Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Linux Package Management Beats Windows

On Oct 16, 12:30 pm, Attila <jdkay...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> > Get down and dirty with Linux
>
> > ,----[ Quote ]
> > | Package managers make getting to grips with Linux easier
> > |
> > | Let me start with a controversial statement: installing new software is
> > | almost always easier on Linux than on Windows. On most Linux systems, a
> > | package manager takes care of both the installation and removal of
> > | software.
> > `----
>
> >http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=10970
>
> Hi Roy,
> A highly inaccurate or at best misleading article about Gnu/Linux. It seems
> too many people equate Ubuntu with Gnu/Linux and that what is the "Ubuntu
> way" is commonly regarded as the Gnu/Linux way. In talking about installing
> new soft ware Mathew Newton says,
>
> "For example, I was perfectly happy using Rhythmbox 0.9.3.1 to manage and
> listen to my digital music and had been quite content with what it offered.
> Although it wasn't a bad tool, when version 0.9 came out there were new
> features in it that I desired. In essence, I wanted it.
>
> My package manager knew of only version 0.9.3.1, which had been tested and
> crafted by a 'package maintainer' at the Ubuntu project to work
> fantastically on Ubuntu 6.06. In other words, 0.9.3.1 was the only version
> of Rhythmbox Ubuntu 6.06 officially supported, so it was the only version I
> could grab via the package manager with point-and-click ease."
> ....
> "Compiling apps can drive a Linux newbie to madness. Unless you're prepared
> to go down this route we strongly advise you have a little patience and
> wait for an update."
>
> If you're knowledge of Gnu/Linux extends a wee bit beyond Ubuntu you will
> find that other distros (and perhaps Ubuntu itself) offer other options.
> For example Debian (and perhaps many/most other distros) offers 3 flavours:
> stable, testing, unstable. The user decides which flavour suits his/her
> needs most closely. That's called freedom. I choose testing (currently
> called "Lenny") but even then I have the option (which I certainly use) of
> cherry-picking stuff from Sid (unstable). I don't think most people would
> find grabbing software "via the package manager with point-and-click ease."
> I personally find using a CLI much easier and more natural than some GUI.
> The author seems to assume that everybody likes to point and click.
>
> As for his claim that "Compiling apps can drive a Linux newbie to madness."
> I think this just shows his own mental state rather than any intrinsic
> difficulty of compiling. Most of the stuff I compile consists of giving the
> commands: ./configure, make, make install. I'm sorry but I don't see how
> that could drive anyone to madness unless they're terminally stupid. Most
> tarballs come with a file called INSTALL which tells you what to do
> (essentially, the 3 commands I gave above).
>
> There are occasions when either the configure stage or the make stage will
> fail. In 90% of the cases there is an error message clear enough for even a
> dummy like me to figure out if I can fix the problem and how to do it. At
> worst I can just give up but that happens very rarely. Telling people how
> difficult something is, is usually a sign that you don't understand it very
> well yourself.
>
> All in all, I'd say a very poor article and not one likely to encourage
> people to use Gnu/Linux; in fact in seems to confirm many of the false
> ideas about Gnu/Linux currently circulating. To me Gnu/Linux is about doing
> things your way, not M$'s way or Ubuntu's way.
> That's my 5 cèntims.
> Cheers,
> Att

GREAT POST!

The SPAMMER Roy Schestowitz will never be able to see your quite valid
points however because he is a rabid Linux zealot and with him it's
either all or nothing.
Mark Kent is even worse.

That being said, I will agree that Ubuntu, and more so, Shuttleworth's
$$$ and influence, have done more for Linux in recent years than
anything I can recall.
Ubuntu is a very good Linux distribution however Ubuntu is NOT *Linux*
per se' like many noobs are lead to believe.
In the past it used to be Redhat was *Linux* and that was equally
incorrect and equally dangerous because neither Redhat nor Ubuntu do
everything perfectly.
I run Mepis and PCLinuxOS and for my dime, both are far better than
Ubuntu.
As for package management under Linux vs Windows, Linux is better as
long as you stay within the confines of the distribution and put your
faith in the person packaging the program.

Compiling from source and using tarballs is unacceptable for noobs
because it rarely works out to make, make install etc...
Most people can't even figure out how to start the program when they
are done and that's assuming they have the myriad of development
packages already installed so they CAN compile from source, which is
doubtful.

All in all your post is very good and once again Roy Schestowitz
completely misses the point.



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index