Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
How to install ANYTHING in Ubuntu
monkeyblog.org — New to Linux, and having trouble figuring out how to install anything in Ubuntu? "Where's the EXE?", "Where do I need to extract this to?", "How do I run it?", "Where did it go?" It's just as easy in Ubuntu as it is in Windows to install things, only different.
PicklePower- 1494 diggs
- digg it
- CharlesDarwin, on 10/12/2007, -69/+4STFU NOOB!@!!
- kiltedwonder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16As a new Ubuntu (and linux in general) user that is a great reference.
- r121, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8It is indeed. I always like to see things like this that show people that Linux isn't as hard to use for most tasks as most people believe.
- Anoobis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9This is ideal for me. I used to get the feeling it was a mission to install stuff on Ubuntu and did ask myself when i first booted - if there's no .exe how do i install stuff :( this will be a great help thanks for finding and sharing
- automagically, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8It was an ok article. From reading it, I gather that /usr/bin is Linux's version of "Program Files", which is one of the first problems I had after installing stuff. Not sure though because it didn't specifically say that. It'd be nice if the instructions that come with a program, telling you what to type in terminal to install it, also tell you how to run it. I don't believe it explained the EXE thing as the article promised in the beginning. Where are they, and why do so many files not even have an extension? The article could have been sorted better, with nicely named sub categories, and more to the point. Just something I learned in my Technical Writing class.
Still trying to figure out why people love a package manager, with a predetermined list of applications in it. I thought "choice" was a large part of the Linux Community. Installing choices other than those listed in the package manager is unreasonably difficult. You can say it's no harder than Windows, just different; but I still say it's too much. - shibz, on 10/12/2007, -16/+0So since when is it hard to install stuff in linux? In gentoo all you do is type "emerge name-of-software-package" and its done. Even manually compiling it is easy as *****. This isnt even news...
- zootm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4This is a good reference to Synaptic/APT, and there are a few of these around. They all seem to scream "as easy as Windows!", though, and that's just not the case. The "Add/Remove Programs" system and equivalents that have been added to some distros is as easy, but it's still a different use case, in a lot of ways. Also, Add/Remove typically has the range of packages it can install limited.
In Windows:
Find program you want on a website, download, run, and it's installed.
In Ubuntu:
Find program you want on website, go to Synaptic, find package name by searching, install through that. If it's not in a repository you have, the ordinary user is unlikely to be able to understand repositories and stuff, which is why there's a need for tools which add extra ones.
The package system ensures shared libraries and stuff work better (obviously the Windows convention is just not to use shared libraries in most cases), but it adds a strain on the packagers, and can make it harder to add things. - Chozabu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5people like package managers because its lightly to contain most/all of your "day to day" software requirments
and its many times quicker and easier than installing the equiv "day to day" stuff for windows
if an application not in the repo provides a (ubuntu) .deb then its easier than windows
if an application not in the repo provides binarys or a non-ubuntu package, its perhaps a little harder than windows... debatable though
if an app provides source only, and it compiles first off, its a little hardfer than windows, if it has problems, it ranges from a little to alot harder
still, i havnt had to look outside the package manager much (18600 packages avalable on it at the min) but for example, the latest version of wine, and codeblocks provide ubuntu-debs - santaclaws, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@automagically: I gather that /usr/bin is Linux's version of "Program Files", which is one of the first problems I had after installing stuff... I don't believe it explained the EXE thing as the article promised in the beginning. Where are they, and why do so many files not even have an extension?
You could do worse than pick up a beginner's book to Linux, but to address this question: Windows determines whether something can be executed by extension. Linux determines whether something can be executed an an attribute (the execute bit) which is specifically set on the file. (Actually it's a little more fine grained than that; there are three execute bits, specifying exactly who is allowed to run something.)
As a quick exercise to get the point, try this:
1) Create a new text file (using gedit or similar) which contains this one line:
echo Hello World
Save it as "hello"
2) Open a terminal window, and browse to the directory where the file lives
3) Do this: ls -l hello
4) You'll see something like this:
-rw-r--r-- 1 yourname yourname 17 2006-05-14 08:49 hello
Notice the codes at the right - that tells you the permissioning that's set up on the file. Currently it is "read write for user, read for everybody else"
5) Now do this:
./hello
6) It'll tell you "Permission denied" or similar; that's because you haven't given execute permission to the file
7) Now do this to add execute:
chmod +x hello
8) ls -l hello
-rwxr-xr-x 1 yourname yourname 17 2006-05-14 08:49 hello
Notice the "x"s have been added - that means it's now executable
9) ./hello
You'll see it output Hello World
Voila, your first linux program. (Look up "bash scripting" in google for syntax reference if you want to do more complicated stuff.) - zootm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"if an application not in the repo provides a (ubuntu) .deb then its easier than windows"
Installing a .deb is harder than installing from an executable installer. Categorically. It might be *quicker*, if you know what you're doing, but this is about how usable the system is. - jmn2k1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4In Dapper there is gdebi, you double click de .deb click "install" and thats all...
- zootm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"In Dapper there is gdebi, you double click de .deb click "install" and thats all..."
Nice! I've not got a recent version of Dapper on a system yet (the Live CD functionality doesn't work on my laptop, because it's too slow, so I need to get the text-based CD), but that's a very good feature. I had wondered why that wasn't there before, to be honest.
