Bloody Linux! Just install the program/software
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@hobbit666 said:
Guess I just love windows - download a file click it - install - double click the icon it runs lol.
Well that's VERY misleading. If you were doing this "this Linux way" you just "yum install snipeit" and done. You don't even go to the website or download or anything. Your description of what to do on Windows is actually way too many steps for Linux.
The issue here is not related to Linux in any way. You want to install software that doesn't have an installer at all, so you are "installing" it manually. On Windows this would be SO MUCH HARDER.
The difference is, on Windows people just give up. On Linux people tend to find ways to do it. But the issue is 100% that no Linux install is available, it has nothing to do with it being Linux.
Picky git! LOL I know it's not Linux fault lol just wish people would have better howto's
Also Guess i'm a GUI person lol.As I said I'll give it a go on Ubuntu tonight if I get time.
-
@scottalanmiller you've said this before - and I still don't really understand it.
You're saying that because some Linux flavors include an online install store (yeah they had it before iPhones did) that that alone makes it easier? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I'll agree that assuming you install something from the store that updates are definitely easier!
You're right with Windows, either the installer works, you are pretty much just give up. That's what I call easy. Either the installer works, or it doesn't.
The desire to work around broken installers seems like a red herring itself. The desire should be to install the software.
This isn't to say that installing on Linux can be easier - but even using "yum install xyz" requires you to know the exact name of xyz. and where does that come from? Generally a webpage, just like downloading an installer for a Windows program often does.
-
@hobbit666 said:
Picky git! LOL I know it's not Linux fault lol just wish people would have better howto's
Also Guess i'm a GUI person lol.Linux has better GUIs too, especially around software management and installation!
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller you've said this before - and I still don't really understand it.
You're saying that because some Linux flavors include an online install store (yeah they had it before iPhones did) that that alone makes it easier? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I'll agree that assuming you install something from the store that updates are definitely easier!
You're right with Windows, either the installer works, you are pretty much just give up. That's what I call easy. Either the installer works, or it doesn't.
The desire to work around broken installers seems like a red herring itself. The desire should be to install the software.
This isn't to say that installing on Linux can be easier - but even using "yum install xyz" requires you to know the exact name of xyz. and where does that come from? Generally a webpage, just like downloading an installer for a Windows program often does.
yum search xgoes a long way to finding the right installer.
-
@Dashrender said:
You're saying that because some Linux flavors include an online install store (yeah they had it before iPhones did) that that alone makes it easier? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I'll agree that assuming you install something from the store that updates are definitely easier!
"Store" is a bit loaded as a term, generally the "store" is a repo. You can build your own, use the included ones, add third party ones. It is a store in that in stores software, not in that it charges money.
And all enterprise or even remotely practical UNIX systems have this, it's not just "some flavours" of Linux or whatever. Sure, you CAN create a Linux that lacks this, but no one does.
That alone is not what makes it easier, it is a building block.
Enterprise package management is what makes it easier. Nothing on Windows is this easy:
yum install httpdIt installs Apache, configures it and installs all packages that it might need. It'll do this for tens of thousands of software packages. That command is the whole thing. The moment you mention "find the software" and "download" you have made Windows two steps harder before even getting started.
And talk about safety differences, on Linux you don't get mislead to download from the wrong place. The repos are protected so you know you are getting your packages from where you think that you are.
-
@Dashrender said:
You're right with Windows, either the installer works, you are pretty much just give up. That's what I call easy. Either the installer works, or it doesn't.
But the choice to give up is yours. If you've given up and not even installed Linux, does that mean that you've made it infinitely easy? Linux seems easier no matter how you define easy. You are always free to give up, so if you define "too hard" as "easy" then I don't know how to describe it.
Is it easier to pick up a brick or a house?
-
@Dashrender said:
The desire to work around broken installers seems like a red herring itself. The desire should be to install the software.
Then doesn't that go against your Windows logic? That not working at all is "easy"? If the goal is to get it to work no matter what, Linux is easier and/or more possible. If the goal is to have it be "too hard to keep trying", I guess Windows is easier but only because you control the point at which you decide to "give up."
Bottom line, for equal tasks Linux is easier in every situation I've ever had proposed.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
And talk about safety differences, on Linux you don't get mislead to download from the wrong place. The repos are protected so you know you are getting your packages from where you think that you are.
This is definitely a huge win. One that I hope MS will take advantage of with their store - mostly how the iPhone store has.
-
@Dashrender said:
This isn't to say that installing on Linux can be easier - but even using "yum install xyz" requires you to know the exact name of xyz. and where does that come from? Generally a webpage, just like downloading an installer for a Windows program often does.
