Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Mandriva Businesses Software Linux

Mandriva Linux 2006 Review 174

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the i-had-enough-history-in-school dept.
Anonymous Coward writes "In light of the many misunderstandings about Linux, software repositories and installation of packages, part one of this season's Mandriva Linux 2006 review includes an extensive background article about it. It explains why the nature of Free Software leads to a more userfriendly software installation setup for Linux distributions in general, as compared to proprietary systems such as the current desktop market leader. The process is illustrated with Mandriva Linux tools. This first part of the Mandriva Linux 2006 review also contains information on the installation and benchmark figures against previous Mandriva/Mandrake products and much more"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mandriva Linux 2006 Review More

Mandriva Linux 2006 Review

Comments Filter:

  • Nature's way. (Score:5, Funny)

    by kahei ( 466208 ) on Monday November 07, 2005 @07:42AM (#13968583) Homepage

    It explains why the nature of Free Software leads to a more userfriendly software installation setup for Linux distributions in general, as compared to proprietary systems such as the current desktop market leader.

    Nature has many ways to deliver a warning. The bright stripes of the coral snake, for instance, warn us of its poison. The yellow markings of the wasp warn us that if we touch it it could sting us. And sentences like the above warn us that the discussion may be just a teensy bit over-focused on The Destiny Of Free Software And The Slaying Of The Redmond Ogre.

    Ah, Mother Nature, your resourcefulness never ceases to amaze :)

  • Well, not to defend an evil empire or anything, (Score:4, Funny)

    by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Monday November 07, 2005 @07:43AM (#13968588)
    but what is so unfriendly about the Windows XP install, in particular?
    • but what is so unfriendly about the Windows XP install, in particular?

      The first things that pop up in my mind: EULA and activation code.

      • Re:Well, not to defend an evil empire or anything, (Score:4, Insightful)

        by kubevubin ( 906716 ) on Monday November 07, 2005 @03:40PM (#13972883) Homepage
        I use Windows 2000 Professional, so the activation code is a non-issue with me. Furthermore, I disagree with the article's author regarding the process of installing software in Linux being more intuitive than the process of installing software in Windows.

        Matching the available software to your particular version of Windows isn't typically much of an issue. Unless you're using an older version of Windows, any new Windows software is XP-compatible (unless it's something developed by some freak of nature who intentionally writes software for Windows 3.1 only in his parents' basement.

        As for needing to know the software's title, isn't that pretty much a requirement in a Linux environment, as well? The software summaries given in the typical Linux distro do not go into full detail about a program's feature set, so I don't even feel as though this is a relevant issue.

        Furthermore, I highly doubt that the average newbie Linux user could figure out what he/she needs without visiting a forum or randomly installing/uninstalling various software packages until he/she finds the one that has the desired functionality. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that they'd hafta ask around more when looking for Linux software.

        If a certain software title isn't included within a particular Linux distro (*cough*Opera*cough), you must then download and execute the software, also as an admin (by providing root's password). Furthermore, do note that any software installer can potentially include a virus of some sort. I seem to remember hearing about a particular Korean Firefox package for Linux containing a little something...

        As for wizard installers, I like being able to choose how much of a particular package I'd like to install. Furthermore, what's wrong with it prompting for an installation directory? I, personally, like to choose the installation directory for certain applications, as it helps from an organization standpoint.

        I can't believe that Linux users actually break a using a Windows wizard installation into multiple steps. You know, you don't have to change a thing. You can click Next or OK to your heart's content, only getting burned if you install an untrusted package.

        And I really wish Linux users would stop bitching about having to reboot a Windows machine after certain software installations. Boo hoo! You know, you don't even necessarily have to reboot immediately. You can install other packages before rebooting for another. Besides, a Windows boot doesn't take nearly as long as a Linux boot, so what's the big deal?

        As for the registry, yeah, it sucks. You know, though, it really isn't all that bad. I, personally, make plenty of changes within my registry upon reinstalling Windows, as I feel comfortable enough with it to do so.

        Depending on the hardware, most devices are typically detected and installed automatically in Windows XP. It isn't perfect, but do realize that Windows XP has been out for several years, and it's bound to be out-of-date in terms of driver support. However, you can typically find device drivers on Windows Update, anyway. *shrug*

        I'll admit that the system tray issue is quite common amongst the less experienced Windows users, but that's strictly due to their inability to take the time to pay attention to what they're doing. Full-auto software installations in Linux only encourage this sort of irresponsible computer use.

        Perhaps the funniest thing about the article is that it assumes that everything in a Linux software installation will always go just fine. What if something goes terribly wrong? Would the average user know what to do then?
        • Just an idle query, but it is 2005, why arn't you running stale piss, is there any particular reason that you as a windows preferer choose to stick with a five year old operating system. As a computer buff I would assume that you have purchased newer hardware and that you would have had to purchase the newer windows nt rehash and are going with the legal downgrade option.

          Fail to reboot between certain hardware driver install of win2kpro and stale piss and you will be doing a reinstall from scratch. Reboot

    • Re:Well, not to defend an evil empire or anything, (Score:5, Insightful)

      by zootm ( 850416 ) on Monday November 07, 2005 @07:48AM (#13968605)

      but what is so unfriendly about the Windows XP install, in particular?

