Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Ewan Mac Mahon <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:41:25 +0000 (UTC)
On Monday, 30 January, Beck wrote:
> Bruce Stephens wrote:
>> "Beck" <beck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> But the problem still comes down to installing programs. Not
>>> programs from the repositories, more specifically own downloaded
>>> programs. Download a program then it decides it wants dependencies
>>> so you have to get them aswell. Can a program not include all
>>> dependencies required?
>>
>> Would that be a good thing?
>>
>> Probably what ought to happen is there ought to be an APT-based tool
>> that gets used when you click on a .deb file. The deb contains its
>> dependency information, I believe, and APT knows how to get them from
>> repositories. Probably there is a suitable program, and I just don't
>> know about it?
>
> This is the sort of thing I think could make Linux much more user friendly.
> Of course most people in here would say it is user friendly, but that is
> easy for one to say if they have had months or years practice.
I'm going to say it again - it is user friendly :-) The typical modern
linux approach is massively friendlier than the Windows way. We don't have
packages 'easy' to install off the net because there's just no good way of
doing it. Doing things the linux way means just using the package manager
and letting it do the work for you, including the work of finding a
suitable program for a job. If you want software for Windows you've got to
hunt round the net (or even real physical shops) comparing possibilities
until you've picked one, get it one way or another, then install it using a
potentially unfamiliar installer and hope it works. Then keep your eyes
open for security/other fixes for each thing individually.
If you want software for Linux you tell the pretty GUI package manager
(synaptic/adept/whatever) what you're after, it tells you the potential
choices and something about them and then you install as many as you want
all within the same familiar interface. If you decide you like one over the
others you use the same familiar interface to remove the others if you want
to, and if you keep them all the same system will keep everything updated
when necessary.
The Linux/Free software approach is easier because it lets the computer do
most of the work for you. People only have problems when they try to use
the inferior Windows way on their Linux systems and find it doens't really
work.
Ewan
.
- References:
- OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Tarquin Mills
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Beck
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Ewan Mac Mahon
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Beck
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Bruce Stephens
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Beck
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Bruce Stephens
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Beck
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Bruce Stephens
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Beck
- OFT say you have our attention on M$
- Prev by Date: Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- Next by Date: Re: Suggestions for Distro
- Previous by thread: Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- Next by thread: Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