This only seems hard because you did the thing that I mentioned.... you are applying the "Windows way".
You can...
- Know what you are installing (how do you do that in Windows anyway?)
- Use the GUI and find it through all kinds of search and list options.
- Use text searches.
Every method you can use with Windows, Linux can use plus several that are easier. Yes, in a worst case scenario, Linux falls back to being "as hard as Windows", but that's the worst case. It is always "as hard or easier", never harder.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
The desire to work around broken installers seems like a red herring itself. The desire should be to install the software.
Then doesn't that go against your Windows logic? That not working at all is "easy"? If the goal is to get it to work no matter what, Linux is easier and/or more possible. If the goal is to have it be "too hard to keep trying", I guess Windows is easier but only because you control the point at which you decide to "give up."
Bottom line, for equal tasks Linux is easier in every situation I've ever had proposed.
But there was no installer for the OP. That's what we're talking about here, things that aren't in the repo... instead it's something that he has to download and run scripts, etc.
If that was a Windows app, it's true the windows app might not install all of the dependencies, but you'd probably be given a list - but you will almost never be given a script to run and hope it works.
It's the "there's only one way to skin a cat" thinking - windows is one way - the installer file, Linux can be any number of ways, one of which is the installer file. Of course you're probably going to say Windows is the same way, and sure that is true, you can install multiple ways, but those other ways are just rare, flat out rare.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
This isn't to say that installing on Linux can be easier - but even using "yum install xyz" requires you to know the exact name of xyz. and where does that come from? Generally a webpage, just like downloading an installer for a Windows program often does.
This only seems hard because you did the thing that I mentioned.... you are applying the "Windows way".
You can...
- Know what you are installing (how do you do that in Windows anyway?)
- Use the GUI and find it through all kinds of search and list options.
- Use text searches.
Every method you can use with Windows, Linux can use plus several that are easier. Yes, in a worst case scenario, Linux falls back to being "as hard as Windows", but that's the worst case. It is always "as hard or easier", never harder.
This I all agree with.
The trusted sources of the repos is great - something Windows is sorely lacking. -
@Dashrender said:
But there was no installer for the OP. That's what we're talking about here, things that aren't in the repo... instead it's something that he has to download and run scripts, etc.
Okay so.... if this was Windows and there was no installer, what would you do?
-
@Dashrender said:
If that was a Windows app, it's true the windows app might not install all of the dependencies, but you'd probably be given a list - but you will almost never be given a script to run and hope it works.
You'd probably be given a list. On Linux you'd probably not even need a list. But we are already outside of the probably world. So in Windows, apples to apples, how would this not be much harder?
-
@Dashrender said:
It's the "there's only one way to skin a cat" thinking - windows is one way - the installer file, Linux can be any number of ways, one of which is the installer file. Of course you're probably going to say Windows is the same way, and sure that is true, you can install multiple ways, but those other ways are just rare, flat out rare.
I don't agree. Why? Because this is available in identical GIT format for both. Is the Windows way easier? I doubt it. Windows is no more "one way" than Linux.
This is a perfect example case. We are dealing with the same installer for both.
-
Also... and this may be just me. Why is Windows so much harder to update then Linux? I've been sitting on a Windows update screen for 15 minutes with no progress. If this were Linux I would at least have an error by now.
-
@hobbit666 said:
So set-up a new VM with Centos7, set-up networking, disabled firewalls while testing. Can I get the Snipe-IT software to install and run?????? Can I heck!
What issue did you run into specifically? It worked "out of the box" for me. I'm still getting more stuff done with it, but the spot where you are stuck it "just worked." Do you have more details as to what you did or were testing?
-
So there is an issue with the install possibly breaking with the database portion. If you search on the issue it is our own @Ambarishrh that reported it!!
-
@Dashrender said:
Of course you're probably going to say Windows is the same way, and sure that is true, you can install multiple ways, but those other ways are just rare, flat out rare.
And the entire point you miss here is that the OP went out of his way to this rare state in Linux. The fact that by its very nature Linux makes it easier to get to this point is why so many people do it and fail.
If people would simply stop and not do it when it fails then the software developers would step up. See my recent thread on installing ownCloud 8.2. Because of my choice to use CentOS 7, the simple process was broke. Instead of give up, I spent the extra time to find the problems and MANUALLY resolve them. To do something like this in windows, would typically be much more difficult.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
So there is an issue with the install possibly breaking with the database portion. If you search on the issue it is our own @Ambarishrh that reported it!!
That bug was closed with no resolution noted.
-
@JaredBusch I know
I'm hoping that he can respond here and remember what was done.Andi 've verified that it is not an SELinux issue.
