Automatix? Lets all invent the same thing..... - Linux

This is a discussion on Automatix? Lets all invent the same thing..... - Linux ; From good ole roy.... | Remember Automatix? Yes the nifty little application that made installing | additional softwares on the Ubuntu system a breeze. Here comes the same for | Fedora 9, FedoMATIX (v0.1Beta). It currently works on the command ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: Automatix? Lets all invent the same thing.....

  1. Automatix? Lets all invent the same thing.....

    From good ole roy....
    | Remember Automatix? Yes the nifty little application that made
    installing
    | additional softwares on the Ubuntu system a breeze. Here comes the
    same for
    | Fedora 9, FedoMATIX (v0.1Beta). It currently works on the command
    line only,
    | but supports more than 60 additional softwares/apps already. The
    next
    | version, which is due release in 2 months, will feature a GUI and
    many more
    | softwares and hacks.

    What was I talking about? Duplication of effort all over the place?
    Fedora wants it's OWN STUFF.




  2. Re: Automatix? Lets all invent the same thing.....

    On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 08:41:02 -0700, Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:

    > From good ole roy....
    > | Remember Automatix? Yes the nifty little application that made
    > installing
    > | additional softwares on the Ubuntu system a breeze. Here comes the
    > same for
    > | Fedora 9, FedoMATIX (v0.1Beta). It currently works on the command line
    > only,
    > | but supports more than 60 additional softwares/apps already. The next
    > | version, which is due release in 2 months, will feature a GUI and many
    > more
    > | softwares and hacks.
    >
    > What was I talking about? Duplication of effort all over the place?
    > Fedora wants it's OWN STUFF.


    No Fedora... Fedora developers, and possibly users. Who are you to tell
    Fedora users they can't use Automatix?



    --
    Rick

  3. Re: Automatix? Lets all invent the same thing.....

    On Jul 7, 12:28*pm, Rick wrote:
    > On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 08:41:02 -0700, Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:
    > > From good ole roy....
    > > | Remember Automatix? Yes the nifty little application that made
    > > installing
    > > | additional softwares on the Ubuntu system a breeze. Here comes the
    > > same for
    > > | Fedora 9, FedoMATIX (v0.1Beta). It currently works on the command line
    > > only,
    > > | but supports more than 60 additional softwares/apps already. The next
    > > | version, which is due release in 2 months, will feature a GUI and many
    > > more
    > > | softwares and hacks.

    >
    > > What was I talking about? *Duplication of effort all over the place?
    > > Fedora wants it's OWN STUFF.

    >
    > No Fedora... Fedora developers, and possibly users. Who are you to tell
    > Fedora users they can't use Automatix?
    >
    > --
    > Rick


    Good point. Maybe we should have like 5 more groups working on
    different linux Kernals.
    Choice is good.

    I think we need 9 more GUI's. Each distro should have it's own.

    I think choice is good, cause, ONE of the GROUPS may actually
    put together a nice application.

  4. Re: Automatix? Lets all invent the same thing.....

    On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 09:59:39 -0700, Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:

    > On Jul 7, 12:28*pm, Rick wrote:
    >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 08:41:02 -0700, Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:
    >> > From good ole roy....
    >> > | Remember Automatix? Yes the nifty little application that made
    >> > installing
    >> > | additional softwares on the Ubuntu system a breeze. Here comes the
    >> > same for
    >> > | Fedora 9, FedoMATIX (v0.1Beta). It currently works on the command
    >> > line only,
    >> > | but supports more than 60 additional softwares/apps already. The
    >> > next | version, which is due release in 2 months, will feature a GUI
    >> > and many more
    >> > | softwares and hacks.

    >>
    >> > What was I talking about? *Duplication of effort all over the place?
    >> > Fedora wants it's OWN STUFF.

    >>
    >> No Fedora... Fedora developers, and possibly users. Who are you to tell
    >> Fedora users they can't use Automatix?
    >>
    >> --
    >> Rick

    >
    > Good point. Maybe we should have like 5 more groups working on
    > different linux Kernals.


    That's probably up to Linus.. at least if people want to call those
    kernels Linux.

    > Choice is good.


    Yes, it is.

    >
    > I think we need 9 more GUI's. Each distro should have it's own.


    Each distro can have it's own.

    >
    > I think choice is good, cause, ONE of the GROUPS may actually put
    > together a nice application.