Really though, the "how to install anything on Ubuntu" guide should be "click it". That's where things should be headed. I suppose you could make a minimal "installer" .deb by making a .deb which has a single dependency of the package you want to install... - raindog469, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Actually, automagically, "Program Files" is sort of a Windows version of /usr/bin. It arrived in 1995, 4 years after the first release of Linux and about 25 years after the first Unix.
Similarly, "system" and later "system32" are sort of like an amalgamation of /bin, /sbin, /usr/sbin, /lib and /usr/lib. (There are also some executables and libraries hanging out in c:windows or c:winnt, but that use seems to be shrinking.)
Nonetheless, as someone who has migrated a lot of Windows users to Linux.... you and zootm are absolutely right, it doesn't work the way Windows users expect it to work. Maybe someday, through "klik" or some other distro-agnostic mechanism, there'll be a way to just click on a single file on a website and have it come up with a "setup.exe" type of wizard that will take the user through installing the application and automatically install all its dependencies.
Meanwhile, "that looks like a nice program, let's fire up Synaptic/Click'n'run/rpmdrake/YaST/etc. and see if it's available for my distro" is the best most converts are going to be able to do.
- aptget, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19The release Ubuntu 6.06 Dapper Drake is going to completely own. Double click installation of .deb files is one thing I'm really looking forward to. It was awesome testing the feature on a Dapper Beta Live CD.
It won't be long until Ubuntu and others take Linux mainstream.- gfreak49, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I agree that ubuntu will help take linux mainstream. I wanted to see what all the fuss about linux was, so I got one of the cd's from their website and was very surprised at how......awesome it was. It was very intuitive and easy to do some simple things. It has tons of software preloaded and a bunch of cool features. But when I tried to install Opera, I got completely freaked out. This was about 3 days ago so this guide is awesome.
- shakeyshakey, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3As long as you have to install or compile programs, or use the terminal for whatever reason, linux will never hit mainstream. It will be confined to geek basements.
- pabster, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7Um, no. While Dapper Drake is very nice (latest beta is awesome), installing software under Linux is NOT as easy as Windows. Period. End of story.
Ubuntu uses Synaptic, which is fine, but what do you do when a package isn't in there? Or you find some random app and have to ***** around compiling and finding dependencies?
As another member said, Linux will NEVER be mainstream without an across-the-board point and click installation solution that is uniform and simple. Period. - haxx4, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"As long as you have to install ... programs ..."
Installation on ubuntu is incredibly easy with packages. Even better than with Windows because you can update all of your packages easily. And with the software repositories, everything is easy to find and trustworthy. - zootm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah, Ubuntu's been coming forward leaps and bounds, and Dapper looks to be the pinnacle (and indeed, it's intended as such) of its first thrust of development. It's a fantastic project.
- phbradley, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6christ, how is that 'as simple as it is in windows'? certainly one or two of those ways to install a program are, but the multiplicity of mechanisms is where the complexity lies. Get some sort of coherence and I'd consider switching to Ubuntu, but not before!
- KissCool, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I think you should at least try it before you reject it.
You would be aware that you don't need 98% of this article for your day to day use, and that installing software on a regular Ubuntu/Debian box is *really* simple. - Wootery, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4"If you have a missing dependency, it will inform you of that." That is the reason installing 'ANYTHING' is easier in Windows, it just works. I don't want to have to rely on some enormous library of packages to install 'ANYTHING', I want to install from a file (.deb or .rpm).
- r121, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I'm sorry, but I happen to like having many different ways to do a given task in Linux. It gives me the choice and control I need to what I want with my computer, not be told what to do.
@Wootery - Sure, you don't have to deal with dependancies with Windows, because every program comes bundled with it's own copy of every library and module it needs! I'd much rather have one copy of a library on my system and have every program use that. It saves much disk space and memory. - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5@r121
"It saves much disk space and memory."
And causes lots of compatibility isses and installation problems. Nowadays, disk space and memory are relatively cheap, technical problems are not. - chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Installing something in Ubuntu is similarily easy to Windows, except if you know what you're doing it's much quicker. For example, if I wanted to install a completely new desktop environment "sudo apt-get install kde" is all I need to do. But in Ubuntu there are always a command line and a gui to do (almost) everything.
- jtxx000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Wootery
It depends on what you're trying to install. If you install 'ANYTHING' on windows and that has dependencies then either:
A) It's bundled with the installer. The problem with this is that it results in unnecessary duplication of components. Sometimes the installer will ask you whether or not you already have the dependency installed, but often times you don't know especially if it requires a specific version.
B) The installer informs you of the dependency and then gives you a link to where to download it. This gets quite annoying especially if the application requires several dependencies.
Also, if you know what you want to install it's usually faster to type "sudo apt-get install ANYTHING" than to google the application, find the website, download the application, and run the installer.
Of course you also get the benefits of having all your software updated at once, and because of the community review you don't have to worry about installing hidden malware along with the application. - ujjwal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Wootery - Windows programs do have dependencies, like DirectX versions, VB Runtime Files, Microsoft Installer and many more.
