Re: Linux ease of use

On Tue, 2003-08-19 at 15:50, Chris Knadle wrote:
> 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.

Yes, it works fine. But stuff which isn't available in {RPM|deb|apt|...}
still has to be done manually, because .tar.gz-distributed software 
often fails to configure or compile first time round, due to dependency
problems and other packages putting files in silly places where they
can't be found.

>    However, as was brought up each Linux distribution has a slightly different 
> layout in terms of where files reside, 

I rest my case. The Linux File System Hierarchy is honoured more in the
breach than the observance.

>    This is why the LSB (Linux Standard Base) was started - to try to help this 
> situation.

If Red Hat would also fix some of their library and locale stuff in RH9
it would help. Mark this down as an Annoyance: vendors who break things.

> > 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 losing 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.  

Nobody's asking anyone to give anything up. Merely to concentrate on 
making it work the simplest way round for the maximum number of users.

> What if X won't even run?  You get the idea.

I think the OP was assuming a running X system.  Getting X to run is
a whole 'nother Annoyance, especially now that vendors are dropping
support for older screens and cards.

> 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.

Not for most packages, but there's still a huge amount of apps and utils
out there which come that way only.

> > 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, 

Definitely. 

>    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. 

Me too, but for each of us there are 10M users who don't care. Maybe a
"My First Linux" distro would help (you listening, Sony?)*

///Peter
-- 
Apropos of nothing else, a friend was looking for a cassette tape player
with extra-large keys on, for a very elderly relative. The term "My Last
Sony" was born...:-)