    So, when do we start taking you seriously?

    --
    Rick

  5. Re: Automatix? Lets all invent the same thing.....

    In article
    ,
    "Psyc Geek (TAB)" wrote:

    > From good ole roy....
    > | Remember Automatix? Yes the nifty little application that made
    > installing
    > | additional softwares on the Ubuntu system a breeze. Here comes the
    > same for
    > | Fedora 9, FedoMATIX (v0.1Beta). It currently works on the command
    > line only,
    > | but supports more than 60 additional softwares/apps already. The
    > next
    > | version, which is due release in 2 months, will feature a GUI and
    > many more
    > | softwares and hacks.


    >
    > What was I talking about? Duplication of effort all over the place?
    > Fedora wants it's OWN STUFF.


    Does this capture the full Automatix experience? That is, will it break
    your system? Will it earn such glowing comments as this, from Ubuntu
    CTO Mark Zimmerman:

    I cannot recommend the use of this program, and systems where it has
    been used cannot be supported with a clean and official upgrade
    path.

    or these, from Ubuntu core developer Matthew Garrett:

    Automatix is, in itself, a poor quality package which fails to
    conform to Debian or Ubuntu policy.

    ...

    However, in its current form Automatix is actively dangerous to
    systems - ranging from damage to small items of user configuration,
    through removing user-installed packages without adequate prompting
    or warning and up to the (small but existing) potential to leave a
    system in an unbootable state.

    Yeah, that's a real "nifty little application". Garrett's list of 26
    problems with Automatix, based on just a short examination of it, so
    probably incomplete, can be found here:




    --
    --Tim Smith

  6. Re: Automatix? Lets all invent the same thing.....

    On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:13:54 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

    > Does this capture the full Automatix experience? That is, will it break
    > your system? Will it earn such glowing comments as this, from Ubuntu
    > CTO Mark Zimmerman:


    Not to mention, why is Automatix even necessary? The Linux advocates have
    been insisting for years that software installation is a snap, and anyone
    can do it with no issues, and that the Linux package managers are far
    superior to Windows.

    If that were true, then Automatix would not only be unnecessary, nobody
    would want it. Yet, apparently people do find it necessary, and a large
    number of people want it.

    Kind of a connundrum, isn't it?

  7. Re: Automatix? Lets all invent the same thing.....

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch

    wrote
    on Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:24:37 -0400
    :
    > On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:13:54 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >> Does this capture the full Automatix experience? That is, will it break
    >> your system? Will it earn such glowing comments as this, from Ubuntu
    >> CTO Mark Zimmerman:

    >
    > Not to mention, why is Automatix even necessary? The Linux advocates have
    > been insisting for years that software installation is a snap, and anyone
    > can do it with no issues, and that the Linux package managers are far
    > superior to Windows.


    No installation experience from Linux will meet the
    ability for a Windows user to download a SETUP.EXE onto
    his desktop, double-click, and within seconds have a fully
    functional application/game/utility.

    (Some do come close, but only for their package files.
    The sequence 'configure && make && make install' isn't
    that bad, but nowhere near as easy as a doubleclick.)

    >
    > If that were true, then Automatix would not only be unnecessary, nobody
    > would want it. Yet, apparently people do find it necessary, and a large
    > number of people want it.
    >
    > Kind of a connundrum, isn't it?


    Not at all. Windows wins this round (FSVO "win",
    admittedly). Linux distros have some work to do to be
    acceptable to the common Joe, though in all fairness
    having software so easy to install a virus could automate
    it might not be all that good a thing, though in Windows
    case the UAC would presumably require a password prompt
    for Administrator on a properly setup system.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    New Technology? Not There. No Thanks.
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  8. Re: Automatix? Lets all invent the same thing.....

    On 2008-07-07, Erik Funkenbusch claimed:
    > On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:13:54 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >> Does this capture the full Automatix experience? That is, will it break
    >> your system? Will it earn such glowing comments as this, from Ubuntu
    >> CTO Mark Zimmerman:

    >
    > Not to mention, why is Automatix even necessary? The Linux advocates have
    > been insisting for years that software installation is a snap, and anyone
    > can do it with no issues, and that the Linux package managers are far
    > superior to Windows.
    >
    > If that were true, then Automatix would not only be unnecessary, nobody
    > would want it. Yet, apparently people do find it necessary, and a large
    > number of people want it.
    >
    > Kind of a connundrum, isn't it?


