What is Digg?106 Comments
- 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. - kiltedwonder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17As a new Ubuntu (and linux in general) user that is a great reference.
- Anoobis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Thats very true but if it were not for items like this I'd never bother with linux or half the programs I now use, I wouldn't know half the tech stuff I do now. its not news but for many its interesting and very useful.
- 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. - 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. - 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
- thebigbadwolf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8" Digg is a technology NEWS website that combines social bookmarking, blogging, RSS, and non-hierarchical editorial control. "
Ubuntu is technology news and will continue to be just that, and Digg achieves the best kind of social bookmarking possible, by spreading the word about news and helpful stuff, at least that's my interpretation of it. In any case, a website with non-hierarchical editorial control is going to become what it will become, whether you agree with it or NOT... - 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.
- 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. - Aelbric, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Concise, accurate, informative.
Dugg. - 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.
- sweetnjguy29, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6News is defined as both "new information about specific and timely events" and "new information of any kind"
Just because something is not News to you, does not make it not News to me. Many people, including myself, who are new to Linux (I have about a year and a half or so under my belt, not counting college pine use), still have trouble installing programs. This is a very good guide to a very popular distribution. This site was news to me. So I Dugg it. - 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. - 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.) - 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 - inactive, 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. - 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.
- fatsobob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4A nice guide for beginners.
- 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. - 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.
- 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 - draegloth, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8then exercise your editorial control and mark this appropriately.. don't bitch about it.
- 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!!! - 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. - 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.) - jmn2k1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4In Dapper there is gdebi, you double click de .deb click "install" and thats all...
- 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! - 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. - 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. - Bytes_U, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Well done Simon. Very clear and written in a layman's language most anyone can follow.
- Zeush8su, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Very cool guide Digg++
- 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!!! - 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.
- tapo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Or you could go into System>Administration>Software Properties, choose 'Dapper Drake' and hit 'Ok'.
- 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. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4a great guide for noobs, a++
- 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. - 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. - 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. - 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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... - 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. - 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. - trod13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Nice, I've been having trouble on how to do exactly that. Definite digg.
- 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. - 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.) - 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.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 105 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is