      In terms of software installation, I believe that the problem they're getting at is that you have to obtain the software yourself. Of course, this is something of an oversimplification (in particular, in some cases, this could be easier than using package management), but their emphasis is on the fact that all the software you want for your system is available in one place, and is easy and consistent to install.

      Windows installer packages fix the second one of these gripes, whereas with the first, I suppose there are pros and cons.

    • Re:Well, not to defend an evil empire or anything, (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cyxxon ( 773198 ) on Monday November 07, 2005 @08:00AM (#13968654) Homepage

      I don't really know myself, but turn this around: Linux installation often gets critizised for being hard to install, and for sometimes featuring a menu driven but text based installer. You even get asked for what kind of machine you are installing (server, workstation, ...) and how much of your hard disks you wnat to use!

      And the Windows XP is basically the same. You have to partition the harddrive yourself with a text based installer. You cannot go back to an earlier step throughout the whole installation, only during the second half. You get asked lots of questions, about the timezone, your network setup, and other hard to grasp concepts.

      Yes, this might sound like a rant, but we are talking about OS installation mechanisms. They cannot magically determine what you want, only make it easy to prepare the questions for you. And quite frankly, Windows is not much better in that regard than an enduser friendly Linux distribution, but Linux often gets critizised for it by the "mainstream" IT press. Another thing the mainstream I press usually ignores is that one of these hard question installers ask is for the kind of machine, and then install all kinds of software that is appropriate, as in an office suite or SMB server. On Windows, you get asked all the difficult questions again upon each single application install (okay, meabe not for an SMB server, but you get my point).

      This is a rather lengthy FA, and I doubt anyone outside the linux community understands and reads it in its entirety, but it is agood one nonetheless.

      • Difference is, windows is usually pre-installed.
      • but we are talking about OS installation mechanisms. They cannot magically determine what you want,

        really?

        last time I installed MacOS it did.

        Granted it has an extremely limited scope of hardware to support so they get an advantage there.
      • The bigest problem with installing Linux isn't Linux but X-Windows. SuSE and Ubuntu have made that a lot simpler but it still can be a pain. Now if nVidia would just let everyone include their drivers on their distro that would go a long away to making life simpler.
      • but Linux often gets critizised for it by the "mainstream" IT press.

        That is because most of the time you have to install linux, but Windows comes preloaded. So you will always have people comparing the installation of linux to getting a windows computer which is preconfigured by the hardware vendor, it is an impossible comparison.

        I noticed this back in 1998 when I tried installing NT and found that the Windows installer was a lot less friendly than Linux, to the point that it was barely functional and fai
      • The bigger issue here is that most people re-installing WinXP these days on personal computers do not use a standard hologram CD. They use a OEM customized recovery CD or recovery partition hidden on their hard drive. In those cases the OEM has already made most of the difficult decisions, and the user may be asked only to pick a timezone and an initial password - nothing but that. The perception of Windows being easier to install persists for this reason.

        This is not a defense of Microsoft, but if we're

    • Re:Well, not to defend an evil empire or anything, (Score:4, Informative)

      by ooh456 ( 122890 ) on Monday November 07, 2005 @08:21AM (#13968767) Homepage
      The process of installing Windows is long and complicated compared to most Linux and even BSD distros I've tried.

      And instead of getting easier with each new version its getting more difficult. The last time I installed it a few months ago I had to spend 10 minutes on the phone punching codes in and then listening to a voice generate me an activation key. And since I called from Sweden the message was in Swedish. Nice one. You think normal serial codes are annoying? Now that was annoying. Enter your serial code, Bork Bork!

      What's more, Windows typically does a worse job at auto-configuring than Linux. I remember a few months ago I couldn't even install Windows XP SP-1 which cost me $300 on a machine because the new hard drive I bought were serial ATA and I didn't have a floppy drive to load the 'special drivers'. Since it was a computer I was building on a budget, I refused to buy a floppy drive just so I can load some whack drivers. I mean, I haven't used a floppy drive since 1996.

      Guess what... a standard Debian Linux CD-ROM which I downloaded and burned for free could see and format the Serial ATA drives with no problem. It got all my drivers right as well because it just automatically downloaded the latest versions as necessary from one of about 100 mirrors around the world.

      As for software, a Windows installation can take a whole day and cost thousands of dollars as you install your productivity applications and whatnot each of them with a separate serial code and a reboot of your computer. With BSD or Linux distros you just pick the apps you want and they install and auto-configure along with the rest of the operating system. I think I rebooted my Debian box one time when I was editing my FSTAB file.

      That, my friend, is what is so unfriendly with a Windows install. It takes longer, it is tedious, and loads up a bunch of marketing crap that maybe 5% people think they want. Oh yeah, and you have to speak Swedish if you install Windows in Sweden. So no traveling, okay?

    • Re:Well, not to defend an evil empire or anything, (Score:5, Informative)

      by xs650 ( 741277 ) on Monday November 07, 2005 @08:34AM (#13968841)
      but what is so unfriendly about the Windows XP install, in particular?

