Boy I just really want to take a strip off some of you!!! But I am more civilized I guess, so instead please can you pay more attention to what is being said and instead of getting on your high horses with attacks, properly discuss the topic.
The OP is raising a very valid issue that has continually been coming up in hundreds of like / don’t like posts all over the Internet.
Let’s pose it this way, Your an IT guy, You are rolling out an average of 300 Linux boxes at a time in a network of 2500. It took this guy 1 hour to figure out to best install flash on these roll out machines. In the course of his working this out, he came to realize just how hard it would be for the average person with no IT training to do. He poses this as just one example of what needs to change to make Linux a far better system.
The issue of Linux features being hard to achieve has been raised by 100’s to thousands of people that have had difficulty in doing such.
Are all these people wrong, stupid, unwanted? No
Does this indicate a failure in development at one stage or another that needs more attention? Yes
I am a technical person, Electronics Engineer, Computer Systems Engineer, Technical Writer, and Programmer. In the course of my activities, if a job is worth doing it is worth doing right. This means that My software must respect the hardware architecture, function properly and completely, be well documented, and include both technical papers and built-in help. All these details take a lot of time to achieve. Yes I can generate quick fast code that works and expect that at some time down the road someone somewhere will finish what I start but then would I want my signature on such inferior work … No!
Can more be done (maybe not by us but by the software maintainers) Yes
RPM spec files have a place for short description, full description, depends, provides but the fields are so badly implemented that as you browse package after package in YAST zypper or rpm CLI why is there in cases up to 25 packages with the same name except different versioning with the same short description, no long description, and no indication for what DE or DE version the package is valid. The facility is there to promote better understanding but unused.
Still with RPM spec, while almost all use the depends field often the provides lists some of the files (not all) and the description full field doesn’t really tell you what the package really has.
Community, Linux has probably the best community of any OS yet far too many can’t understand why people not used to Linux wouldn’t just KNOW we are here, and love to jump and stomp when new members post with poor wording or no wording or the like.
Reading some of that other topic, I have to kinda agree with your ‘bigot’ assessment.
Definitions of bigot on the Web:
* a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
* A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
* bigoted - blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others; "a bigoted person"; "an outrageously bigoted point of view"
* bigotry - the intolerance and prejudice of a bigot
* bigoted - Being a bigot; biased; strongly prejudiced; forming opinions without just cause
A bigot attitude undermines the whole purpose of community and sharing.
What I read was that someone found the common task of installing Flash 10 a pain and posed the question what would the average Windows user make of the experience. He was then told to “go away” and it was implied that his knowledge of IT was that of the tea maker.
Having spent considerable amounts of time working through sound and wireless issues, I can well understand why many people would give up rather quickly. That may well be their loss in the long run, but it is also Linux’s loss too.
> Definitions of bigot on the Web:
all those bigot attributes can be easily applied to anyone who comes
here with the opinion that Redmond does it right and therefore
everything here is wrong…
it is not wrong, it is just different!
and those ignorant in Linux ways need not p|ss and moan to me that
they assumed no need to read/learn before trying what they thought might work (and from experience know should work, on a
the fault is not with Linux, but in their assuming they knew what they
MUST know to succeed…
the world is just crammed full of Redmond Bigots who are sure there is
only One True Way . . .
[a fact i’m reminded of every time i sit down to a Windows machine
(like i did a couple of weeks ago), and having not touched one in a
year or more am TOTALLY lost as to how to do most anything…because
it IS different from the way i know]
Redmond Bigots who want Linux to conform to ‘their One Way’ may leave
now–or prepare to learn how to compute it in one of the many
different correct/works ways, here.
I don’t think he was told to “go away”. There were at LEAST two posts where help was offered.
Still, there were some less than helpful posts, although I also note when a user shows up on a forum and in their first post launch a rant, their reception is not as good as it would have been had they simply asked for help.
A point I want to make here is we are a support forum. We are a SUPPORT FORUM. And we are a support forum of volunteers who are NOT paid. No one is paid for this support. We do this out of our own good will and free time. We are not a DEVELOPERS nor a PACKAGERS forum. We are NOT! So when a new user joins our forum, and on their very 1st post launches a rant about an application or about Linux in general on our forum, the first thing we ask is what could we as users who support Linux could have done better? In this case, since we were NOT asked for support, there is nothing we can do. Really.
The user should ask for help as soon as possible, and then we will try to help as soon as possible. And we can still try to help.
But if the user wants something fixed in how Linux is developed, then truely this is the WRONG forum.
Any user who has supported the installation of openSUSE Linux across 300 some PCs must know that the packaging of openSUSE linux is coordinated via mailing lists, with some coordination on IRC chat channels. The openSUSE forum has nothing to do with such. We only provide support. We have NO influence on the developement. So not only was the rant misplaced, the OP showed clearly they did not want help by such a rant.
