Re: Linux ease of use

Apparently I had some more to add to this subject...

[easy installs]
> 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.

   Yes, admittedly that's a problem.  It would be nice if the installer gave 
the user a message to the user on where the programs were being installed 
to...  However, programs in Linux typically seperate the documentation from 
the binaries into seperate directories, and so it's difficult to know how 
much information to give the user.
   There are lots of HOWTOs that explain how the filesystem is laid out, where 
things go when they install - etc.

   But your real complaint concerning this seems to be about INTERMEDIATE 
users, not stupo-users.  Stupo-users don't install programs - they use what 
they have or ask for support.  If they install something, they have no clue 
where it went or how to do it, they just know how to find it in the GUI menu 
- and that's it.
   Stupo-uers are not going to be begging for programs that they find that 
come as .tar.gz's.  Only intermediate users that want to dig more into the 
way the system works go there, and those users have lots of HOWTOs at 
http://www.tldp.org to read about how the filesystem is laid out.

> >    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.

   Well, it depends how you define "breech".  Each Linux distro is trying to 
lay out their filesystem in a way that makes sense to the distribution 
maintainers.  They're all trying to make it easier to use and make it 
understandable.  That doesn't mean that they all collaborate between the 
distributions and come up with a common way to lay out the filesystems and 
stick to that like the 10 commandments.
   Some flexibility is necessary for good design decisions, and just keeping 
things the way that they are already for fear of making any changes leads to 
stagnation and inability to fix things and come up with better methods.

> >    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.

   And it happens with all of the distributions/vendors.  On occasion even 
Debian has trouble with upgrades of Sid/Unstable.  It happens.  These are all 
still people trying to do a good job, but people make mistakes and make 
creative decisions.  Not everybody is going to agree with what happens all of 
the time.

   On the OTHER hand, Linux developers and supporters are now infamous for 
fixing problems and patching vulnerabilities at a record pace unmatched by 
any other platform.  Comare this to M$'s recent decision to continue to put 
off Service Pack 2 for XP that was due out in June or July.
   I'm far more grateful for the GOOD work that I see than I could dare 
complain about the mistakes that I find.  When I find one, I write a bug 
report, and it's fixed - FAST.


Re: interface stuff
....
> 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.

   I really think that they're doing that.  Linux developers would love to see 
Linux more in the mainstream on desktops, believe me.  We all want these 
viruses, worms, and easy Windows hacks to go away and to be able to support 
our users with less fear and angst.

> > 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.

   The distribution that I personally run doesn't even have automatic X-Window 
setup and I have to configure it manually.  Doing that, I see an absolutely 
huge number of video cards supported for X.  Perhaps these vendors are 
dropping support for the automatic DETECTION of these cards, but X still CAN 
support these cards.
   But yeah - when older hardware gets support dropped it sucks.

> > 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.

   That's true - but one of the main points and advantages to Linux is that 
the source is totally in the open so you can install things that way.  
Gentoo, for instance, brings _everything_ down as source and compiles it all.  
No binaries.  Even the install procedure is from source.
   Building binaries ready for download for all the different versions of all 
the distributions, taking into account all of the dependencies is a major 
pain - so I absolutely cannot place blame on developers that don't make a 
binary version for every distribution for their software.  That's basically 
what you're indirectly saying.

   If you were a developer of software and giving it away for free, imagine 
getting the complaint that "Why don't you just have a pacakage available for 
my RedHat 7.1 machine?  What's the deal?  Were you lazy?"  You would likely 
feel unappreciated and angry, and that the user did not understand the work 
they were asking for.

   I understand your point, but the other end of this is a volunteer person or 
organization that's doing their work for free.




   As it is I have a HOWTO to write that I've been unable to spend any time 
on.  :-/  *sigh*  I'm not getting any development time and I can't figure out 
how to make some.  Sucks.
   Whomever is writing all of these viruses/worms - can ya slow down a bit for 
a while, please?  Heh.

	- Chris

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