Re: Linux ease of use

Interesting thoughts...

> > My question; why can't the developers of Linux (and I know there are
> > millions of them) develop some way that you can download a file, or
> > find a file on CD, click it and it installs itself?

   Actually, in some cases I have done just that.  In Debian when I use 
Konqueror, I can click on a .deb file, which automatically opens KPackage and 
gives me the option of installing the program.
   I've done similar things from RedHat 8.0 and 9.0 with .rpm files.

   However, as was brought up each Linux distribution has a slightly different 
layout in terms of where files reside, and there are heavy differences in how 
some programs are started.  (The startup of Linux from Slackware to, say, 
Debian are very different.)  This makes coming up with a standard way for a 
programmer to install a program difficult.
   This is why the LSB (Linux Standard Base) was started - to try to help this 
situation.

> Because the designers and developers don't believe that it should be
> simple.

   Actually I believe that developers and designers want to make it as simple 
as possible for new users but without loosing the power and flexibility of 
the expert tools.  I certainly wouldn't be willing to give up the ability to 
do a command-line fsck.ext3 in favor of only a point-n-click "fix it" GUI.  
What if X won't even run?  You get the idea.

> With Linux, you are expected to know what files go where,
> and how to install from a .tar.gz file.

   There are distributions in which this is true, and others in which it's 
not.  I currently never install from a .tar.gz for anything (for my desktop 
systems, anyway), and I used to do it all the time.

> They believe if you can't
> type tar zxf foo.tar.gz; cd foo; ./configure; make; make install
> then you shouldn't be using Linux at all :-)

   Personally I believe that it's very useful to know how to do this, but it's 
not a requirement for getting things workig or doing day-to-day tasks.  It's 
generally only special interest software that doesn't have packages built for 
them for distributions with package management.

> Some vendors have tried to make it easier (RPM, apt-get, etc) but
> because everyone has their own ideas about where things should go,
> there is not (and never will be) any standard place, and hence no
> standard method.

   The LSB tries to set the standard for where files reside, but that alone 
does not solve the entire problem.  This may get fixed, or it may stay in its 
current state of strangeness.  It is something that can be learned and 
eventually understood, but it is very confusing when getting started.

> I'm afraid that's the penalty we pay for an Open
> Source system: everyone is free to do as they wish.

   This is a very necessary and important freedom that has to be maintained - 
otherwise something else will come out that allows the same thing that people 
will flock to out of necessity.  Either way we'd have the same problem.
   M$ and others have often made the complaint about Linux that there is too 
much choice.  Likewise I've heard the complaint concerning non-uniform GUI's 
for programs.
   Sure - choice comes at a price.  So does the lack of it.

   Personally, I refuse to be spoon-fed.  'Nuff said.

	- Chris

-- 
Chris Knadle
Chris.Knadle-15hjz6xD4c1Wk0Htik3J/[email protected]