but do we have to underline that fact with a car-like release schedule... three or four months ahead of the actual year begins?

What's next... Debian wins the J.D. Power & Associates 2010 Consumers Choice Award?

Here come the Windows zealots

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Takes longer, more interaction required

[Tharald]

Windwos XP install is not directly unfriendly, but compared to Mandriva Linux install (and most other distros), a couple of issues stand out:

1. Time to install; Windows XP takes on average ~1-2 hours to install the OS and install all the drivers for motherboard, graphics card and so on. Mandriva takes on average 20 minutes, and is then configured with all drivers including NVidia/ATI 3d drivers and everything set up to go.

2. User interaction required; XP requires constant interaction during said install, to enter information, make choices, reboot and insert CDs. Mandriva requires a few choices first, the installation starts, and you can go away for 15 minutes and come back when everything is all set. One reboot to be up and running.

3. Functionality; XP, after said install, has the bare minimum requirements for an OS. If you want any more functionality, you need to spend lots of extra time and effort to install lots of software. Mandiva is all set up with office software, photo-software (manipulation and album software), games, calendaring, messaging, email, internet and most everything you need. All included in the 20 minutes (you can manage to make the install take up to 40 minutes, but then you install everything you can including server software and all).

All in all, I have installed quite a few of both, and I do not think you can compare the two. Setting up a windows machine is half a days work, while Mandriva is maybe one hour for everything including updates. In addition, the process of upgrading / reinstalling is much easier because of the separation of user data in the home folder.