      I don't see a lot of difference on a new install with fresh software, in fact Windows has the advantage because it usually installs and just plain works with no treaking. If everything works without tweaking, a Linux install can be easier, but in my experiance, there is usually some piece of hardware that causes headaches in a Linux installation. It doesn't matter that the reason for the problem is lack of drivers from the hardware manufacturer, all that matters to the user is that he has problem that he didn;t in Windows.

      On the 2nd, 3rd, 4th ... time the OS is installed, Linux installations start to have some real advantages. I just reinstalled Orifice XP in a 4 year old notebook computer for the 3rd or 4th time, this time because I replaced the hard drive. Everytime, it gets to be bigger job. It's re-enter the silly bazillion digit authorization number (assuming you can still find it), download and install a big arsed batch of updates, dowload and install a 90+ meg service pack 2, then download and install the next big batch of security patches etc. Then search the web to find out how to get rid of some of the crap the XP automatically loads and starts running for you.

      By comparison, to reload a Linux flavor after a hard drive change, you get the revision of the distribution you want and just load it. Chances are it, unlike Windows, will be easier to reload than it was the first time because Linux distros are fairly rapidly improving their user freindliness while Windows loading is a bit more user hostile than it used to be. Then on top of that, office software and a bunch of other usefull stuff gets loaded in less time than it takes to just get the Windows OS loaded.

      • I don't see a lot of difference on a new install with fresh software, in fact Windows has the advantage because it usually installs and just plain works with no treaking.

        You're joking right? Or are you counting "dragging out all your driver disks and installing them after you've freshly installed Windows" to simply be part of "installing Windows"? Then there is the fact that there is hardware that gives Windows machines trouble and simply won't work, or won't work well, and that this is an increasingly co

    • Re:Well, not to defend an evil empire or anything, (Score:5, Interesting)

      by stinky wizzleteats ( 552063 ) on Monday November 07, 2005 @08:59AM (#13968990) Homepage Journal
      but what is so unfriendly about the Windows XP install, in particular?

      I know a lot of people who bought new computers after being spywared rather than attempt an XP reinstall. I think this casts the whole "easy to install" question in a totally new light. The real question is - who installs their own operating system? We (mostly Linux users, a few Windows power users and astroturfers thrown in for good measure) have come up in the years of installing your own operating system - installing DOS 5.0, doing your first '95 upgrade, etc. We live in a world where people don't do that anymore. No one installs XP. They buy the computer with it already on there. Most people don't back up their data and have to rebuild their entire digital universe from scratch when they change from one computer to the next, so the pain of doing so is reserved to and part of the trauma of buying a completely new computer.

      Why do people do this? What is so hard about Windows XP installation? 2 things:
      • The license code.
      • You dont' have a functional computer when you are finished

      Modern Windows multi-step phone home licensing is beyond what the average user wants to mess around with. I think that is clearly deliberate. But the most important problem with installing XP is that when you are done, you aren't done. You have to put all your programs back on it. Windows installs without an office suite, imaging editing software for your digital camera, software to talk to your blackberry, etc. etc. etc. This is an area where I think Linux has a very big advantage which has not been exploited from a marketing perspective. The software repositories for something like a Debian or Gentoo are truly amazing. You are a few clicks away (in the case of Synaptic, for example) from a universe of software most Windows users can never imagine. All Linux systems install with a MS-compatible office suite by default, and have thousands of other programs to choose from to do everything from games to development to desktop publishing. Windows doesn't even come with a decent text editor.

      As with so many things, therefore, comparing the installation of Windows to that of Linux is like comparing apples to oranges. Software freedom is a qualitative matter rather than quantitative, and, as usual, you can never accomplish through a Windows XP installation what is possible when you install Linux.
      • Back in the eighties I wanted to build a PC, but I was terrified. I didn't even know where to begin. I thought building PC's was for engineering students or professional technicians. A I was interested.

        I believe most people don't install OS'es themselves for similar reasons, but of course you have to add to that the fact that they probably aren't interested in the process anyway. They've got the money, why waste the time?

        Installation wise between xp and any decent modern linux install system (that count
    • Windwos XP install is not directly unfriendly, but compared to Mandriva Linux install (and most other distros), a couple of issues stand out:

      1. Time to install; Windows XP takes on average ~1-2 hours to install the OS and install all the drivers for motherboard, graphics card and so on. Mandriva takes on average 20 minutes, and is then configured with all drivers including NVidia/ATI 3d drivers and everything set up to go.

      2. User interaction required; XP requires constant interaction during said install, to
    • The installer is like a little baby that needs constant attention. It stops at various stages to ask you what options you want. Who sits and watches the OS install? If I come back an hour later, I find out that it is only 10 minutes into the install because it was to ask what the timezone is. I tell it and leave again, then a few minutes later it wants to ask me another question. Why can't it ask me all those questions at the beginning?
    • Having installed lots of software on Windows, and having gone thru some attempts at software installs on the latest version Debian, I'd like a hit off whatever the article author was smoking.