Sure, they are less frequent than Linux application requirements, but they are present. In a desktop linux system, the user usually doesn't need to be bothered about these, as they get installed automatically. In this way, the user has only installed a single copy of each library he needs. - sweetnjguy29, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Phbradley: The problem isn't complexity, it is your unfamiliarity with Linux. You have to learn something new. And its not even that complicated, trust me. Take a look. What your doing in Windows is way more complicated.
How many steps does it take me to install programs in windows...hmm...lets see.
Step 1 open web browser
Step 2 navigate to download.com
Step 3 find and click the download link
Step 4 find and select your operating system by clicking the Windows Link
Step 5 click OK to save when the dialog box opens
Step 6 wait approx 45 seconds to 10 minutes for the download
Step 7 close browser and all other running programs.
Step 8 navigate to the setup icon and double click it
step 9 select Language click OK
Step 10 click next when the setup wizard appears.
Step 11 agree to license, click next
Step 12 choose file associations, click next
Step 13 choose Location for installation, click next
Step 14 choose start menu folder options, click next
Step 15 wait for installation, approx 35 seconds to 10 minutes, click next when completed
Step 16 click finish.
Step 17 reboot computer for changes to take effect
Step 18 installer is still installing new files
Step 19 finished
Lets see how many steps this takes in Ubuntu:
Step 1: Click on the System menu and navigate to %u2192 Administration %u2192 Synaptic Package Manager
Step 2: Click Search and type in the name of the program or what you want the program to do.
Step 3: Select a program that pops up
Step 4: Right-click on it and mark it to be installed
Step 5: Click the Apply button
Or, if you are an advanced user, do this:
Step 1 Open up a command terminal
Step 2 type "sudo apt-get install " and hit enter
Step 3 type "y" for yes when prompted whether or not you want to install the package.
Step 4 wait for automatic download and installation
Oh, and guess what. If you are an uber-geek power user, you can download the programs source code...the stuff that is written in C or Cpp or Python, or whathaveyou, compile it into a .deb file and install it!
What about program removal? It works the same way, but backwards. Ever remove a program in windows? What a disaster! You'll never be able to remove all of the files and registry entries.
( I quoted as part of this post from http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=10165 ) - Geterix, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3I'm sorry, sweetnjguy29. You make a long list seem like its translates into hours of work.
It is not. Many of those steps you write (closing all programs and restarting the computer) are far from typical with Windows program installations. The simple fact of the matter is that Ubuntu program installs are a headache and leave to many variables to chance that the one program you need will not install correctly. I've been there many times.
If you want to admit it or not, Windows is just better at making it easier for the PC user to get things done. Most people have no want to have to type in a bunch of "SUDO Apt" garbage just to get something to install when a simple click on an .EXE file takes care of it for them. If people wanted command lines we would be buying DOS XP.
And what is up with that convoluted director system? You cant find beans with it.
Ubuntu is a wonder thing. But they are going to have to make a break from alot of the nonsense that keeps Linux at .0001% of the market. - shakeyshakey, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3@ sweetnjguy29
That's not true.
Installing programs on Linux is more like this:
Click on the System menu and navigate to - Administration - Synaptic Package Manager
Step 2: Click Search and type in the name of the program or what you want the program to do. (with luck it will show up)
Step 3: Select a program that pops up
Step 4: Right-click on it and mark it to be installed
Step 5: Click the Apply button
Setp 6: Wait an eternity to be downloaded.
Step 7: Become angry because of some stupid dependency failure.
On Windows
Do a Google Search, download and install - no dependencies! - Or simply put the cd on the drive an autorun kicks in.
No mount dev yadda yadda, and no dependencies problems.
God i hate Linux and their lying fanboys! - Arevos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"Setp 6: Wait an eternity to be downloaded."
On my connection the packages download at 300k/s, which is about the maximum downstream bandwidth I have. This seems reasonably quick to me. An 8M package like firefox only takes around 30 seconds to download, and that's among the largest packages in the repositaries.
And if you're worried about download time, then surely Windows applications are worse, because they include a lot of their dependencies in their download.
"Step 7: Become angry because of some stupid dependency failure."
I've only encountered a dependency failure in two situations. The first was when I installed a third-party deb. The second was when I did a dist-upgrade to the dapper beta. Both instances were outside the normal usage Ubuntu was designed for. If you stick with the repositaries for software, then dependencies are resolved automatically. I've been using Ubuntu for quite a while, and I haven't yet found a dependency problem in the core Ubuntu repositary.
- KissCool, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I think you should at least try it before you reject it.
- Aelbric, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Concise, accurate, informative.
Dugg. - DoctorShim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Really cool article. Makes me think Ubuntu is easier to use than Open Suse. Ubuntu will rox0r, and it shall rox0r hard.
- r00tus3r, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@asusanator
Oh put a sock in it. If you want to argue about bush and cheney all day do it somewhere else. This is much better than alot of the crap I see on here about every single hint of new info regarding the PS3 and WoW. It's actually something USEFUL, and yes it is NEWS, it just happens to also be educational. DIGG!!! - akhomerun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4a great guide for noobs, a++
- CGreen, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3Linux has applications worth installing now?
- Zeush8su, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Very cool guide Digg++
- solidcube, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Meh. This article is a bandaid on a machete wound.
- eatmorgnome, on 10/12/2007, -12/+12Terrible.
