On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 03:35:14PM -0600, John G. Heim (26 2-9887) wrote: > At 12:38 PM 12/3/01 -0800, you wrote: > >I second that. What's easier than a command > >rpm -ivh somepackage.rpm > > > >With windows you need to point and click in order to install the software, > > First of all, you usually don't have to click the mouse to run an > installation program. Usually you can tab through from field to field and > press enter on the 'Next' button. > > Of course, if you can't, you're stuck. There's nothing you can do. On the > other hand, in linux, you can read the man page and figure stuff out. But > you better be prepared to do that. > > But certainly, saying it's easier to use rpm than it is to tab through a > setup program in windows is an incredible oversimplification. If you're > going to tell some non computer geek that it's easier to use rpm than > setup, you're doing him a real disservice. You don't have to learn how to > use setup. You don't have to learn rpm in order to install a package. I can tell somebody over the phone what to type and they'll be able to install the package. It's much harder to describe "clicking process" over the phone or in printing material. For GUI installations there are pages and pages of pictures of what you need to click on, or fill in, while in command line instalation all it takes is one line in most cases. Entering some config parameters still needs to be typed in no matter which system you use. Another very annoying thing in most GUI installs is that they give you tiny unresizable window in the center of the screen with tiny sliders which you have to fiddle with in order to select options etc. Very primitive IMO. When it comes to install OS on personal computer Linux wins in most cases. Windows guy (software developer) came to me about an hour ago asking where to get SCSI driver so he could install W95/98 on his fathers machine. I don't know and don't care much about that. I know that most Linux distributions would install out of the box, drivers included. I install Linux over the net many times because I don't want to search for a CD somebody borrowed. To do that with windows you need to create exact images for disk drives and go through all kinds of issues otherwise it fails to install. What's worse is the support for the OS in general. Windows, all kinds of problems all the time. I installed Linux mail server for example and all I watch is it's daily reports on disk space, possible intrussion, and mail delivery problems. Windows has problems with viruses, undelivered email for who know what reason, useless logging, memory leaks, problems with remote administration etc. Linux has ALL the tools needed for a system to install, operate, backup, connect over the net directly, dial up, or VPN for no extra cost. In windows you have to buy things, ask and pay for support, etc. Yes, sometimes the installation is not easy. Some hardware is not well supported but that's manufacturer's fault in most cases. There is software for everything you want or need to do in daily life. People just think they cannot find it for Linux. Look into Linux buyers guide published by Linux Journal every year. Accounting, graphics, CAD, and on and on. Another thing in Linux is the fact I do not need to install GUI on servers. Less security risk, smaller footprint, no need for keyboard, mouse or monitor in precious rack space, uses less electric power therefore polute less, has easier remote maintenance. And last, licensing. Linux is free but it costs in a bit of more learning. Which one would you like to have more, knowledge or a bunch of nontransferable and soon to be obsolete licenses? Those who insist on not to learn anything deserve what they get. The power of windows myth is incredible. > -- > John G. Heim > WiscINFO Customer Service Coordinator > Division of Information Technology > jheim@doit.wisc.edu > 608-262-9887 -- Rafael # My login password is misspelled name of town 10 km from my birthplace # and is subject to change without notice!