      My latest install on Debian of the X11 dev package did a few things I didn't expect (like going out over the Internet instead of using the disks I had bought) and then hung my whole system (e.g. power switch time). It apparently "successfully" installed, but I can't say it was a smooth user experience.

      I'm not saying th

  • Very nice page for the beginner (Score:5, Informative)

    by imr ( 106517 ) on Monday November 07, 2005 @07:51AM (#13968617)
    I thinks it's a very good idea to describe the softwares installation process under linux, which may be puzzling at first to grasp when coming from windows but is really a no brainer afterwards.

    As for the online documentation that the article describes, it is contained in the distribution, just install with the "Software Packages Installation wizard" those packages :
    mandriva-doc-Starter-fr
    mandriva-doc-Drakxtools-Guide
    mandriva-doc-Command-Line
    mandriva-doc-Server_Conf_Guide

    The first 2 being the most importants for the beginner. Once installed, they will be accessible in the documentation menu.

    Also, if you need help and support afterwards, go to the mandrivaclub forums, you don't need to be a paying member to post there, you just have to register a login as in any online forum.
    It is a community driven forum, yet with the en/us forum admin being a paid mandriva employee, an uber help machine and an "original doom" speed freak.
    http://forum.mandrivaclub.com/ [mandrivaclub.com]
    • I think pretty much by definition if people have to write long rambling articles "explaining" why it's so much easier to install software on Linux than Windows, it probably isn't.
      • I think pretty much by definition if people have to write long rambling articles "explaining" why it's so much easier to install software on Linux than Windows, it probably isn't.

        That's because your logic is incorrect.
        In math, explaining why "1 + 1 = 2" is a very long process too (and not trivial), which does not mean that learning that 1 + 1 = 2 is hard.
        Where what you say is flawed, is that explaining why it's much easier to install software on Linux is not the same as explaining how to install software on
        • In math, explaining why "1 + 1 = 2" is a very long process too (and not trivial)

          Actually, generally, once you've defined what you mean by each of those symbols explaining why "1 + 1 = 2" is quite short and trivial (amounting to "by definition"). Explaining why the arithmetic thus constructed from your definitions is consistently applicable to the physical world... now that's a little harder.

          Jedidiah.
          • Oh, no! I cannot resist pointing out an article I have recently written: Sets and Such [hopto.org].

            Look at section 8, "The Foundations of Numbers", to see why 1 + 1 = 2 :-D Enjoy!
            • I am quite faimilar with axiomatic set theory and foundations of mathematics. The point remains that in terms of arithmetic of numeric symbols that is largely an issue of definitions (how do we define a number, how do we define addition of numbers, how do we define equality of numbers) and following the (not inconsiderable) groundwork of defintions (and there are actually a few ways to approach this - there are at least two different set theoretic defintions on natural numbers, you can approach it simply wi
              • I wasn't implying you didn't know, it was just for anyone reading in general (and it made most sense to reply to you).

                Sorry for that misunderstanding.

                I don't dispute your point, by the way. Certainly it is definitions, and I personally would go further as to say do not actually feel there is much 'natural' about these sorts of things at all. I consider them all man-made.

  • Chip board, or pine? (Score:5, Funny)

    by basingwerk ( 521105 ) on Monday November 07, 2005 @07:52AM (#13968619)
    How can Linux compete with the current desktop market leader, which surely must be either chipboard or pine?

  • Dumped My Windows XP System For It (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Other than my MAudio 7.1 card not working with the master volume and no one anywhere on the Net knowing or caring to help, I was able to dump my Windows XP system for Mandriva easily.

    KDE blows away the XP desktop, although some stuff like options being buried in four or five levels of sub menus needs to be addressed.

    However, it is not in the same universe as my dual G5 OS X system.

    Please KDE guys, buy a Mac, steal one, whatever it takes. You have matched Microsoft, big whoop. Time to move on to the big leag

  • Background (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jacek Poplawski ( 223457 ) on Monday November 07, 2005 @07:53AM (#13968624)
    Background of this article makes it really unreadable.

    • Conversely, (Score:3, Funny)

      by matt me ( 850665 )
      >Background of this article makes it really unreadable.

      I found the as-to-be-expected text and near-duplicate screenshots really spoiled the whole background experience for me.

  • When theory and reality disagree... reality wins. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mumblestheclown ( 569987 ) on Monday November 07, 2005 @07:54AM (#13968627)
    It explains why the nature of Free Software leads to a more userfriendly software installation setup for Linux distributions in general, as compared to proprietary systems such as the current desktop market leader.

    When theory and reality disagree, reality wins. Windows software is, in general, at this moment in time easier to install than Linux software. If you disagree with this statement, you are at best guilty of wishful thinking.

    That said, there seems to be an unhealthy fixation in the Linux world with the "ease of OS installation" or "the ease of application installation." While these of course are important things, of course they represent only a relatively small portion of the whole "usability score" for a given OS/work environment. While most linux vendors have made admirable strides in the realm of OS installation (I'd argue, despite the likely claims of many here, that application installation still has a ways to go) to the point where the installation is now within the realm of 60% of computer users (compared to, I'd say, 70% for windows and 10% or less for linux 6 years ago), larger problems remain, such as the lack of true credible alternatives in many key software areas (gimp, for example, is a lousy photoshop clone) and a lack of true interoperability (like the fact that I can cut and paste items from powerpoint to photoshop to my email to into an MS-Access cell to ... relatively seamlessly).