Still, despite their rant, despite their not wanting help some of us volunteered help. And the help is still available if the OP wants.
Now having typed the above, I have to agree that Flash in Linux is lacking in comparison to that of MS-Windows. This is due in no small part to the web sites that stream flash. Most never test with Linux. Some even put code in their web site to stop flash from streaming in case it is a Linux PC on the other end. This has forced many of us to add plugins to our firefox to fool the web sites.
There is not much we as a support forum can do in the case of Flash being installed correctly and not streaming. That is NOT the case here thou. The OP noted a dependency problem. Dependency problems do NOT happen when flash is installed, unless the user has made a glaring new user error. The sort of error that an experienced IT person should not make, but if they did make it, then a post on our forum (or a querry on #suse irc chat) should sort very very quickly.
I am sympathetic to the OPs frustration, but I truely do believe it misplaced.
I am an average user and I get along fine with Linux.
Linux is not harder or more difficult than Windows, just different.
Of course some distros are harder than others. I don’t recommend openSUSE to Windows users. I recommend Linux Mint, which IMO is the easiest for a Windows user to adjust to, with PCLinuxOS not far behind.
Then there’s the maintenance aspect. I no longer have to download and run all the various scanners, cleaners, defraggers, and realtime protections that Windows requires.
To the OP (cgresty): First to establish my credentials like you have. Back in my youth during the Mesozoic era I was part of the team that created the first Computer. It consisted
of 5 rocks and allowed as many flops per second as Thag, our main programmer, could accomplish with the one hand left to him after that unfortunate hunting expedition. The OS was much cruder than todays Linux based ones and did not require much in the way of learning to master. Nevertheless it sufficed for simple hunter gatherer types like myself. Getting on line in those days with the type of wireless protocols (drums and smoke signals)
was complicated since the drivers were not always available since most were proprietary of individual War lords.
When I first undertook to learn Linux in my later years I was frustrated that the knowledge from the Stone age OS (version 1.1.B.C.) did not readily transfer to it. However with paitence and a few whacks with a pointy stick I was able to start Linux going. Since than I have wondered why anyone would have need to pay for any other OS, since for us more primitive types, Linux works fairly easy. I guess for someone like yourself, with your more modern experience, the problem must be you are making it more difficult than it needs be. Do not blame Linux or its community for doing so. Indeed from my perspective, other than the nerfing changes that periodically come along to mess usability up, Linux works without any great effort.
Heres hoping the next time you have a problem you ask one of us common clay users for assistance. Many Forums exist on the 'net for this as well as venues like oldcpu mentioned. And if after asking/reading you can not get the fool thing working, I will happily lend you my pointy stick to take a poke at it.
Why do you assume that people coming here who do not share your opinion are M$ sympathizers who think they are doing it right and Linux is wrong? (I won’t use the Redmond term since one of the largest Linux development last year came out of the LUG in Redmond Wa. so that’s like saying all of Redmond Wa cater only to M$).
I concede that there are those that do come here wanting Linux to be another Windows system, But there are probably more that come here really wanting better integration of the various parts than is currently in the development. And We being a support forum without the where-with-all to change/correct the code are left resigned to do work-arounds.
and those ignorant in Linux ways need not p|ss and moan to me that they assumed no need to read/learn before trying what they thought might work (and from experience know should work, on a different system)…
the fault is not with Linux, but in their assuming they knew what they MUST know to succeed…
Point taken. Don’t come to you for help if IYHO they have not RTFM and try before they learned. Ouch! Can you please explain how a person is learn if they don’t try? … Actually never mind.
the world is just crammed full of Redmond Bigots who are sure there is only One True Way . . .
[a fact i’m reminded of every time i sit down to a Windows machine (like i did a couple of weeks ago), and having not touched one in a year or more am TOTALLY lost as to how to do most anything…because it IS different from the way i know]
Redmond Bigots who want Linux to conform to ‘their One Way’ may leave now–or prepare to learn how to compute it in one of the many different correct/works ways, here.
Accepted. There are lots of M$ “one true way” bigots
And how did you get around your M$ problem? Did you RTFM to learn? Visit a M$ forum? or come here to post your displeasure?
> Don’t come to you for help if IYHO they have not RTFM and
> try before they learned. Ouch! Can you please explain how a person is
> learn if they don’t try?
i learned how to do a cloverleaf
<http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation2/P-367/P-3670025.htm> by reading about it (studying actually)…i read and memorized the
exact procedures to follow. entry airspeed, initial attitude, altitude
min and max, etc etc etc…and the techniques known to result in a
and then i practiced it in a simulator, and watched an instructor
pilot demonstrate it airborne…and THEN i ‘tried’ it…no machines
were damaged and no one died…
when i ‘tried’ linux the first time it was while reading from a (no
kidding) 4 pound 4 ounce book named Linux Unleased Third Edition, by
SAMS publishing…printed in 1998…and booting from the book supplied
CD of Red Hat 5.1
> And how did you get around your M$ problem?
i bought and install IBM’s OS/2 in the early spring of 1995 and very
soon transitions entirely to Warp…
> Did you RTFM to learn?
yes. absolutely! and anyone who does not want to should expect to run
into big problems, often…and then NOT come her to bitch about stuff
not working the way they think it should.
