«

David wrote:

> The difficulty installing software is also one of the reasons I don't
> use linux.

It used to be a hassle.

Where it remains a problem is in new software under active development. It
hasn't been "polished" yet.....

But these days it is easily avoided for most desktop PC users.

The major Linux distros come with everything - OS and apps - already there.

Enkidu wrote:

> Duh! You install a distro and the FIRST thing you do is install a
> tarball? Back to Windows with you!!

To be fair, it was Firefox.......

But I have to admit, the same thing went through my mind.

Nova wrote:
> I decided to have a quick look at linux today after reading many people
> write how easy it has become. I use windows normally though am forced
> to use many *nix boxes at work for development but that is all from the
> command shell. I was curious to see what a desktop environment was like
> in linux compared to windows...
>
> I installed fedora core 4, the installer was pretty straight forward,
> had no problems picking up my hardware which is all pretty old hardware
> now and very standard in this particular box. i do like it how all the
> installation questions are asked at the start and then no more are
> needed and only one reboot at the end of installation.. Where as in
> windows the installation is interupted at times for network questions,
> region questions, user setup questions etc etc.
>
> Anyway so I look at the desktop in Fedora (kde), it's quite nice...
>
> The first thing I decide to do is upgrade firefox on the system to
> version 1.5. i browse to the firefox website and download the linux
> distribution.
>
> The linux installation instructions..
>
> "Extract the tarball in the directory where you want to install Firefox:
>
> tar -xzvf firefox-1.5.tar.gz
>
> This will create a firefox subdirectory of that directory."
>
> Now compare this to windows..
>
> "Double click the Firefox Setup 1.5.exe installer to start the install."
>
>
> Hmmm, seems it is a lot easier on windows,, double clicking with a mouse
> or just clicking open at the end of the download.. compared to having
> to open a shell, nagigate in the shell to the location that the browser
> saved it in (which probably the majority of computer users will have no
> idea where their browser saved it in).
> Of course they would need to know the cd commands to change directory..
> Then they have to manually uncompress the binary and decide where to put
> that directory...
>
> Anyway it just seemed strange that the first thing I went to do seemed
> no where near as straight forward as what was required on windows and
> for the majority of people that would be where it ends..
>
> I then decided to run the auto software updater, I ran it, it asked for
> the root password which i entered, it then sat there doing nothing for
> the next 10 minutes.. wonderful..
>
> Anyway as it is free it is still pretty cool but due to the lack of me
> favourite software being on the OS and having to go into the shell to
> upgrade a program seems i am not missing much really..

I agree. I installed Ubuntu the other day. I like it except for the fact
that you have to use command line stuff. I couldnt get it to install
Thunderbird and it kept asking for something about repositories (sp?)
If you could just doubleclick and not have to do command line stuff, I
would make it my fulltime OS. Until they sort it out, I will just leave
it on my pc as a dual boot option.

Enkidu wrote:

> Which really means that *you* failed to get it to work.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cliff

Windows users don't own their machines or accept responsibility for them in
the same way Linux users are used to.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 09:06:50 +1300, JC wrote:

> I agree. I installed Ubuntu the other day. I like it except for the fact
> that you have to use command line stuff. I couldnt get it to install
> Thunderbird and it kept asking for something about repositories (sp?) If
> you could just doubleclick and not have to do command line stuff, I would
> make it my fulltime OS. Until they sort it out, I will just leave it on
> my pc as a dual boot option.

synaptic is your friend
Start | System | Synaptic
If your repositories are borked, you will need to edit them, with
something like gedit or kwrite (run as root or sudo)
/etc/apt/sources.list

(There are a couple of threads on this NG about the problem)
hth
--
A sine curve goes off to infinity, or at least the end of the blackboard.
-- Prof. Steiner

Enkidu wrote:
> Nova wrote:
>> Enkidu wrote:
>>
>>> Nova wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The first thing I decide to do is upgrade firefox on the system to
>>>> version 1.5. i browse to the firefox website and download the linux
>>>> distribution.
>>>>
>>>> The linux installation instructions..
>>>>
>>>> "Extract the tarball in the directory where you want to install
>>>> Firefox:
>>>>
>>>> tar -xzvf firefox-1.5.tar.gz
>>>>
>>>> This will create a firefox subdirectory of that directory."
>>>>
>>> Duh! You install a distro and the FIRST thing you do is install a
>>> tarball?
>>
>> The first think I did was read the firefox instructions.
>> I did also try using the updater in the distro which didn't work.
>>
> Which really means that *you* failed to get it to work.

Yes I failed to get it to work, a default installation in which the
network was going perfectly and clicking on check for updates did NADA.
When I clicked for updates it asked for the root password I entered
it, and then it did nothing.. I am not sure what more was required on
my behalf, obviously the network was setup correctly as I could connect
to other machines and the internet..