    Nothing is so perfect that areas of further improvement can't be made.

    If it's buggy, it will die.

    If it doesn't bring any real gain for anybody, it will die.

    If it serves a small segment well and nobody else, it may/may not
    survive among that segment.

    If people don't create new things, advancement can never take place. As
    part of that attempt to advance, others may give it a shot for awhile
    to determine how well it's going to perform. Whether ot not Automatix
    contains any advances, I can't say. I don't know much about it.

    In those areas where no advances are made, or where shortcomings
    outweigh any gains in other areas, programs become marginalized and
    eventually die.

    I recall a program called "linuxconf". It did well for a lot of people
    in a lot of ways. But it had some side effects for some people, people
    who were very vocal about those shortcomings. Looks like development
    finally stopped:

    http://www.solucorp.qc.ca/linuxconf/

    Automatix might eventually face the same fate. Or maybe it will work
    well for everybody eventually and it will be adopted more widely
    because users see gains. I don't personally know enough about it to
    make that judgement.

    See, that wasn't so hard, was it? No conundrum at all.

    I bet even Timmy could figure it out if the pictures aren't too
    detailed.

    --
    They say if you play the Windows Vista DVD backward you'll hear
    Satanic messages. But even scarier, if you play it forward it
    installs Windows Vista!
    ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
    http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups

  9. Re: Automatix? Lets all invent the same thing.....

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > Not to mention, why is Automatix even necessary? The Linux advocates
    > have been insisting for years that software installation is a snap,


    It usually is, but automatix greatly simplified getting and installing
    multiple packages, some of which a newbie would not even know were needed.

    > and anyone can do it with no issues,


    Stop lying, you dishonest ass. There are "issues" with installing any
    software. For example, an "issue" with Windows is that you usually have
    to log-in as admin to install software.

    The difference is in how-easily the "issues" are resolved.

    > and that the Linux package managers are far superior to Windows.


    They are.

    > If that were true, then Automatix would not only be unnecessary, nobody
    > would want it.


    Wrong.

    > Yet, apparently people do find it necessary, and a large
    > number of people want it.
    >
    > Kind of a connundrum, isn't it?


    Nope. Differences of opinion and needs/skill-levels.

    You're kind of dishonest, aren't you?


  10. Re: Automatix? Lets all invent the same thing.....

    * Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:13:54 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >> Does this capture the full Automatix experience? That is, will it break
    >> your system? Will it earn such glowing comments as this, from Ubuntu
    >> CTO Mark Zimmerman:

    >
    > Not to mention, why is Automatix even necessary? The Linux advocates have
    > been insisting for years that software installation is a snap, and anyone
    > can do it with no issues, and that the Linux package managers are far
    > superior to Windows.
    >
    > If that were true, then Automatix would not only be unnecessary, nobody
    > would want it. Yet, apparently people do find it necessary, and a large
    > number of people want it.
    >
    > Kind of a connundrum, isn't it?


    No. You're misrepresenting Automatix (big surprise, that, hmmm?).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatix_(software)

    Automatix is a tool that automates the addition of applications,
    codecs, fonts and libraries not provided directly by the software
    repositories of Debian-based distributions (specifically Debian,
    MEPIS and Ubuntu). With the release of Ubuntu Feisty (7.04),
    which enables installation of common codecs etc., there is less need
    for Automatix. Automatix is not available for Hardy Heron (8.04).[2]

    And, if you read a little further, you'll note that the only reason for
    Automatix is -- guest what? -- proprietary or non-free code.

    --
    The system was down for backups from 5am to 10am last Saturday.

  11. Re: Automatix? Lets all invent the same thing.....

    On 2008-07-07, Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:
    > On Jul 7, 12:28*pm, Rick wrote:
    >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 08:41:02 -0700, Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:
    >> > From good ole roy....
    >> > | Remember Automatix? Yes the nifty little application that made
    >> > installing
    >> > | additional softwares on the Ubuntu system a breeze. Here comes the
    >> > same for
    >> > | Fedora 9, FedoMATIX (v0.1Beta). It currently works on the command line
    >> > only,
    >> > | but supports more than 60 additional softwares/apps already. The next
    >> > | version, which is due release in 2 months, will feature a GUI and many
    >> > more
    >> > | softwares and hacks.