    • You REALLY think that installing Microsoft Office on WindowsXP is easier than typing "urpmi openoffice.org" in a console?
      • Sometimes it's not about the amount of effort, but about how clear and easy to use each step is to perform and understand.

        It's not a race.
      • No, not really, but I would say that installing VMWare tools under Windows 95 is easier than trying to install it under Ubuntu... as soon as there's not a package for your particular distro, you can get into all sorts of pain. Although (for example) VMWare supports an number of RPM based distros, using their tools under a Debian based system can be very difficult - untar, check that gcc (3.4.5, not 4) is installed, cross fingers, etc. Can you tell that I just went through this? Pretty much anyone can get Of
      • Yes. Look at the set of knowledge you need for the Linux way:

        1) You need to know that the terminal exists.
        2) You need to know how to get to the terminal.
        3) You need to know that the urpmi command exists.
        4) You need to know what the syntax of the urpmi command is, at least basically.
        5) You need to know what name the people who organize the repository gave Open Office. For instance, I wouldn't assume the ".org" would be at the end of it.
        6) You need to know how to run the program after its installed. Some L
        • It is easier than that. On Mandriva Linux, OpenOffice gets installed by default.

          1. Insert Mandriva CD on your PC
          2. Install Mandriva Linux
          3. On the "software selection" make sure that the "office productivity suite" is marked (it is by default)
          4. Proceed with installation

          Compare to Windows:

          1 to 99 steps. (Windows cumbersome installation process)

          MS Windows installer, although long, doesn't offer you the choice to install MS Office.

          MS Office installation represents, at least, the following steps

          1. Notice that
    • Windows software is, in general, at this moment in time easier to install than Linux software. If you disagree with this statement, you are at best guilty of wishful thinking.

      It's not completely true. If the Linux distro you use has the package you want, it's now always easier (and cleaner) to install it on Linux than on Windows. You usually don't have to write anything about where you want to install it, and the files are stored in a more consistent way.

      That said, try to remove a software cleanly on W
      • ...and in those cases, there is Autopackage.

        The difficulty in installing some software is not the fault of Linux - it's just that maybe the developers haven't got around to making a decent distro-agnostic installer. Oolite-Linux is *not* distributed with any Linux distro, but it is very easy to install - download the autopackage, and run it. An Autopackage is basically an archive wrapped in a shell script that bootstraps the entire process - including getting the autopackage management infrastructure if you
    • When theory and reality disagree, reality wins. Windows software is, in general, at this moment in time easier to install than Linux software. If you disagree with this statement, you are at best guilty of wishful thinking.

      If I want to install software X under windows, i must:
      -find the site of the publisher or some software site
      -find the installer
      -download the installer
      -click the installer
      -answer questions
      -be aware of spyware

      If I want to install software X under Mandriva, i must:
      -check that it is not alread
      • If I want to install software X under Mandriva, i must:
        -check that it is not already installed since it comes with hundreds of softwares
        -click the Software Wizard
        -find the software (by finding it in its category or searching for his name)
        -click OK

        You missed the stage where the software you wanted to install wasn't in the repository, so you couldn't find it in the Software Wizard.

        So you go through all those phases you disparage above for Windows: find makers' site, find setup program... oops, this is Linux,
        • You missed the stage where the software you wanted to install wasn't in the repository, so you couldn't find it in the Software Wizard.
          I didn't miss it, it's not what this article is about. When a package is not in the repository, you're left on your own just like in windows. I agree with you that this stage is a problem and less practical than rpmdrake, that's my point.

          As for source code, it's a last option, but it's still more practical than not having it.

          I think there is over 11000 rpms in mandriva repos
    • You are so right. I installed my Sony rootkit in windows without a hitch. Just popped in the cd and clicked on the EULA. Try doing that in linux.
    • When theory and reality disagree, reality wins. Windows software is, in general, at this moment in time easier to install than Linux software.

      You are right : Linux software is, in general, at this moment in time easier to install than Windows software.
      For example, Gimp is installed by default on Mandriva, and more difficult, but still easy to install on Windows. But Photoshop is hard to install on Windows (have to go buy it, expensive, ...), and very hard to install on Linux.

      If you disagree with this statem
    • Have you seen Autopackage yet? It's an installation system that is very easy for the end user. Third party software in a '.package' file - you just execute the .package file, and it installs. No harder than installing Windows software from a .msi file (except unlike .msi, Autopackage has the capability to resolve dependencies automatically if there are any).

  • Interesting dependency (not!) (Score:3, Interesting)

    by LaughingCoder ( 914424 ) on Monday November 07, 2005 @08:06AM (#13968688)
    Basically, it means that any Free/Open Source software project that is even remotely interesting has been packaged. I haven't had to build any package from source in years ...