As it sat there for 10 minutes without giving any indication of doing
anything either it doesn't work, or the error reporting is absolutely
horrid (non existant).

Either way, it didn't work and so my first impressions aren't great of
FC4 .

Cheers!

>
> Cheers,
>
> Cliff

steve wrote:
> Nova wrote:
>
>> Anyway it just seemed strange that the first thing I went to do seemed
>> no where near as straight forward as what was required on windows and
>> for the majority of people that would be where it ends..
>>
>> I then decided to run the auto software updater, I ran it, it asked for
>> the root password which i entered, it then sat there doing nothing for
>> the next 10 minutes.. wonderful..
>>
>> Anyway as it is free it is still pretty cool but due to the lack of me
>> favourite software being on the OS and having to go into the shell to
>> upgrade a program seems i am not missing much really..
>
> Linux is best updated using packages for the distro concerned.
>
> For Fedora Core, you would use a *.rpm file.
>
> That you could just double-click on and it would install the software.
>
> For other distros, like Debian, you would double-click on a *.deb file.
>
> The beauty of the system used in Debian is that if the package you want to
> install needs some OTHER files not currently installed in order to run
> properly, it will get those packages, too, and install them all in the
> right order as well.
>
> But to go to mozilla.org and download the generic Linux install file
> intended for all distros and not part of any package management scheme,
> then, yes....you do have to make yourself root and run the executable.
>
> The "tar" thing is just to extract the install files from the compressed
> archive they were downloaded in.
>
> On my Xandros systems, I just right-click on the tar file in the File
> Manager and select "extract all" from the pop-up menu.
>
> Then pasting the "sh <filename of install-bin>" into a shell command prompt
> and pressing enter isn't hard......
>
>

hi, yeah I am aware you can use RPM's but was more just trying to follow
the instructions of the vendor which I assume most people would if they
are on a new OS for the first time, and following the instructions at
firefox, it gave no information about using the distro's own updating
systems or installers, most windows users are used to either having an
autoupdater in the vendors software, or just going to the webpage and
downloading a new installation which they then just click open and it
updates the installed software.. This is perhaps just poor
documentation at firefox or lack of thought.

Unfortunately in this case the distro's own updater wasn't working and I
really couldn't be bothered wasting time finding out why. I am going to
try Ubantu next as have heard that is a pretty well packaged distro.

thanks for the reply, one thing that linux does have going for it is
that most of the people that use it are enthusiasts so support is
generally pretty good and free .

Enkidu wrote:
> Nova wrote:
>>
>> The first thing I decide to do is upgrade firefox on the system to
>> version 1.5. i browse to the firefox website and download the linux
>> distribution.
>>
>> The linux installation instructions..
>>
>> "Extract the tarball in the directory where you want to install Firefox:
>>
>> tar -xzvf firefox-1.5.tar.gz
>>
>> This will create a firefox subdirectory of that directory."
>>
> Duh! You install a distro and the FIRST thing you do is install a
> tarball? Back to Windows with you!!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cliff

No, you didn't read, I merely pointed out that is what the vendors
instructions say to do, but thanks for people so helpful anyway, always
good to get helpful advise from people like yourself.

Cheers!

Nova wrote:

[snip]

> I am going to try Ubantu next as have heard that is a pretty well
> packaged distro.

One you might want to also try is Mepis. It's a Debian based distro on
one cd that works as a live cd which you can choose to install if you
want once you have it going. I've had a couple of customers try loads
and loads of distros and for both of them Mepis turned out to be their
favourite.

--
Chris Hope | www.electrictoolbox.com | www.linuxcdmall.com

Nova wrote:

> hi, yeah I am aware you can use RPM's but was more just trying to follow
> the instructions of the vendor which I assume most people would if they
> are on a new OS for the first time, and following the instructions at
> firefox, it gave no information about using the distro's own updating
> systems or installers, most windows users are used to either having an
> autoupdater in the vendors software, or just going to the webpage and
> downloading a new installation which they then just click open and it
> updates the installed software.. This is perhaps just poor
> documentation at firefox or lack of thought.

You do raise an interesting point. With the better Linux distros today, they
do tend to be the source for most software.....via their package management
system.

This IS a bit different to Windows where - aside from MS software - you
would get software from someone else....though usually in a self-extracting
executable "setup.exe".......and hope you manage to keep each 'setup.exe'
in a meaningful named folder.



> Unfortunately in this case the distro's own updater wasn't working and I
> really couldn't be bothered wasting time finding out why. I am going to
> try Ubantu next as have heard that is a pretty well packaged distro.

I used to be a die-hard Red Hat user......but their move to Fedora Core put
me off and I haven't gone back after trying FC2 and 3. I didn't bother with
4.

There are now better distros out there with more reliable sources of
updates.

> thanks for the reply, one thing that linux does have going for it is
> that most of the people that use it are enthusiasts so support is
> generally pretty good and free .

Ta. Glad to help.....if it was any.