    >>
    >> > What was I talking about? *Duplication of effort all over the place?
    >> > Fedora wants it's OWN STUFF.

    >>
    >> No Fedora... Fedora developers, and possibly users. Who are you to tell
    >> Fedora users they can't use Automatix?
    >>
    >> --
    >> Rick

    >
    > Good point. Maybe we should have like 5 more groups working on
    > different linux Kernals.


    You're not too far off the mark.

    Not everyone has the same requirements. Specialized users with
    specialized requirements should be able to fork as their needs
    suit them.

    > Choice is good.
    >
    > I think we need 9 more GUI's. Each distro should have it's own.


    If someone thinks that the effort is worthwhile, more power too
    them. In reality there are diminishing returns of course. This is
    what keeps your nice little false strawman from being an actual
    reality.

    Uniformity breeds stagnation.

    >
    > I think choice is good, cause, ONE of the GROUPS may actually
    > put together a nice application.



    --


    Some people have this nutty idea that in 1997 |||
    reading to a hard disk and writing to a hard disk / | \
    both at the same time was something worth patenting.


    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  12. Re: Automatix? Lets all invent the same thing.....

    On 2008-07-07, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:13:54 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >> Does this capture the full Automatix experience? That is, will it break
    >> your system? Will it earn such glowing comments as this, from Ubuntu
    >> CTO Mark Zimmerman:

    >
    > Not to mention, why is Automatix even necessary? The Linux advocates have


    It isn't.

    Automatix has been made obsolete.

    [deletia]

    The existence of Automatix doomed it. Sometimes this is the nature of forks.
    They either supercede an original or prompt an original to improve in a manner
    that the forkers wanted.

    --


    Some people have this nutty idea that in 1997 |||
    reading to a hard disk and writing to a hard disk / | \
    both at the same time was something worth patenting.


    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  13. Re: Automatix? Lets all invent the same thing.....

    "JEDIDIAH" stated in post
    slrng75bj8.aov.jedi@nomad.mishnet on 7/7/08 5:01 PM:

    ....
    >> Good point. Maybe we should have like 5 more groups working on
    >> different linux Kernals.

    >
    > You're not too far off the mark.
    >
    > Not everyone has the same requirements. Specialized users with
    > specialized requirements should be able to fork as their needs
    > suit them.
    >
    >> Choice is good.
    >>
    >> I think we need 9 more GUI's. Each distro should have it's own.

    >
    > If someone thinks that the effort is worthwhile, more power too
    > them. In reality there are diminishing returns of course. This is
    > what keeps your nice little false strawman from being an actual
    > reality.
    >
    > Uniformity breeds stagnation.


    Uniformity *within* a distro, however, is very important. As Rick said:

    Rick:
    Actually my view is not so different from usability experts.
    It does enhance usability to have menus and controls in the
    same places across applications. The more uniform or
    consistent that is, the better for the user. I have said this
    many times before. I am not coming around to your point of
    view.

    Rick:
    I have repeatedly said I agree that that consistency across
    an interface lowers errors and increases efficiency of use.


    Currently there is *no* desktop distro that does what Rick says is "better
    for the user" in a way that "lowers errors and increases efficiency of use."
    This is a problem for Linux / OSS that must be solved (well, minimized
    significantly) if it is ever going to be a significant force on the desktop
    (say with a 5% or greater user base). Right now the choice of a desktop
    system that would be, as Rick says "better for the user" does not exist
    within Linux.


    --
    "Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
    all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs




  14. Re: Automatix? Lets all invent the same thing.....

    On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 23:22:32 +0100, Homer wrote:

    > Verily I say unto thee, that The Ghost In The Machine spake thusly:
    >
    >> No installation experience from Linux will meet the ability for a
    >> Windows user to download a SETUP.EXE onto his desktop, double-click,
    >> and within seconds have a fully functional application/game/utility.

    >
    > No installation experience from /Windows/ will meet the ability for a
    > /Linux/ user to type "sudo yum -y update", and within seconds have his
    > entire OS, and every application on it, updated or installed.


    I have never administered a Linux system where that was true.

    I have always had to have some software that was installed as tarball, or
    had to be hand reconfigured, which means that automatic update will not
    work with that software.

    Things like custom installed codecs on a typical system will also be
    problematic for users.

