A simple question.....

[streethawk]

I am a systems administrator but I am very new to linux and just have a comment/question. When will Linux have an easy way to install applications and drivers. In Windows (is that a bad word here?) you simply run "setup.exe" to install a piece of software or a driver. When will that functionality come to Linux or is it already available and I am just missing somthing? I think once this happens Linux will become the next "Windows" and will can all kick Bill G. and his Windows to the curb.

[X_console]

Each distribution comes with it's own package manager.

Debian: dpkg
RedHat: rpm
Slackware: pkgtool/installpkg

It's as easy as installpkg mydriver.tgz and that's it. rpm and dpkg offer much better packaging features though, such as dependency checking.

[streethawk]

But why not create an executale to be ran that will check to see which distrobution you are using and automatically run the install. This would make it much easier for novice/new users to get into linux. I have tried linux 2-3 times but was turned off by the way that software had to be installed. It just seems that it could be much simpler.

[fourgivn1]

I'd have to sort of agree with the first guy. I may be a newbie, and used to WinNT and Win2K, but I'm smart enough to know that different distros have their own scheme for installations (i.e., RPM for Redhat, and it's pretty easy to use Gunzip, I believe it's called, for ANY distro). The problem IS that it does NOT always work the way you described, and I've tried it many times and had to do some serious searching. I myself enjoy, to a degree, having to dig and type commands in, but I'd rather save stuff like that for the in-depth things, such as getting Win2K and Redhat to run on the same machine WITHOUT a partitioning utility, instead of installing a small program. If anyone can point me to a good website (other than this one, of course) that can assist with questions for knowledge seeking newbies, I'd appreciate it.

[X_console]

There is a general method. Building from source. Most distributions however already support RPM. Even Slackware has RPM available for installation. Why not build an executable? Because think of how many kinds of distributions there are. There are the major distributions, and the minor distributions. Why not create a general tool you say? Well, it's certainly possible, the question is, are you going to be able to convince RedHat to use it? Or Slackware, or Debian to give up their package managers just so they can switch to this one? Keep in mind that Linux is divided into distributions. Each distro has it's own way of running things, and you're going to have to be very convincing if you're going to ask them to give up something and replace it with something new.

[Matches Malone]

Seems to me the idea of using a PKG MGR instead of an "exe" file is to allow people to utilize the possibility of reworking things to suit a different situation, in a way, one of the things that makes Linux WORTHWHILE :) We can't easily contribute to a standardized EXE INSTALL file, but we CAN if we have source and/or a generalized package that may be seperated if need be, to allow us to "do it ourselves" :)

I believe Linux is not for the end user that "Doesn't wanna know how it works", per say... It is for the curious, and the adventurous... Things have been done to TRY to allow more exposure in general, but ideals of Linux remain the same IMHO...

Hope this opinion finds an open mind! I may not know TONS, but I learn all the time :)

[streethawk]

I am certiain if they did come up with some kind of executable installation standard that Lunux would become much more popular.

Don't most Linux's have the ability to use RPM. Could this somehow be modified to make an execuatble install file? I believe that this one feature is what makes the difference between Windows and Linux and if Linux can accomplish this then Linux may find its way on to many many more PCs.

[streethawk]

Originally posted by Matches Malone:
<STRONG>Seems to me the idea of using a PKG MGR instead of an "exe" file is to allow people to utilize the possibility of reworking things to suit a different situation, in a way, one of the things that makes Linux WORTHWHILE :) We can't easily contribute to a standardized EXE INSTALL file, but we CAN if we have source and/or a generalized package that may be seperated if need be, to allow us to "do it ourselves" :)

I believe Linux is not for the end user that "Doesn't wanna know how it works", per say... It is for the curious, and the adventurous... Things have been done to TRY to allow more exposure in general, but ideals of Linux remain the same IMHO...

Hope this opinion finds an open mind! I may not know TONS, but I learn all the time :)</STRONG>


I believe that this is waht is keeping Linux out of many peoples hands. Why not do both? Create an executable install for people who just want to install the software and not have to wory about whats going on behind the scenes and a "customizable" install (maybe a command line switch or somthing) for those who like to dig into the code. This is why windows is so popular, most people don't care about waht goes on while a piece of software is being installed.

[Matches Malone]

That is a VERY good point, and welcomed by many :)

Good idea there!

Now WHO will do it? hehehe

[Choozo]

Originally posted by streethawk:
<STRONG>
I believe that this is waht is keeping Linux out of many peoples hands. Why not do both? Create an executable install for people who just want to install the software and not have to wory about whats going on behind the scenes and a "customizable" install (maybe a command line switch or somthing) for those who like to dig into the code. This is why windows is so popular, most people don't care about waht goes on while a piece of software is being installed.</STRONG>

Strange ..... I could have sworn that all the Debian folks would be swarming over this one by now? Thats what they have 'apt-get' and such for :D

Cheers :)

[streethawk]

Originally posted by Choozo:
<STRONG>Strange ..... I could have sworn that all the Debian folks would be swarming over this one by now? Thats what they have 'apt-get' and such for :D

Cheers :)</STRONG>

Pardon my lack of knowledge, but what is 'apt-get'?

[sym]

Actually, Sun StarOffice 6.0 Beta installer works just like the MS model. There is one executable file that you run, and it opens up the whole "Install Shield" style process. I didn't see multiple distro, so I assume that it works the same for any distro.

My assumption was that it was always a matter that the people who used Linux were fine using the RPM, Aptget, and TGZ methods, so there wasn't a need for the "setup.exe" model.

I also consider it a valid point that this area needs work before Linux would be accepted into the mainstream on the desktop.


Another note: jBuilder4 also has one executable that launches the installer for any Linux distro.

[ 24 October 2001: Message edited by: sym ]

[Hena]

RPMs lack one important thing. If only they would allow me to tell what basic directory i want it to use. And if i want the bin/doc/whatnot to go somewhere else or behind that basic directory. Only reason that i'm still using tarball over RPM is that i can tell tarball where it should go.

[Choozo]

Originally posted by streethawk:
<STRONG>Pardon my lack of knowledge, but what is 'apt-get'?</STRONG>
That is the package tool used in Debian. Basically it automagically updates/installs the packages you tell it to do, and handles all dependencies at the same time.
Hop over to www.debian.org (http://www.debian.org) to learn more about it.

[onthaturn]

As a brand new Linux user ( bought SuSE 7.2) weeks ago and only just installed it 2 days ago, after years of windows. I did it for the curiosity and am enjoying the learning curve. It is fun to experiment and face challegenges, HOwever to increase its popularity with the average guy who just wants things to work when he takes his new Linux computer home from the shop easierinstall would be a real bonus. But actually thats pretty mior as Linux needs a super publicity machine or the general public will stick to windows and whos gonna pay for that machine ? know what I mean! :(

[mangeli]

./configure
make
make install

I like this. This allows me to custom build the "software" for my platform. If I know the right stuff to put on the end of the ./configure line, I can controll where it is installed, what its called and more.

You have to realize that there is no "executable" in the windows .exe sense of the word. Anything can be run as a program. And a lot of the software that is coming out these days has an install.sh script with it.

./install.sh and its done.