Say I want to surf the internet. Whoops, Ubuntu has an old version of Firefox, which doesn't have the update feature.
Let's update it! I mean, if anything should be easy to update on an Open Source system, its the blessed Firefox.
-I try Synaptic, search for firefox, and it's still the ancient version. Failed
-Add extra repositories? Nope still not there.
-So, lets look at Installing software with the terminal. "Very often, you'll see other Ubuntu users saying". So... I have to hunt down instructions from other people? I thought this was supposed to be easy? Let's skip this one.
So, I guess I have to do manually? Off to mozilla.org
Ok, .tar.gz to download, so what do these instructions say?
-Debian Package (.deb), nope
-RPM Package (.rpm), nope
-Desktop Theme (.tar, .tar.gz, .tgz, ...), nope
-Login Screen Theme (.tar, .tar.gz, .tgz, ...), nope
-Source Package (.tar, .tar.gz, .tgz, ...), umm..err..nope
-Shell Script Installer (.sh, .bash), nope
-Binary Installer (.bin, ...), nope
-Windows Executable (.exe), nope (but I wish!)
Hmm, no luck. So... lets go to the next section.
Oh, it's the Appendix. Darn. Well, that was useless. I guess Firefox doesn't qualify as an "ANYTHING"
On my own...not looking good...Let's see what the firefox site has to say..
After some digging, I find the installation instructions!
"Extract the tarball in the directory where you want to install Firefox:
tar -xzvf firefox-1.5.0.2.tar.gz
This will create a firefox subdirectory of that directory."
Oh, ok. Well, I do that, and umm, nothing happens. I open Firefox and it's still the old one. All I did was unzip an archive somewhere.
Crap.
Off to google.
...some time later...
Woo!! I founbd it!! https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FirefoxNewVersion
Ok, yuck, I follow these instructions. Typing..typing..
Well, I guess it worked? Umm... nope, I still run firefox and get the old version
Now what?
Oh, wait! I just remembered I'm an experienced Linux user!
(30 seconds later)
There we go, installed, new icon, everything is just peachy!
Thank you instructions! I just learned that installing in Ubuntu really is as easy as it is in Windows (but only if you know what you're doing)
Boy, I can't wait to get my grandma started on this right away! She'll just love me for blowing away her XP install, and giving her something just as easy!- tapo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Or you could go into System>Administration>Software Properties, choose 'Dapper Drake' and hit 'Ok'.
- adolfojp, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Shhh! You will get mod down!
Don't you know that diggers moderate based on the popularity of the comment instead of its content?
PS. I agree with your comment. - Arevos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Automatix ( http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=138405 ) is a Ubuntu system that will automatically install a variety of cutting edge and proprietary software, including Firefox 1.5.
As for Ubuntu software installation being easy - it's easy so long as you use the repositaries. Once you stray outside of them, things become more difficult. A problem for people who want cutting-edge software, but such a system has it's advantages for people who want stability. - eatmorgnome, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@tapo
"Or you could go into System>Administration>Software Properties, choose 'Dapper Drake' and hit 'Ok'."
Well I could if that menu option existed.
Besides that, It's nice to see that updating to an unreleased version of the operating system is the "obvious" answer to updating an application. I'm just so stupid! - Arevos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I don't believe tapo said anything about it being the "obvious" answer.
- jeolmeun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1digg the comment. After reading all the Ubuntu hype, making a Live CD and then installing expecting to upgrade Firefox to 1.5, you get something like what he said. So... how'd you install that Firefox?
- AirRaven, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5I fully expect to get modded down by the Penguin Zealots for this, but here goes:
Ubuntu (Breezy) sucks for ease of use. "sudo dpkg -i"? What is this rubbish? Being *required* to enter the terminal to install a .deb? How is that user-friendly?
And as for Synaptic? It's useful- sure. Or at least it would be if the packages didn't have such ridiculously obscure names.
Linux isn't going to be "ready for the mainstream" until there's no reliance on the terminal for anything. The fact that you "like having complete control" doesn't change that.
If you like "complete control" via the terminal at the expense of a more intuitive method of doing things, go install Slackware and stop whining.- tapo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I fail to see what's so bad about typing 'sudo dpkg -i' in a terminal. You're typing something. What's hard about it? That it's text? Show me the terminal and I'll show you the Windows registry.
Synaptic isn't the default or preferred way to install packages on Ubuntu. It's now under control of the much nicer and easier gnome-app-install (or simply "Add/Remove Applications"). You select a program from a list, it installs it. No dependencies, no obscure names.
By the way, Dapper does have graphical install for .deb packages. - catoutfit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"Linux isn't going to be "ready for the mainstream""
I think it's more of a case of the mainstream not being ready for Linux, the general public is getting more and more advanced with regards to technology, I think I was in the last group of kids where my class at school wasn't entirely computer literate, ...in schools today, nearly 100% of the class can use a computer and 20% are very literate, they understand html (albiet because of their myspace layouts..)...right I've gone off at a tangent...what i'm trying to say is I think in 10 years time most new users will be literate to use a command line, it's just as easy to click an icon as it is to type apt-get install whatever..
obviously there will always be a market for GUIs and for many, many things theyre far more practical than command line, but cl will never die! ha :) - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"You're typing something. What's hard about it?"