    So if I read this right, this amazingly easy installation procedure (which is pitched as a strength of FOSS) does not have any dependency on the Free/Open Source development model because the installation packages are binary. Further, while it is true that the user is relieved from having to figure out which packages work with his/her system, there is a significant burden on the application developers and/or packagers to support every Tom-Dick-and-Harry distribution. Just the testing alone (which I would bet does not get done on the lesser-known distros) is a massive undertaking.

    So in the end I remain unconvinced that the Linux world is even in the same ballpark as Windows when it comes to ease of use, installation-wise, for the end users. And further, the direction the Linux world is taking is to be more Windows like (binary install packages, software manager, uninstallers). The main difference is Microsoft relieves the application developers from the burden of having to build installers for umpteen platforms - typically they only have to build 1. And the average Windows user doesn't have to worry about picking the wrong distro

    Here are some anticipated user reactions:

    How come you can get the CDtoasterExtreme package and I can't?

    What do you mean if I want that application I have to install a new operating system? But then I lose some of the applications I already have?

    I subscribe to the notion of a binary installation. However, until the Linux world can harmonize on a SINGLE package that runs on ALL Linux distros they will be far behind the Windows world in this regard.

    • So if I read this right, this amazingly easy installation procedure (which is pitched as a strength of FOSS) does not have any dependency on the Free/Open Source development model because the installation packages are binary

      And here you have stumbled upon the dirty secret of Linux. I was keen to enter into the world of Open Source myself, and had heard that Gentoo was an excellent Source Based distro. Imagine my horror when I discovered that running the "emerge" command not only downloaded the Source Cod

    • So if I read this right, this amazingly easy installation procedure (which is pitched as a strength of FOSS) does not have any dependency on the Free/Open Source development model because the installation packages are binary.

      Wow. 1st prize for being pretty much as wrong as possible. The path that FOSS software takes from application developer to user can often involve several people: the developer(s), possible hosters (sourceforge, etc.), package maintainer(s), QA (not always), repository hosters (fex, OSU)
      • Developers themselves are realy free to decide who, if anyone, they want to directly build packages for. In most cases the packagers for each project will take over and handle that aspect.

        Yes... if someone in that project is interested in your program.

        Suppose I, as a developer, am interested in making a program I've written available to (a) Windows users, and (b) Linux users.

        To make it available to the vast majority of Windows users, all I have to do is build ONE binary package and test it on WinXP, Win2k,
    • What a load of bs. Everything in the Main repository is as well tested as can be hoped for... that is what the whole cooker-beta-rc-final release cycle is for.

      Ignore commercial software for Linux and just pay attention to FOSS. Packager is rarely the same person as developer. Some developers will go ahead and package for the major Distros but usually the Distro is the packager. With Mandriva, in addition the Mandriva company, the Mandriva community packages a number of the less popular or esoteric progr

    • I subscribe to the notion of a binary installation. However, until the Linux world can harmonize on a SINGLE package that runs on ALL Linux distros they will be far behind the Windows world in this regard.

      One word:

      Autopackage. http://www.autopackage.org/ [autopackage.org].

      I use it for Oolite-Linux. It has worked fine on all distros I've tried. I have had no user reports of problems with the Autopackage installer so far.

    • Do you use Linux? If you did, you would surely know that the way it works is this: Each distro takes care of compiling all the thousands of apps for you. So, for you, the end user, the apps are binary -- you don't have to worry about any messy compatibility details. Only a small number of experts are needed, to build the binary app for the given distro.

      It is not necessary (or even desirable) to have One True Linux. The current system gives you all the ease of installation of a binary package, but with

  • You must be kidding. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Wiktor Kochanowski ( 5740 ) on Monday November 07, 2005 @08:08AM (#13968701)
    This article is a joke. I firmly believe that I got what I paid for so I wouldn't normally complain here. But this is nothing like my experience.

    Simplicity of the installation process? Last year I installed a Mandrake 9 on a VM. I had a functional install which I used for 2 weeks and then forgotten. This year I had to dust it off and install some new software for it.

    Poof! The installation system is broken, the software repositories don't work, nothing upgrades not only automatically but even most things fail during manual installation due to library dependencies and even the Mandrake websites no longer exist. End result: I cannot install software on a year old Linux system.
    • When I installed Mandrake 9, some of the URPMI repositories in the default setup (the "contrib" ones I believe) were broken and didn't work - and that was a shipping product. That's when I realized Mandrake would happily take my money but wasn't too interested in QA.

      (Now I run OS X exclusively.)
    • Mandrake 9 is much older than a year. It has not been supported for almost a year. 9.2 support was dropped when Mandriva 2005LE was released. Mandrake 9.2 was released in October 2003.

      There _are_ repositories for the main and contrib packages for mandrake 9.2 on most mirrors; for e.g. mirrors.usc.edu still has mandrake 9.2 packages. However, no official updates exist from mandriva for versions older than 10.0.

    • Since Mandrake 9.0 there were 9.1, 9.2 (excellent), 10.0, 10.1, 10.2 AKA LE2005 (excellent) and now 2006 (looks good so far). Actually 9.0 was not good and quite broken, but since Mandriva has done a big quality effort and recent versions really rock. The installation procedure is extremely solid, features are comprehensive (more than 12,000 packages are currently provided on public FTP mirrors) and personally I love the look and feel of Mandriva.

