Stories (RSS)
Software installation myths: Linux vs. Windows
(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
Nice little piece over on ComputerWorld by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols about the (unfortunately persistent) myth that software installation is more difficult on Linux than Windows…
Personally, I find the Linux method easier because not only do package managers install the programs, they also enable you to search for a program. Say you want a program to display Adobe PDF (Portable Document Format) files. In Windows, you need to find out what program you’ll need-Adobe Acrobat Reader, then download it, and then install it. Easy enough, but it could be easier.
With openSUSE, for example, I select Install Software from my main KDE menu. Install Software is part of openSUSE’s YaST administration program. I’m then presented with a menu where one of my options is to search for software. I put in ‘PDF,’ you see I don’t even need to know the name of the program that can handle PDF, and it shows me a listing of programs and their descriptions. At the top of the list is AcroRead from Adobe. I click on it and YaST takes care of downloading and installing it.
So, in short, with Linux I don’t need to even know the name of a program, I just search for what I need with the package manager and once I find something I like I just give it one click and that’s it. With Windows, searching, downloading and installing software is three separate operations. Advantage: Linux.
Advantage Linux, indeed. This is an area where openSUSE (and other Linux distros) shine — and it’d be good to get the word out about that.
Windows application installers tend to install everything they need, leading to DLL hell. Linux requires that you have repositories added in order for dependencies to resolve successfully (in all but trivial cases – try install media components or PostfixAdmin etc etc).
Installers are, therefore, just as crap on every platform. It’s the great unresolved technology faux-pas and a lot more work is needed. And no, I don’t have the answer, the problem is very complex.
I think a combo of the Apple way and the Linux way would be best. I love the fact that 99% of the apps I install on my Mac is as simple as copying the file into the Applications folder and the rest is done in the background.
The reason that I love the Linux way is that updates etc are right there in the repositories etc.
The problem with the Linux way is that if you don’t have an internet connection you are screwed.
But I would love to see the Apple way where apps are in a folder and you can just copy them in or use an installer but once you do the install that the developer could then link the installed app to a central repository so that all updates etc could come through that method.
I would love if Apple opened their update tool to third party developers to push out updates etc.
Someone in the Linux world should look at how Apple does their installing its the most easy in the business.
The Windows way is and has been a hodge podge mess. Even MS uses 5 different install methods. For instance you cant just install all Windows patches in one clean method. So if you have to bring an out of patch machine up to date you have a hell of a time! Some patches are .exe’s some are .MSI files, some are .Cab files??? Some run from just dropping an .dll someplace, some can slipstream, some cant, some can run silent and some cant and of course come can be installed without reboot and some cant. A MESS!
Actually no matter what the operating system it is the development of the software that matters. Some developers are just plain to lazy or naive to create the program where all is required to install it. This also creates security problems which is noted everywhere. As can be seen in the huge amount of patches issued and not just in windows. If one reads what the patch is for one can see it was created for security of the program or operating system. It is not just proprietary coding as I have found security flaws in Linux and Apple programs. I would estimate about 85% of patches are for security reasons and not just bettering the program. Secured coding has always been a issue in all operating systems and until we realize this the problem will never disappear. As computing modernizes one should expect ease of use and installation being as simple as clicking one time. Even I become annoyed now when I have to configure this or that when installing a program. I remember the days when everything was installed by the command line and we have come a long way since then.
I’m a Linux user but Linux does’nt have total advantage in software installation.
In windows ou have just to search for “pdf” in google ? you’ll get a thousands of pdf readers and editors for Window$, but in Linux, you’ll get only 10 or 20…
2/ try in yast, or synaptic : “flash” or “flash editors” ?????
then in google for windows …
We’re still waiting.
I think that openSUSE (or some major linux distro) should work on creating a user-friendly “app-store” type of package manager. Kubuntu comes close with it’s stripped down Adept “Add/Remove Programs” utility. Basically it would be a simplified package manager that would only show actual applications (not libraries, etc), along with a description. Users could select an app and all dependencies would be handled transparently to the user. In fact, maybe a website (appstore.opensuse.org) utilizing the oneclick installers would work. Right now the one-click technology is rather obscure (I didn’t know how to get to it for quite some time), and also there are no (to my knowledge) good meta-packages for things such as the latest KDE4, or other large package suites. I think the current package manager in yast, great as it is, is rather overwhelming to a new user. Why should they be swamped with development libraries and system utils with “meaningless” acronyms between every “real app”?