Typing is easy. Knowing what to type ... impossible for the new user. - brickbat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3"Linux isn't going to be "ready for the mainstream" until there's no reliance on the terminal for anything. The fact that you "like having complete control" doesn't change that."
I agree with this. Everything else is ranting b/s. - catoutfit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"impossible for the new user."
so if you told a new user it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to comprehend? nah..
tech guy: ok, so open up the command line just type 'apt-get install firefox'
new user: THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO KNOW WHAT TO TYPE, I AM A NEW USER HOW DARE YOU TELL ME!!! - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"so if you told a new user it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to comprehend? nah.."
You're responding to something that I did not say. I said "Knowing what to type (is) impossible for the new user." If someone has to tell them, they obviously don't KNOW. - adolfojp, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I agree with your comment. I can't teach my mom to program her VCR, much less teach her about file extensions, dependencies or even sudo dpkg -i w32codecs_20050412-0.0_i386.deb And if she could; why should she?
And yes, your comment will get mod down. Diggers will mod you down because of your opinion is not popular. The fact that it is well written, insightful and not a troll doesn't really matter. - bowe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You don't need to do that in Kubuntu(not sure about Ubuntu). I rarely use terminal. Right Click on the deb...Kubuntu Package Menu...Install Package.
- tapo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I fail to see what's so bad about typing 'sudo dpkg -i' in a terminal. You're typing something. What's hard about it? That it's text? Show me the terminal and I'll show you the Windows registry.
- fatsobob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4A nice guide for beginners.
- n0xie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Linux is not Windows. Linux doesn't want to be Windows.
Generally people who use Linux are people who like to figure out how stuff works (why else bother with the terminal) so I always frown upon these 'guides' to a 'user friendly Linux'.
If you want 'userfriendly' you should stick to Windows (well sort of anyway). Why else would one bother with installing Linux. It's not designed for the Desktop (no matter how hard people try to make it so) nor does it strive to be. It's an OS for people who want their pc to do what THEY want, not what some company THINKS they want. The sooner people realize that Linux is not a 'competitor' to Windows, rather an alternative, the sooner people will stop making comments about how hard it is to learn to use Linux.
Because it's not.
All you need is a willingness to LEARN. If you want to install an OS that works out of the box with flashy icons, and smuck, which pretty much decides on it's own what is 'good for you', there already is a great OS that does just that: stick to Windows.
If you want to actually learn how to make your PC do exactly what you want, spend time learning, or do the trial and error game.
There is a great article here that explains how I feel and rather, how most people who use Linux on a day to day basis should feel: http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm- JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4"All you need is a willingness to LEARN."
Most people don't want to learn about a computer, they want a computer that can learn about them.
The overall goal of technology is to make people more productive. Learning lots of obsolete technical jargon is not very productive and just isn't going to happen to any wide extent, regardless of the number of "how-to" guides that are posted here. - Aelbric, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I really hate this attitude.
Ease of use and granular control do NOT have to be mutually exclusive. The simple fact of the matter is that until you have some experience with Linux, you will have no idea what you are doing. The Linux UI has never been intuitive for most users.
Now with distributions like Ubuntu, your average Joe user has the opportunity to learn the ins and outs of the OS without sacriificing usability. Installation of the OS, installing applications, and getting to the content that 90% of the world uses easily removes an immense barrier to adoption. If your average user can get up and running with minimal headaches, this is a huge step forward.
Remember, the more people who use Linux, the better the OS becomes. Do you think that companies and organizations would be putting all this effort into an OS that commands 1% of the overall market?
As long as the granular control isn't removed for the advanced users, having something easy to use raises the tide for all boats. - Arevos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5It's interesting how high the expectations are concerning computers. Modern computers are the most complex pieces of machinary that exist in the world, yet people expect to be able to use them with a minimum of effort. I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong, but it's an interesting attitude to have. You don't really see this when it comes to any other piece of technology.
For instance, it's illegal in most countries to operate a car on a public road without a driving license. However, it's perfectly legal to operate an unsecured computer on public networks, regardless of the amount of damage this will do. - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"You don't really see this when it comes to any other piece of technology."
I see this with almost every piece of technology. Automobiles and airplanes are much easier to use nowadays than they were in the past.
It called "progress" and it happens so get used to it. - Arevos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4So it's commonplace to just hop into a car or aeroplane and expect to be able to drive/fly it without a license or any sort of official training whatsoever?
Don't be silly. People expect to be able to buy a computer and be able to use it with the bare minimum of instruction. Very few people have any such expectations about cars or aeroplanes. - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"People expect to be able to buy a computer and be able to use it with the bare minimum of instruction. Very few people have any such expectations about cars or aeroplanes."
Without any instruction, most *drivers* nowadays can drive almost any car. The reason for this is that the design of cars has been refined and most are relatively easy to use. Though not identical, they meet the drivers expectations and operate is a similar enough manner to make additional training unnecessary.
Computer users aren't that different than auto drivers, both have a set of expectations that need to be met in order to gain widespread acceptance. Cars that rely on a manual choke or an operating system that relies heavily on the command line just won't cut it in the modern marketplace. - Arevos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sure, but cars have a fairly limited set of inputs, perhaps a dozen at most. It takes many hours of lessons for a person to reach the legal minimum knowledge on how to operate these inputs safely and effectively.
