[plug] Easy Installation: Linux Desktop Market

[Craig Ringer]

Kev wrote:

>>> No, the Windows or OS/2 way is definitely a better way for end users.
> 
> 
>> True only for inveterate fiddlers, which 99% of them aren't. Just so 
>> you can get started on it, you can unpack an RPM by hand if you like, 
>> and distribute the bits around alphabetically or however else it suits 
>> you. You can also pull down RPM sources and easily rebuild them, which 
>> gives you another opportunity to rearrange your personal universe to 
>> suit.
> 
> 
> Well, the answer to one of my questions is "No, I didn't shout it loud 
> enough."

That doesn't really make sense. Leon's - and my - point was that most 
users, especially the non-geeks of whom you speak, just won't care. If 
you want to fiddle with where your OS installs software, face it, you've 
just lost out on "non-geek".

> I'm not talking about dependencies.  Cor blimey, don't get me going 
> there!  So I find a site where "Nik-Nak" is developed.  There's a list 
> 20 deep of .RPMs, .DEBs, .TARs, .GZ, .BZ, .BZ2 ad infinitum ad nauseum. 
>  Even the .RPMs and .DEBs will often have 6 or 8 different choices, 
> dependant on which distro I use.  You know me well Leon, and even I end 
> up just throwing my hands in the air and giving up at times. Application 
> installation in Linux is a mine field of utter crap!! There's a reason 
> why this subject occupies about 97% of a newbies time/mind/concerns.  
> Application installation in Linux is "Industrys' WORST Practice".

Yep, this can be challenging. A well organised site will provide a 
user-friendly list that's easy to naviagate though - just look for your 
distro and click the link.

On many recent distros, that'll work just fine, executing a browser 
helper for the package that'll not only install it but fetch any 
required dependencies from other sources.

For example, on FC4, you can just use the system-install-package browser 
helper (automatic), or download the package and "yum install 
package.rpm"; it should sort things out nicely, including downloading 
any dependencies from repositories it knows about.

You'll run into problems if you try to install a package from a large 
repository (rather than a standalone app built for the distro) that way, 
but for those you can just add the repository to your packages list and 
use it as if it was always part of your OS. Yes, adding it to the 
packages list could be easier.

I'm the last person to claim it's perfect - as per my last mail - but I 
do think you're overstating the problem. Moreover, the problem is 
sometimes more to do with how the app developers have chosen to package 
the app than how the distro handles packaging.

>> The command to see where an RPM puts stuff is rpm -ql packagename; to 
>> see what the uninstalled RPM will do, rpm -qlp nameofrpmfile. On 
>> Mandrake, you can use urpmq -i packagename to find that out before 
>> even downloading the package. rpm -qf /path/to/file will tell you 
>> which package laid the file in question.
> 
> 
> I AM A **NON-GEEK**!!  (Is that loud enough yet?)  This is not how it's 
> done if you want attract people.

Actually, I don't see why a non-geek is going to want to know, or going 
to care, about where the package installs its files. To me this is not a 
problem. Moreover, a package management gui can easily expose the file 
list from a package if desired.

I just don't see the problem here. The OS doesn't hide the details from 
you, it just avoids scaring non-geeks who don't care with them ;-)

> They can't be all that good!  Else every distro would put stuff in the 
> same directory structure.  Even some different DEB based distros use a 
> structure different enough to bring a newbie undone.  There's NOTHING 
> standard about it! 

http://google.com/search?q=filesystem+heirachy+standard

There is a *LOT* that's standard about it. It's imperfect, especially 
with things like specific package names and config file names, and 
whether or not some package's configs are in a subdir of /etc/ or 
straight in /etc .

Perhaps a more significant problem is how each distro likes to do system 
configuration differently. Network config comes to mind as 
mind-numbingly annoying here.

Overall, though, you're seeing the exceptions to a rather strong 
standard. Try using a "real UNIX" if you want to see filesystem chaos in 
action.

--
Craig Ringer