[NTLUG:Discuss] Install Gripes

[Chris Cox]

Stephen Davidson wrote:
> I could rant and rave about this all day, but this constructively sums
> up the situation with installing software on Linux;
> 
> http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12554-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=49218&messageID=920936&start=0
> 
> -Steve

Well... I didn't find it constructive AT ALL.  And there's
some misinformation.  It implies that Linux (distros) have not
succeeded.  That's just plain false.  The fact that I can't
walk into 75% of organizations without seeing some Linux
is a testimony to its success.  Remember Windows made
its success by FORCING vendors to have it installed as
the defacto OS on ALL new computers.

The fact that Linux has done so well... and in fact OWNS
certain spaces (no Windows at ALL), speaks well of an OS
that didn't use monopoly power to coerce people into
using the OS.

Is Linux still evolving? Yes.  Is Microsoft scared to
death of it? Yes.  Are some of Vista's problems directly
attributable to Microsoft's desire to be similar to
Linux? Absolutely.

There was a time not too long ago when Microsoft didn't
have any enemies.  Now they have one that can't be
taken down using traditional means (stock, lies, murder, money,
etc).  I look for Mr. Ballmer to leave shortly because
of all of this.

Now.. for the rest of the content.  The writer ASSUMES that
Windows installs are SIMPLE and CONSISTENT.  Wow.  You know
there's a reason why Windows machines slow down over time.
Some of that is caused by the FACT that Windows software installs
are neither consistent or simple.  A LOT (and I mean a LOT)
of trash is left all over the hard drive.  Not to mention
the MASSIVE fragmentation caused by installing/removing
software under Windows.  It really couldn't be uglier.

In Windows, each applications can essentially write their
own CUSTOM installation and removal routines.  Some are
better at it than others.  But can you imagine if every
Linux application had it's own custom installer.  You say,
"Wait a minute, each app in Windows doesn't do it's
own installer!"  But the truth is that while there are
SOME (again, you don't have to do this) patterns that
Microsoft recommend (e.g. InstallShield at one time), in
general, it's a VERY mixed bag, even if they APPEAR to
be similar from application to application.


I think what the author means to say is... why can't Linux
hide problems better?  Why can't is mask issues so I don't
have to deal with them right now?  Why can't Linux be
like Windows and essentially force me to upgrade/buy
machinery just to clean up the whole Windows mess?

:)