Modern desktop computers, on the other hand, have thousands, if not millions of input variations. Despite this, people expect computers to be safe, stable, consistant and easy to use with the barest minimum of teaching. Sure, it's a laudable goal to aim for, but it seems to me to be a somewhat unrealistic expectation, at least with today's systems. - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Sure, it's a laudable goal to aim for, but it seems to me to be a somewhat unrealistic expectation, at least with today's systems."
The systems that come closest to meeting user expectations will find widespread use. Those that don't will be ignored. There is lots of room for improvement. Any product that is seeking widespread adoption had better be working toward being easier to use. Trying to justify why it is not and blaming the user for the product's shortcomings is counter productive and leads to nowhere but failure.
- JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4"All you need is a willingness to LEARN."
- kevinski, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Umm…is this going to apply to device drivers, as well? If not, no Linux for me. I'm sorry, but installing device drivers in Linux (especially in Ubuntu) is a serious pain-in-the-ass.
- Arevos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Generally speaking, you rarely need to install third parties drivers on Linux outside of the standard ATI and NVidia ones (which are, incidentally, included in the Ubuntu Universe repositary). Unlike Windows, where the majority of device drivers are developed by third parties, Linux drivers are developed with the kernel. Thus, the majority of x86 hardware is supported by Linux by default.
- pabster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4That's not exactly a plus. The more drivers compiled in to the kernel, the more bloated and inefficient it becomes. 2.6.x is a frickin' mess.
And we both know Windows has a far larger selection of drivers, no point debating that. - Narishma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@pabster: That's not true. The drivers are compiled as modules and only loaded when needed. There's no bloat in that.
- Arevos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Narishma is correct. The kernel image that is loaded at boot time in my Ubuntu system is only around six megabytes in size, which doesn't seem particularly bloated to me.
- Irfit, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2linux isnt as easy as windows, even ubuntu. I tried and now im using mac osx and windows because of that.
- neko, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I can understand the problems people face when applying the windows install paradigm on ubuntu or other debian derivatives. "Where's the .exe?" sums it up quite well.
And I think it's true, it's much easier on windows. Just double-click on dxsetup.exe and let it go off and install things for you. Easy.
But. Uninstalling?
HAH! Good luck!
Yes, ubuntu uses specially prepared .deb packages for all it's software. This means it's a little more involving than bundling an executable with each and every package to look at the system and do the install for you.
But the advantage is, each of those .deb packages neatly describes where the software needs to go, where it's config files are, and thus, how to remove it cleanly.
windows programs are certainly easier to install, but a lot harder to maintain. I have all sorts of .dll cruft scattered around my hard drive from software that I've long since deleted- who owns that file? Is it safe to remove it? There's no way of knowing.
And I shouldn't have to reinstall my entire OS just to undo the damage caused by DirectX. But I did. (Before people flame: yes, System Restore, nice and saved my neck once or twice. Not this time.) - TimRogers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Lovely! Especially as I was just installing Ubuntu on a VPC when I saw this!
- Bytes_U, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Well done Simon. Very clear and written in a layman's language most anyone can follow.
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I'll probably be modded down for ths but this is the truth how I see it.
Windows installs are very easy, but do you not realize why they're a little hard to uninstall? Because most people install third-party software that either writes an incomplete manifest of the files that need deleted, or don't want their files delete, or the user just doesn't know how to properly uninstall the program. Seriously, I was a Technical Service Rep, and some people just have no clue about computers.
The command shell in linux is nothing like the Windows registry. Normal users never have to edit the registry, but normal linus users have to user the command shell. They are not equal.
Windows has done a great job in opening their OS up to third-party driver vendors and allowing them to be compatible with most of the OS. Where do you think the blue screens of death comes from ---- failed hardware. Linux on the other hand limits their vendors to approved sources or the community. Which is why they work better. But its still freaking hard to install on Linux.
Linux does not want to be Windows. Nor should it strive to be so. However, Linux (any distro) wants to have the market share the Windows currently has. First they have to see why Windows is so widely used and accepted (ease of use and compatibility i think are the main things). If Linux wants users to transition from Windows to them, then they would have to make that transition as painless as possible. I would venture to say that most computer users have no clue how a computer works, they just know how to check their email and use messengers. Getting them to even use the psuedo-command prompt in WinXP is a task far too complicated to them.- n0xie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3'However, Linux (any distro) wants to have the market share the Windows currently has. '
What makes you think that? Since Linux is open-source and in most cases non profit, who would benefit from having a market share the size of Windows?
I'm actually concerned with the growth in popularity of Linux since the latest Kernel(s) seem to be more buggy than previous releases, as we could read a couple of days back, mainly by the thinkering of inapt programmers. Now I read Debian is planning on speeding up releases, which gives me chills, since the whole idea of Debian is to thoroughly test before releasing. Does this mean they will just dump it out there just to please and satisfy the eager new 'crowd' who just heard about this latest hip 'thang' called Linux? How much of these self proclaimed programmers will start writing their own (most likely ) buggy code and start adding them to distro's?
Linux prospers by a community of knowledgable people, not by sheer numbers, or market share.
