Linux!

[SDragon]

I want *.*.gz, not *.*.tgz. The reason for this is, I want to try making a splash screen for GRUB, but it says it can only read *.xmp.gz files. Oddly enough, though, it's not reading any of those, either....

[snakefing]

Well, for just one file, what brainface said:

gzip file.xmp

Will replace file.xmp with file.xmp.gz.

If you want to leave the existing file in place:

gzip -c file.xmp > file.xmp.gz

Either can be unpacked with:

gunzip file.xmp.gz
or
gzip -d file.xmp.gz

As to why it isn't working with grub, I just couldn't say. You are getting far beyond my limited knowledge there.

[SDragon]

*sigh*

Okay, Ra-Tiel, you win on the virtualization/dual-boot debate! Well, kinda. I'm running Kubuntu with Virtual Box, with Vista as the host. I Figured it would be a good way to test installing XP (I only have an upgrade disc, so I need to install 2000 first, then upgrade to XP), and decided that, since I'm already toying with a virtual machine, I mgith as well try running Linux.

I do have a few complaints with Virtual Box, and they might possibly apply to all virtualization programs, but there's a few cool things about this, too. Ultimately, I think I'm going to label the debate under "personal preference".

As a side-note, my 2000 install disc isn't working properly, so I couldn't install XP. I guess it's a good thing I tested it virtually first, huh?

[SDragon]

My review of virtualization:


pros:

BSoDs (for the OSes that have it) aren't nearly as bad. Just go back to your host, and exit out of the guest OS as if it was a normal program that crashed.

Great sandboxing. You can run multiple OSes all at the same time, and easily switch back and forth between them. Also, if you decide against an OS *coughvistacough*, you can always delete the "hard drive" that it's on.

Cons:

As far as I can tell, the host OS has to be the most reliable, have the smallest amount of CPU usage, and have driver support for all of the devices you want to use as a guest. At that point, why bother?

I find it's actually too easy for me to switch between OSes. I'm typing this on my host OS (XP), but I keep switching from this to Kubuntu. In between working on these two OSes, I'm toying around ith yet another. If I was doing something productive in all three, that might be fine, but I'm not. The other OSes are actually becoming a bit of a distraction.

[Ra-Tiel]

[...] The other OSes are actually becoming a bit of a distraction.

I know exactly what you mean. :( Either that, or you neglect certain VMs to an unhealthy degree (as I'm doing with my WS2k3 installation) because you've got a lot to do.

[SDragon]

Why can't I use ./configure?? I've installed the build essential deb package, but I just can't figure this out!

What I'm trying to install, by the way, is several different desktop environments, so that I can try them out. Once I get this figured out, I shouldn't have much of a problem with Linux for quite awhile.

[SDragon]

One thing I'd like to see a little more of from Linux:

Standards, standards, standards! (okay, so that's three. So sue me.)

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying every single distro should use the same Desktop Environment, or the latest version of Firefox, or anything like that. I just don't think that the user should have to start learning from scratch every time they decide to try out a new distro.

One example is installing programs--

Freespire Linux:

"We suggest you try CNR for new programs and applications. That said, we are Ubuntu-based, so you can always try a Debian package if that doesn't work. If you can't find a Debian package of what you're looking for, we also support Red Hat packages, too! Of course, should any of those fail, there's always compiling from source, although you'll have to install the applications needed to do that. For that, we suggest you try CNR! That said, we are Ubuntu-based, so..."

Windows:

"Got the Executable file? Good. Now run that, and follow the instructions in the Install Wizard. Odds are, the default options will already be filled in, so all you really need to do is just click Next until it turns into Finish. Yes, this Just Works for everything."


Of course, Linux's biggest strength is, ultimately, in it's variety, but this shouldn't mean a complete rejection of standards. The general Linux (slash Open Source) community, more so then many tech communities, should realize that standards are more suggestion then law, anyway; "standard" should be best in most general situations, however, if you feel that non-standard is Better For You, then there is nothing keeping you from being Free to use non-standards. Isn't that the spirit Libre is all about, anyway?

[Ra-Tiel]

Considering the history of Linux, you can be happy to only see three primary package manager systems in that OS (.DEB, .RPM, and .TGZ). :P

Also, you primarily use the appropriate distribution's package management systems (APT-GET, YUM, YAST, or whatever that is called for your distribution). You don't download and install some "setup binary" like you do on Windows. The problem is that Linux and Windows are completely different in that regard:
* Windows: each setup is self-contained and includes all files necessary to run the installed program
* Linux: each package comes with a list of dependencies (other files in specific versions) that need to be met to run the software

Therefore, it's best to use the package management system to install software under Linux, because the manager can automatically check and (very often) correct and download all required dependencies. The downside is that it's pretty much impossible to install anything on a Linux system that's not connected to the internet. A positive side effect, however, is that you (usually) don't have redundant files or a messed up system (*cough*dll-hell*cough*).

To be honest, I wished Microsoft would have had the balls to make their own package management system. After all, MS already has their own installer format (.MSI), and introducing a package manager would have made life a lot easier for both end users and administrators. The big advantage of Linux systems is that you can generally keep the whole system including any installed software updated with only a few mouseclicks, something which currently is impossible on Windows. At best, you can use workarounds like UpdateStar, FileHippo UpdateChecker, or that Secunia PSI tool, but downloading and installing the latest versions is still a royal pain in the ass. :-/

[SDragon]

Realistically, though, how big of an issue are file redundancies and DLL hell to the average user?