      Regarding the website, yes it changed, it's now http://www.ma [mandriva.com]
    • Complain to the Hearst Corporation and King Features Syndicate about it. In 2004 they sued Mandrake over the name of the company and Linux distribution because it collided with that of Mandrake the Magician (and, admittedly, used some names and graphics alluding to the character).

      As a result, Mandrake was forced to rename itself. It selected the name "Mandriva".

      It affects you becuase they also had to rename all of their servers and directories on file mirrors. The result, if your configuration has repositor
    • Simplicity of the installation process? Last year I installed a Mandrake 9 on a VM. I had a functional install which I used for 2 weeks and then forgotten. This year I had to dust it off and install some new software for it.

      So last year you installed a by then out of date distro (MDK 9 came in 2002 I think), OK. You forgot to say it was the download edition, OK.
      You had to install some new software for it OK.

      Poof! The installation system is broken

      No it's not, but you sure are a troll.

      the software repositorie
    • Mandriva doesn't continue wasting space on all mirrors on obsolete unsupported releases (such as 9.0 which must have been obsolete at the time you installed it). Instead, old releases are moved into the "old" section of the tree, which not all mirrors keep.

      However, there are a number that do. Find one, add the media, and you will have no problems.

      But ... use of the 'old' tree should be avoided, it means you are using a distro which is no longer supported and no longer gets security updates. If you had insta

  • Nah...Windows Wins This One (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dante Shamest ( 813622 ) on Monday November 07, 2005 @08:14AM (#13968729)
    Most people buy their computers with Windows pre-installed. To them, the installation process simply involves paying for the computer.
    • if only the re-installation process wasnt so routine that there are hundreds of sites devoted to the subject. Hell, the virus dejour, the 25% of dell phone calls being spam related, the constant reports of an installation just dieing, its no surprise that the installation process is considered important on both platforms only on Mandrake, you only have to do it once.

  • 2006? (Score:4, Funny)

    by PHanT0 ( 148738 ) on Monday November 07, 2005 @08:35AM (#13968845)

    Seriously... I mean, I know M$ can't release an OS in the same year that it's name implies but do we have to underline that fact with a car-like release schedule... three or four months ahead of the actual year begins?

    What's next... Debian wins the J.D. Power & Associates 2010 Consumers Choice Award?

  • Name? (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by DeafByBeheading ( 881815 )
    Still has to be the distro with the stupidest name. I understand where it came from, but it's awkward to say and just *looks* clunky. And no, I'm not putting too much weight on this (hell, you could get rid of most of the references to the name with find and tr), but it's a thought...
  • Good review (part 1).
    I haven't tested yet the MDV2006 but I hope they have fixed the main issue I had with the previous releases: Keyboard Navigation for the Control Center. Sometimes I had my mouse frozen (when switching to a USB mouse, when pluging it in another plug, back to a PS/2 one, ...). No problem to launch the control center. But I never succeed to navigate in it using the keyboard.
    Also, urpmi is easy to use but the repositories are not as good as Debian's one. Sometimes they are not updated or

  • Here come the Windows zealots (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 07, 2005 @08:52AM (#13968950)
    The windows zealots don't get a lot of focus here on slashdot. They're the ones you're seeing right now, saying "Linux needs to do $CHANGE in order to get into the desktop market". $CHANGE is generally some form of comparison to Microsoft Windows.

    Windows zealots don't get Linux, though a lot of the slashdot ones are actually linux users as well. They're thinking in terms of markets, and beating the competition. Linux, in its essence, is not about beating anyone. At the very core, linux is about sharing code. As long as code is being shared, linux is a success.

    However, every time there's a linux article with any semblance of relating to user friendliness or The Desktop, out they come, with their redundant ideas about How to Save Linux, How to Make Millions from Linux etc.

    I admit that I am a little anti-windows, though I do still keep it on my hard drive and use it from time to time (using it right now coincidentally). Having said that, a few years back when I moved to linux, I didn't hang around windows sites saying that $X was wrong with windows, or that I didn't like $Y.

    So what's with all these people who for the most part don't even use linux, let alone contribute anything to it, trying to dictate to us changes we should make to our operating system (mostly in order to homogenise it with windows).

    Also, the usability issue is long dead. I've used Mandriva and SuSe, and I lost IQ points as a result - that's how absurdly easy they are to use. They piss all over windows software installation, which starts at google, and ends at "Next", "Finish", and are full of little touches that literally astound windows users, like having an icon appear on the desktop for your USB stick, instead of that frankly useless little window (even though this obviously uses the same mechanism, it amazes everyone I've showed it to so far - they actually ask how it's possible, just because windows doesn't have dynamic icons).

    When will you zealots understand this? They've spent years listening to you, and you're still there, demanding more windows-like, and less thought. I've got news for you all: it's got nothing to do with usability. Moving to linux used to be like learning a new language, especially because of the command line, but also because of the general look and feel. It's now so windows-like that it's more like learning a new dialect, for example the difference between Latin American Spanish and Peninsular Spanish. As such, my opinion is that by now, these little niggles are not so much deal-breaking flaws, but rather excuses not to do the work required to acclimatise oneself in a new environment.

    It... lovely... soft... ravishing!

    Anyway, where was I? Oh yeah - leave my OS alone, stupid windows zealots.

    • like having an icon appear on the desktop for your USB stick

      Ironically, Mandriva modified that feature in 2006, replacing it with a "Devices" icon that you have to double-click to see all of your mounted & unmounted devices. A USB stick appears in there now instead of directly on the desktop, which I'd call a step back in usability as you get no immediately visible feedback you've done anything if you don't have that window open when you plug the stick in.

      It also curiously makes a distinction betwee

  • I upgraded my LE2005 to 2006 and I'm still finding packages that rpm failed to upgrade. In one case, gimp, a new version was installed and the old version binaries and libraries were left. rpm can't even tell me what package they belong to anymore. That sort of stuff just shouldn't happen.

    skribe
    • You're dead on with this, but it seems to be a general issue with RPM. I've had this happen on several RPM-based distros, including updates to RHEL 4 through up2date on x86_64 not terribly long ago. This was on an HP xw9300, which is supposedly supported by both HP and Redhat. This is something that the packaging systems should check for IMO and offer a reasonable fix along with the short explanation.

      On the other hand, I have installed, configured and administered literally thousands of Linux systems over t
      • I should have anticipated the angled brackets not being escaped, sigh. The command was "rpm -qi |grep packagename", one can typically type "rpm -qi packagename" but the former should work if the latter gives up.
    • Whatever tool you used to upgrade can only upgrade packages that are available to it.

      So, if you installed 2005LE, added media, and then did an upgrade via the installer, additional packages from the media you added to 2005LE wouldn't have been upgraded.

      But, all you need to do is ensure you have updated all your media for 2006, and run 'urpmi --auto-select'.

      The case of the gimp could be related to the fact that there have been multiple versions available simultaneously ...

      Anything else would be a bug, please
  • It explains why the nature of Free Software leads to a more userfriendly software installation setup for Linux distributions in general, as compared to proprietary systems such as the current desktop market leader.

    Who wrote this article - Baghdad Bob? I use both Windows and Linux on a regular basis, and I like both of them. But software installation is one of the most horrible, frustrating deficiencies of RPM-based Linux distributions. Sure, if you stick to your distribution's official software repositor

    • With more than 12,000 RPM packages publicly available for Mandriva 2006, it becomes more and more difficult to find an app which needs "manual" installation. Additionally, URPMI is, in my opinion, as good as apt-get.

      I've been using Mandrake/Mandriva for a while, and I really don't know what you are talking about when you write:"software installation is one of the most horrible, frustrating deficiencies of RPM-based Linux distributions".
  • I tried Mandriva 2006 on my laptop, motivated in no small part by Mandriva's claim that it is the only Centrino certified distribution. I was very disappointed. The startup process takes forever--it gets to the wireless adapter, then pauses for what seems like thirty seconds. Also, support for my touchpad and trackstick were spotty--sometimes they worked, sometimes not. SUSE 10.0, which has no boasts about Centrino certification, starts up speedily, supports my WPA network nearly perfectly (support for WPA

    • I really have to come to Mandriva's defense on this one. My experience was completely the opposite of yours except for one point: I too installed Mandriva 2006 on my laptop (a Compaq Presario X1030US) mainly because of the advertised support for Centrino. It installed very smoothly, and the Centrino does indeed work wonderfully (even though I did have to point it to the correct file first).

      KDE looks great with the included interfaces, WINE runs c-evo [c-evo.org] (my favorite strategy game) nearly perfectly with a si

  • If you look at the system details in that article, all it does is prove Linux has hardware compatibility out of the box with stuff that is two or three years out of date.
    • urich | desktop | athon 2400+ 2GHz | 1024MB | Asus A7V333/KT333 | MSI geforce4 ti4200 | audigy2
    • samos | laptop | PIII 650MHz | 384MB| Compaq | ATI rage pro mobility | onboard audio | Compaq Armada M700
    • neuchatel | desktop | duron 1000MHz | 384MB | KinetiZ T7/KT133 | geforce 2mx | onboard audio |

    Hell, XP has no issue with those specs l

  • DVD ISO (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Norfair ( 845108 )
    Why does it have to be such a PITA to get the 2006 DVD? (No jokes about the distro name ;)) This is what the mirror page list says: "This is the raw installation tree for Mandriva Linux 2006. If you are looking for ISO images to burn CDs or a DVD, look in a few weeks in the other section of this page." Yeah, I know I could just pay the money and d/l it today, but FFS, this is a really shitty tactic, forcing users to pay or wait. Bastards.
  • I installed Mandrake 9.2 on my laptop in Dec 2003. Since then, with each new release I've just updated the urpmi media and run urpmi --auto-select and poof, instant upgrade. It's a risky path, but the only time I had any trouble was with the 2006 release- grub wasn't updated properly and I had to go in with a rescue disk. Otherwise, I love urpmi- its my best friend. I can do without most of the drak stuff, though- old hand editing habits die hard.

Slashdot Top Deals

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Close