  15. Re: Automatix? Lets all invent the same thing.....

    On 2008-07-07, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch
    >
    > wrote
    > on Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:24:37 -0400
    >:
    >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:13:54 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>
    >>> Does this capture the full Automatix experience? That is, will it break
    >>> your system? Will it earn such glowing comments as this, from Ubuntu
    >>> CTO Mark Zimmerman:

    >>
    >> Not to mention, why is Automatix even necessary? The Linux advocates have
    >> been insisting for years that software installation is a snap, and anyone
    >> can do it with no issues, and that the Linux package managers are far
    >> superior to Windows.

    >
    > No installation experience from Linux will meet the
    > ability for a Windows user to download a SETUP.EXE onto
    > his desktop, double-click, and within seconds have a fully
    > functional application/game/utility.


    You mean like doing the same for Word Perfect, Star Office or Applix?

    [deletia]


    --

    The social cost of suing/prosecuting individuals |||
    for non-commercial copyright infringement far outweighs / | \
    the social value of copyright to begin with.



    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  16. Re: Automatix? Lets all invent the same thing.....

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JEDIDIAH

    wrote
    on Wed, 9 Jul 2008 19:35:59 -0500
    :
    > On 2008-07-07, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch
    >>
    >> wrote
    >> on Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:24:37 -0400
    >>:
    >>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:13:54 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Does this capture the full Automatix experience? That is, will it break
    >>>> your system? Will it earn such glowing comments as this, from Ubuntu
    >>>> CTO Mark Zimmerman:
    >>>
    >>> Not to mention, why is Automatix even necessary? The Linux advocates have
    >>> been insisting for years that software installation is a snap, and anyone
    >>> can do it with no issues, and that the Linux package managers are far
    >>> superior to Windows.

    >>
    >> No installation experience from Linux will meet the
    >> ability for a Windows user to download a SETUP.EXE onto
    >> his desktop, double-click, and within seconds have a fully
    >> functional application/game/utility.

    >
    > You mean like doing the same for Word Perfect, Star Office or Applix?


    More or less, yes...though in all fairness, Linux distros
    such as Gentoo are darned simple, if one can get his
    mind around the mental block of actually having to (gasp)
    type in a command, as opposed to simply clicking on a cutesy
    little icon on one's desktop (or in a subdirectory thereof).

    I'm not that impressed with Gentoo's Porthole, though
    it works well enough. Of course Porthole, like emerge,
    can only work with Gentoo-provided offerings unless one
    starts fiddling with overlays.

    For their parts Fedora and Debian at least allow the
    installation of foreign .rpms and .debs, as far as
    I remember. I have no idea what yum/yast can do
    on SuSE. I've not fiddled with the 'alien' package,
    and on Gentoo emerge takes care of most of the details
    of rpms and such anyway.

    I should also mention that SETUP.EXE could be anything from
    a nifty little utility to, say, organize one's breadsticks
    into alphabetical order (assuming one needs such) to a
    rotten bit of adware that contacts a (hopefully!) blockable
    ad server, to a thoroughly detestable virus that infects
    every file on a user's Windows-based system and starts
    to spread all throughout his LAN, contact address book,
    and MySpace friends list or something.

    (It is possible that it could be a combination of all three.)

    Convenience has its price, if one's not very careful. Of
    course the bad news (for Linux) is unfortunately that people
    tend to notice improvements such as the UAC.

    Admittedly, how on earth they
    completely missed the staggeringly bad
    coincidence that is http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/UAC versus
    http://technet2.microsoft.com/window....mspx?mfr=true
    is quite beyond my comprehension. I hope they weren't
    depending on that to boost Vista sales....!! BTW, check
    out http://www.doomrpg.com/n.x/UAC/Home -- that website
    would look darned good as a real corporate website, at
    least on the front page (one might consider it better
    looking than Microsoft's).

    For its part the Microsoft variant of the UAC does not
    look all that good; while the idsoftware/DOOM one might
    let demon hordes through from another dimension because of
    incompetence, the Windows one looks like it wants to play
    mother hen, pecking the user to death, from all accounts
    -- and might also let the occasional virus through, which
    sort of defeats its purpose.

    Gaaah. At least in DOOM I can shoot them. ;-)

    >
    > [deletia]
    >


    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net -- insert random floating red horned ball here
    Warning: This encrypted signature is a dangerous munition.
    Please notify the US government immediately upon reception.
    0000 0000 0000 0000 0001 0000 0000 0000 ...
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  17. Re: Automatix? Lets all invent the same thing.....