Why can't Linux have a standardized, self-contained setup system (like Windows does) that checks for already existing dependencies? It would solve the issue of installing without an internet connection (self contained means being able to put on a CD), it solves the issue of redundant files (checking before installing), and it Just Works, no matter how many different distros you try out.

[Ra-Tiel]

Realistically, though, how big of an issue are file redundancies and DLL hell to the average user?

Don't underestimate the problem. The dll hell was a major problem in pre-WinXP days, where the Windows OS didn't include mechanisms to allow multiple versions of the same dll to be installed at the same time. Installing one program could render many others unusable if the installer of the new program replaced one critical library. Just read the Wiki entry on dll hell and shudder in horror. ;)

Also, while today's harddisk sizes make the issue of file redundancy seem laughable, it still is a problem. Unnecessarily replicating files across the system causes an increased load on the OS, making indexing the disk for effective search or scanning the computer for viruses/malware take much longer. It's not a problem when we're talking about dozens of files - it becomes a big one when we're talking about hundreds or thousands of files.

Why can't Linux have a standardized, self-contained setup system (like Windows does) that checks for already existing dependencies?

That's about the equivalent of asking Mac OS X to run Windows executables. :D Seriously, there are already projects that try to unify the different package management systems under a single system, if only to make the various distributions a bit more compatible with each other. They just need more time - and with that I mean several more years until the various distributions can agree on what management system to use.

It would solve the issue of installing without an internet connection (self contained means being able to put on a CD), it solves the issue of redundant files (checking before installing), and it Just Works, no matter how many different distros you try out.

While being a good idea, it wouldn't work. The problem is that many components are continually improved and released in new versions, and other components require those newer versions. This creates a chain of dependencies you couldn't resolve without internet access. The installer you'd put on the CD would have no idea what versions of what packages were already installed on the target system, and the moment you try to install something dependend on something that's dependend on kdebase or kdelibs you'd have to put the whole desktop environment on the installer to compensate for any possible dependencies.

[SDragon]

Seriously, there are already projects that try to unify the different package management systems under a single system, if only to make the various distributions a bit more compatible with each other.

Which tells me I'm not the only one who thinks some standardization isn't so bad of an idea.

While being a good idea, it wouldn't work.

And yet you still seem dismissive of the idea.

Installing new applications will be the most technical thing many-- if not most-- users will ever do. Windows does a decent job making it fairly easy for the user, but Linux doesn't. Various Linux distros are already tackling the issue of OEM Linux machines. It seems ease of installation is the next big hurdle Linux has to tackle.

[brainface]

Dude... I think you need to stick with a distribution that's more mainstream. Like, really... installation is trivially easy, easier than windows, on Fedora or Ubuntu in my opinion. Really, what does windows have that is anything like yum or apt-get/synaptic?

Most of the trouble you can run into is mostly due to legalities. (For instance, getting DVD playback is a sun-of-a-bitch because it may not actually be legal to freely distribute a CSS-reading DVD-player program in the US. This is not a problem companies can easily solve without buying out congressmen or paying license fees for every free download :()

To be honest, I'm really not sure what you're doing where you can't find a deb file, can't find an rpm, but have to compile? :/ That's usually... pretty fringy stuff. As in... version 0.3 free 3d fantasy rpg fringy. I've been there, but i don't know that I could blame linux?

[Ra-Tiel]

Which tells me I'm not the only one who thinks some standardization isn't so bad of an idea.

Well, the system already is standardized - it's just not cross-compatible. Slight difference. ;) Once you got the hang on how installation works on Fedora, or Ubuntu, or Suse you'll know how it will always work on that distribution.

And yet you still seem dismissive of the idea.

I did give reasons, didn't I?

Installing new applications will be the most technical thing many-- if not most-- users will ever do. Windows does a decent job making it fairly easy for the user, but Linux doesn't. Various Linux distros are already tackling the issue of OEM Linux machines. It seems ease of installation is the next big hurdle Linux has to tackle.

And exactly this is the reason why your idea wouldn't work. What's more confusing to the technically inept user?

[blockquote=#1]Please connect to the internet to install application X[/blockquote]or
[blockquote=#2]Please insert disc or specify path containing packages
* kdebase-3.5.8
* libkusr-1.7.1
* appcvtr-9.7.21
to install application X[/blockquote]
Standalone installers wouldn't just work because of the dependency chains, which I explained earlier (you install application A, which needs a new version of application B, which needs a new version of library C, which needs a new version of system component D, which needs a new version of desktop environment E, etc. etc.). It's a different approach than what Windows does, and has some advantages and some disadvantages compared to the "setup.exe" approach.

Also, once you learned how to use YAST, YUM, or APT-GET (with the appropriate graphical frontends), it's actually quite easy. Open the manager frontend, wait for the repositories to be loaded, search for the application you want to install, click "install", and let the manager do the rest. ;)

[SDragon]

I haven't figured out how to get RPMs to work in Freespire. CNR, the default system, doesn't have some applications available for Freespire (XFCE, for example, is only available for Linspire, and an earlier version of Freespire), and Synaptic seems to have gone a little haywire; apparently, the only things it offers are either already on my system, or not installable.

[brainface]

Well dude, at this point i blame freespire then. It seems like your problem is that you're trying to get the great installer from the other distro to work in this separate alien distro. Seriously, get fedora or ubuntu dude. There's probably a reason everyone talks about them and not freespire. :)