Like I said earlier, Linux isn't an OS that should strive or be anything more than that it already is. The more 'user-friendly' it gets, the more bloated, hence the less interesting. It is and most likely shall always be a tradeoff when it comes to ICT: Either it looks pretty or it's very robust and effective. Having both is just not doable.
The reason Linux is so popular on servers (besides BSD) is the fact that it is small, efficient, and just does what it's suppossed to do, without having extra garbage to slow it all down. It's also reliable, cost efficient, and very hard to break once setup. These are things servers should be and this is what Linux dev's should put most of their effort into. Not in making it more 'userfriendly', since that term most likely means that the person behind the computer has either no google skills, or shouldnt be behind a terminal anyway. - FuManchu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@TubaTechno
Thanks, good post. I don't agree with all of it, but that's OK.
I've also had the opinion that "some people just have no clue about computers" who use them. A LOT of people, actually.
The point I'd like to make, building on that, is one you _almost_ touch on. My take:
"Learning to use Windows" or "Learning to use Gnu/Linux"? Both involve effort and gaining a new set of cognitive skills on the part of a newbie. THE DIFFERENCE: When you learn to use Linux, you also actually learn some valuable [and universally applicable] computer science. When you learn to use Windows, you learn, mostly, only how to to jump through a set of hoops somebody in Redmond dreamed up as a good way to get monkeys to use computers.
That being said, I do fault both KDE and Gnome for what I view as shortcomings in GUI power. Windows GUI is more powerful in many ways, BUT at the expense of _just having to leave out_ a lot of functionality that IS accessible to the CLI in Linux.
Agreed, it's functionality most "trained monkeys" don't even realize is missing. But "real computer users" love having it. - Kruncher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Where do you think the blue screens of death comes from ---- failed hardware."
Wrong. I fix computers for a living. Many time's it's a bad (corrupt, wrong type/version) device driver. Other times It's a program that isn't working properly. It even does it when you havn't chkdsked in a while.
Windows doesn't handle errors very well.
But yes, it does BSOD on bad harware.
- n0xie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3'However, Linux (any distro) wants to have the market share the Windows currently has. '
- MajorMauser, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I nice to see how easy Linux is to use....your going to defend it to the end.. but there should be a standard setup in the Linux community for installing software.... THAT will not... bloat your precious OS in the least.
Get with the times Linux FanBoys- FuManchu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"The times" may well be about diversity and choice, not uniformity!
Do you also want every restaurant to have the same menu and the same waiters' uniforms?
"Linux" is not "an OS." It's a kernel around which it is relatively easy to build a number of inter-compatible [more or less] functional Operating Systems according to the lights of whomever takes the trouble to do it.
Go eat at McDonald's and leave the real cuisine to those not afraid to try a few different flavours and textures once in a while.
- FuManchu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"The times" may well be about diversity and choice, not uniformity!
- floejoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have my linux mandriva installed which is based on Red Hat, I think, or mandrake, but I'm having difficulty installing programs, so I just gave up on it. It's too complicated, and if I can't get the apps that I want, then I dont have the will to use it.
- FuManchu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've tried Mandriva 2005 --after hearing about Mandrake for years, why not? I`agree with you. It sucked in a number of ways.
Wait until June 1st or so. Both Ubuntu 6 and Mepis 6 will be out in final version. Mepis 6 may be better than Ubuntu will, IMHO, or at least better for those who prefer the KDE desktop.
I guarantee you will find it a very pleasant change from your Mandrake experience. My wife has been using Mepis 3.3 for a long time and can do everything she wants to do.
- FuManchu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've tried Mandriva 2005 --after hearing about Mandrake for years, why not? I`agree with you. It sucked in a number of ways.
- teh_toaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I just now took the time to find out how to install FF 1.5.0.3, and found some good directions that make it as simple as possible to install in Ubuntu. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FirefoxNewVersion#head-26d21f8b635c06a9858f7bef322b3821c7545598 - The 'Quick and Dirty' way. Doesn't involve backing up extentions, bookmarks or other crap (which I didn't have on this machine anyway), and I managed to get it right the first time.
- culbeda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2First off, the article is very useful and informative. But it's supposition that it is easier to install any application under Ubuntu is disingenuous at best.
Secondly, most people don't navigate through Download.com as one user pointed out, nor do most people save the install program and navigate to it and double-click. And to even compare guiding users through an installation wizard vs. forcing a standard set of options on the user in the hopes that is what they want is far from a fair comparison.
Linux has a great deal of potential but suffers from the following factors when it comes to mass acceptance: Incessant splintering of distributions, command-line centric development, module dependency issues with rapidly release schedules, relatively poor driver support (up from just plain poor, so we're making progress here) and the lack of a unified package manager.
The reason Linux distros include tools like Synaptic and web sites like rpmfind.com exist are to band-aid around these problems. Don't get me wrong, they are great resources and if it weren't for them, I probably wouldn't run Linux at al. But let's address the core issues instead of having a dozen or more alternative techniques to work around them that involve a great deal of 3rd party development and management.
Only when a developer can create a couple of distributions (32-bit & 64-bit) that are easily installable on any modern distro of Linux without someone else creating multiple RPM, DEB, etc. will it be able to compete directly with Windows. Until that time, the average user will be slave to third-party groups trying to simply the installation for them or trying to work through a complicated command-line install. And the problem will only get worse as more and more developers write for Linux.
Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen as much of the wealth of development talent in the Linux community seems to wrapped in competing with other Linux distros and arguing about whether Gnome is better than KDE, etc. In short, too many egos and too many developers working autonomously.
It's a shame, because I'd really like to see it succeed in this manner and soon. - Onetrack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I fail to see in this day and age why we have to install -anything- at all, why can't there be items like portable apps, no install software that doesn't bork a registry and has all required files contained within the archive for that program to run. In the days where 100+ gig harddrives are the norm why do we have dependancy issues at all.
Make programs singles .exe's and have them include every library and dependancy that file requires to operate within the executible. End this rediculous installation procedures and dependancy issues once and for all.
I would like to see everything move to the portable apps way of thinking. - culbeda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2One other thought, and I've asked this before but never gotten a good answer.
Why pick Ubuntu over other distros? I personally prefer Fedora Core and SuSe, but I'd love to hear a compelling argument to move to Ubuntu.
(I'm serious here, not baiting.)- Onetrack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>Why pick Ubuntu over other distros? I personally prefer Fedora Core and SuSe, but I'd love >to hear a compelling argument to move to Ubuntu.
You're right, there are what, something in the order of 376 distros now, I guess its down to choice for the user. At the moment my personal favorite is a toss up between MyahOS and Linspire for the pure of ease. Even though I'm comforatable in the command line, why should I need it? It seems so '80's to be a command line junkie these days.
Also I've burned stacks of cd's trying out different distrobutions. - culbeda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@OneTrack
Re: Stack of CD's...
You and me both. I've tested more distros than I can name. And while I love some of the projects based on Linux (which I have no complaints with other than the sheer number and competition between them), the number of distros at this point is bordering on the ridiculous.
I just can't see the appeal of Ubuntu. I've installed it a couple of times, found it either unable or unsuited to do anything other than basic desktop tasks and couldn't understand why I should need learn another distro when it can't do the majority of what I want it to do. (Even with automatix!) Worse yet, I don't find Ubuntu particularly easy to use compared to other distros. I'm really curious to check out freespire to see if it's going to be worth a damn.
- Onetrack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>Why pick Ubuntu over other distros? I personally prefer Fedora Core and SuSe, but I'd love >to hear a compelling argument to move to Ubuntu.
- Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5As long as Linux developers keep assuming everything is "easy", keep telling users how "easy" everything is, and retain the attitude that if the user doesn't know the very basics, they can go screw themselves, Linux will remain a non-viable desktop system.
- JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Exactly. Instead of ease of use, Linux supporters offer blame and ridicule. And many fail to grasp why it isn't working. Unbelievable.
- barbobot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Maybe it is easy to them, and not easy to you. For some people they think that windows packaging system is easier, however i find it difficult to find what i need most of the time. I would much rather use apt or pkg. One of the earliest lessons i learned in unix was this "Unix is easy, if it's not then you are doing something wrong"
Anyway different strokes for different folks
- trod13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Nice, I've been having trouble on how to do exactly that. Definite digg.
- miaow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4ubuntu should give right click help that knows what to do generally with a file such as tar or gz and the likes.
- Technopundit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I used to have an Algebra teacher who was constantly going off about how "simple" everything was, using it as a put-down for students who did not catch on as quickly. I have no real aptitude for algebra, but in other areas, I've weathered tests that show I can be rather bright. Of course, I failed the class.
Demeaning users and removing oneself from the user mainstream is a form of false pride and accomplishes nothing. Holding on to arguments which are not legitimate considering the state of the art only serves to limit one's usefulness to others.
There are many brilliant PC users who simply have no real aptitude for, or interest in arcane non-intuitive commands. It doesn't make these users stupid, nor should they be deprived the astounding benefits derived from using a computer.
Back in ancient times, we sort-of took pride in the our mastery of DOS (I used every second-source manual and cheat-sheet I could). That did not make DOS a "better" operating system, even though on today's PC's, boy those tiny 360K DOS programs could FLY! In fact, the system was a waste of resources compared to the way things are done now.
Insisting that a user do any work which is easily handled by the computer itself is so ridiculous it defies argument. That's what computers are for!
Anyway, I know in my heart that my old algebra teacher is burning in hell. - miaow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1to be fair, most stuff you need is in the package thingy. just a case of ticking it and clicking apply.
- gookie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Digg for a nice written tutorial. Concise but precise. +++
- linuxrebel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2With all due respect to the submitter and to those who use Ubuntu (I do) One thing this article and the submission mislead people into believing is that this is Unique and new with Ubuntu. The truth is Synaptic, Apt-Get etc are as old as the hills with Debian. Then you also have tools like URPMI and Yast that allow other distributions to work as easily as the Debian variants. Even Yum is starting to become an easy to use tool as well.
The only reason I won't dig an article like this is because it leads new Linux users to believe that if they don't use Ubuntu they won't have an easy time installing and that, is just plain wrong. - fl00d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!
Dugg. - neogarfield, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is an EXCELLENT guide! Many thanks to the author! I'm a newbie to Linux. A fresh and absolute newbie who knew nothing. This article REALLY gave me the confidence to check out more of Ubuntu!
(Im writing this from a Windows XP machine though :P )
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by