> Visit a M$ forum?
i did ask some questions about both Win3.1 and OS/2 v 3.0 on a BBS or
twelve…but, mostly i used the reference books i purchased to
understand how to operate successfully…
> or come here to post your displeasure?
as mentioned by oldcpu: neither openSUSE nor Linux developers come
here to see what we think about the way anything works…so, it
remains a total waste of time coming here to bitch…
ymmv…if you want to coddle Redmond/OSX/BeOS/Atari/Ubuntu/ETC Ship
Jumpers who are too busy to read and try to understand the correct way
to setup and maintain an industrial strength operating system, go
ahead, be my guest…
but, please don’t expect me to not react when they pop in here to
say openSUSE sucks because it is not just like what they are running
Windows has as many hurdles for a new user as Linux by my experience. The difference is that people like your wife “know” how to use it, it’s what they’ve always used, it’s what their friends use. Linux is ‘different,’ and like any new system it has a learning curve.
Descriptions could be better? Perhaps. But that’s something anyone with a moderate knowledge of English can improve.
Anyway I don’t expect Linux share to raise ten points with just better package descriptions. If you need more info about a software you can just search it in Google.
About RPM’s provides, can you say me a single package that misses a needed “provides”?
Ok, I tend to get hung up on technicalities. When you have a package management system that provides the facilities for relaying good information to end users such as:
package name xyz
package version 123.456.0
package author somedeveloper
short description = a simple group of useful utilities
full description = a simple group of useful utilities
Files: … big list of files
Requires: list of other packages which in turn may require other requirements
Provides: empty block
… and is under utilized we all loose.
Yes I can google the package and piece together the information which should have been in the RPM in the first place. And more often than not can google what I want to achieve in terms of a specific program to fill the bill and find a DEB or xyz.tar.gz long before I finally find some reference to an RPM that also provides what I need.
People are lazy in nature. This is evident everywhere we look. RPM maintainers can’t be bothered with filling in the fields of the RPM spec, Programmers can’t be bothered writing white papers or otherwise putting descriptions in their code, New comers to Linux don’t go into detailed searching, and then come here and elude at a problem without providing the details about the system and steps taken so help can be given.
Will better package information raise Linux 10 points … who knows. Will it help resolve “RPM -HELL” quite likely. M$ created the model with “dll -HELL” where a disconnected community of developers create works that may collide with M$ dll’s. Here we have a connected community yet we are starting to quickly move down the same path as Linux and it’s contributed packages strive to mimic M$.
As @oldcpu noted, We are a support forum here not a developer or packager forum or iirc channel. So all we can do here is banter around concepts in order to find the light bulb that magically resolves an issue.
Of course when I am wrestling with dependencies I hit them all the time, and when I go looking for some of my past discoveries I draw a blank! :shame:
I vaguely remember doing a search for a KDE app that I know was in the KDE repositories of openSUSE and came up with “nothing provides …”. Google - ing “bad RPM provides” turned up a reason why the RPM system can’t be properly queried. In brief it states that packages that during install generate symbolic links to packages are not included in searches. Thusly, xterm which is part of the x11R6 will always come back “nothing provides” because an unaltered copy of the RPM spec does not mention xterm in it’s provides tag and the files section just contains the symbolic link x11->x11R6.
Agreed: Windows has as many hurdles
Agreed: Every OS has a learning curve that at times may be steep
Agreed: Most people are familiar with Windows and have friends who also are familiar with Windows
OnTheFence: I recently, came across a local waitress who has never used a computer before and came into a Linux-Ubuntu Laptop by inheritance and loved it until 1) she tried to install an app for school ‘openoffice’ and couldn’t figure out why it kept stopping part way through with an error and 2) she saw my openSUSE Laptop. Wanting to keep her Ubuntu, she bought a Laptop (pre-installed with Windows) and got openSUSE DVD from me to make it dual boot just in case school will force her into windows. As she said, “I can use Windows but it’s so restricted”
As a part time packager, most of my rpm’s are built with
Autoreqprov on as per the OBS build logs which request using it,
there are exceptions eg lang files.
If you use zypper rather than rpm to install, it will automagically
pull in any dependencies [zypper in <some_rpm>]. Else just create a
local repository as a plain rpm directory and add as a repository. If
you dump the downloaded rpm’s there and then either use YaST or zypper
it should pull everything in.