    On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 18:47:29 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:


    > I'm not that impressed with Gentoo's Porthole, though it works well
    > enough. Of course Porthole, like emerge, can only work with
    > Gentoo-provided offerings unless one starts fiddling with overlays.



    I found emerge very easy to use from the command line, and really liked
    the offerings. I just don't think there's much of a requirement for a
    GUI. Unless, of course, Gentoo were more newbie friendly in general,
    something which is anathema amongst the developers.


    -Thufir

  18. Re: Automatix? Lets all invent the same thing.....

    On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 18:47:29 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:


    > I should also mention that SETUP.EXE could be anything from a nifty
    > little utility to

    [...]

    What with the GUI front-end for synaptic and so forth, isn't that easier
    than googling for whatever and downloading it?


    -Thufir


  19. Re: Automatix? Lets all invent the same thing.....

    * Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 23:22:32 +0100, Homer wrote:
    >
    >> Verily I say unto thee, that The Ghost In The Machine spake thusly:
    >>
    >>> No installation experience from Linux will meet the ability for a
    >>> Windows user to download a SETUP.EXE onto his desktop, double-click,
    >>> and within seconds have a fully functional application/game/utility.

    >>
    >> No installation experience from /Windows/ will meet the ability for a
    >> /Linux/ user to type "sudo yum -y update", and within seconds have his
    >> entire OS, and every application on it, updated or installed.

    >
    > I have never administered a Linux system where that was true.
    >
    > I have always had to have some software that was installed as tarball, or
    > had to be hand reconfigured, which means that automatic update will not
    > work with that software.


    Big deal. That's like saying you have to use a CD/DVD to install MS
    Office.

    > Things like custom installed codecs on a typical system will also be
    > problematic for users.


    That's not so true anymore.

    The fact of the matter is that Linux application and package
    installation is generally /better/ than that of Windows, because
    Microsoft does not (yet) provide all of the stuff installed on a system.

    There's quite a bit more babysitting needed when installing a fresh
    Windows system, if you have a lot of "extras" (office suites,
    graphics/video editors, window managers, internet radio support, UML
    diagrammers, compilers, and other dev tools, languages, fonts, science
    and math applications and libraries, text editors, database engines,
    games, scanner software, SSH, BIND, DHCP, HTTP, file, and print servers,
    and so on.) Heck, on a stock, self-made Windows install you have to
    separately upgrade video, USB support, and sometimes even the NIC
    drivers.

    --
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

  20. Re: Automatix? Lets all invent the same thing.....

    On 2008-07-09, Erik Funkenbusch claimed:
    > On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 23:22:32 +0100, Homer wrote:
    >
    >> Verily I say unto thee, that The Ghost In The Machine spake thusly:
    >>
    >>> No installation experience from Linux will meet the ability for a
    >>> Windows user to download a SETUP.EXE onto his desktop, double-click,
    >>> and within seconds have a fully functional application/game/utility.


    A lot of things download and install themselves, too. Don't forget how
    easy that one is when comparing. The user doesn't even have to bother
    worrying about anything. It's all taken care of by the friendly
    website, email, doc or picture.

    >> No installation experience from /Windows/ will meet the ability for a
    >> /Linux/ user to type "sudo yum -y update", and within seconds have his
    >> entire OS, and every application on it, updated or installed.

    >
    > I have never administered a Linux system where that was true.
    >
    > I have always had to have some software that was installed as tarball, or
    > had to be hand reconfigured, which means that automatic update will not
    > work with that software.
    >
    > Things like custom installed codecs on a typical system will also be
    > problematic for users.


    Whereas, using Winders 100% of everything is updated from a single
    point, with no configuration problems to speak of, and definitely no
    buggy patches.

    Well, except Acrobat, Photoshop, antivirus, antispyware, games, CD/DVD
    burning programs, Firefox, CAD/CAM programs, scanner software, print
    drivers, video drivers, PDA sync software, Paint Shop Pro, Flash, a
    gazillion other programs designed to mask the fragility of the
    underlying OS, etc, etc, etc, etc and etc.

    But Winders, Offal and WMP are 100% covered.

    --
    If Bill Gates had a penny for every time a Windows box
    crashed....Oh, wait a minute, he already does.
    ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
    http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast