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"
How can Linux compete with the current desktop market leader, which surely must be either chipboard or pine?
I stole this
I have found a blue error screen is a natural warning of low-quality software.
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
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.
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.