$ apt-cache search personality
honeyd - Small daemon that creates virtual hosts simulating their services and behaviour
honeyd-common - Honeyd's honeypot documentation and scripts
libnet-ftpserver-perl - A secure, extensible and configurable Perl FTP server
linux32 - Wrapper to set the execution domain


Ok, that's just weird.

Quote: Original post by Bregma
Funny, I use Linux every day. I work as a developer for a major Linux distro. The only time I ever have to configure/make/make install is when I'm working on code I'm writing. And I use a lot of software.

I come from decades of Unix development where configure/make/make install and hand-editing config files was the norm (as it was in Windows up to Win95). It is no longer the case. Any worthy distro, and most of them are, are in fact easier to install, configure, and use than is Windows.

The only excuse people have these days for installing from code on Linux is you're trying to impress chicks. Trust me, it doesn't work. Try apt-get install personality instead.

Which specific distros are you talking about? In XP if I want to install a program I just download the installer and double-click, if I can do that in Linux that would be wonderful.

Original post by Horatius83

Quote: Original post by Bregma
Which specific distros are you talking about? In XP if I want to install a program I just download the installer and double-click, if I can do that in Linux that would be wonderful.

With the Xandros distribution, for example, I can just download the package and double-click. I can also use a the included package manager to grab the package from wherever and install it without having to find and download anything. That only works with Microsoft packages on Windows. I couldn't, for example, grab and install the latest updated driver for my PCCard reader using Microsoft Update. I can with Xandros Networks.

On the other hand, I'm a command-line kinda guy (a picture is worth a thousand words. The command line is worth as many or as few words as I want). I usually install from the command line, simply using the package name. I am not familiar with anything in Windows that gives me that power and flexibility.

I believe similar facilities are available using Ubuntu, Novell/SuSE, Fedora, Mandriva, and others.

Quote: Original post by Bregma
With the Xandros distribution, for example, I can just download the package and double-click. I can also use a the included package manager to grab the package from wherever and install it without having to find and download anything. That only works with Microsoft packages on Windows. I couldn't, for example, grab and install the latest updated driver for my PCCard reader using Microsoft Update. I can with Xandros Networks.

Well, I use ubuntu, and it's every now and then that I'm looking for a specific application that's not so common, and I can't find it with apt. Or I find it, but it references a package that doesn't exist (happens sometimes). Then I have to go wandering for it, only to find a Fedora rpm. The rpm depends on a bazillion other rpms, and so I keep hunting for a good while...

The system's good when it works, but it doesn't always do. I prefer Windows' consistency: It's always a single method. That makes it much easier for the developers and the users alike.

If both methods would be combined, that'd be a dream come true. On Windows, InstallShield are kinda trying this with their Updater, but it won't work the way they're heading currently, IMO. On linux, I don't see binary compatibility and a unified package distribution method happening either, unfortunately.

Quote: On the other hand, I'm a command-line kinda guy (a picture is worth a thousand words. The command line is worth as many or as few words as I want). I usually install from the command line, simply using the package name. I am not familiar with anything in Windows that gives me that power and flexibility.

Microsoft Shell (MSH) for you. Scripting on steroids, with full .NET CLR access.

Have you tried to actually use MSH? I'm not impressed yet. It's a very steep learning curve (from where I sit at least), and it seems to me like they're reinventing a lot of functionality that's already been done.

On Windows, I like the XP and 2000 command line or WSH. CMD has been greatly enhanced compared to earlier versions. Most of the new functionality immitates (or improves on) comparable stuff in bash or other unix shells. WSH, on the other hand, lets you write jscript, vbs or &#106avascript to access a lot of Windows functionality or ActiveX/OLE/COM stuff. <br><br>MSH will replace it I guess, but I don't see it as a great tool yet.

Quote: Original post by Metaphorically
On Windows, I like the XP and 2000 command line or WSH. CMD has been greatly enhanced compared to earlier versions. Most of the new functionality immitates (or improves on) comparable stuff in bash or other unix shells.

Well, improving on comparable things in other shells is a good thing, isn't it? I've always used cygwin's bash for my scripting needs - CMD never cut it.

Quote: WSH, on the other hand, lets you write jscript, vbs or &#106avascript to access a lot of Windows functionality or ActiveX/OLE/COM stuff.<!--QUOTE--></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE><!--/QUOTE--><!--ENDQUOTE--><br>Unfortunately, I dislike jscript, vbscript and &#106avascript, so I've never been a big fan (though I do use it when I have to).

Quote: Original post by Horatius83In XP if I want to install a program I just download the installer and double-click, if I can do that in Linux that would be wonderful.

Why would you want to do that? One thing Linux newcomers need to get used to is the centralized package management. But, in my opinion, this is much safer than actually downloading any software from anywhere on the web and just installing it, not knowing what it actually does. In most cases, I agree, it's not a problem. But in some cases, it is (spyware, virus, you name it).

Now, when you look for a specific package that can't be found in the distribution's package tree, you're very likely to find it somewhere else. For Ubuntu specifically, there are lots and lots of repositories with unofficial/non-free/unsupported software.

And if you still can't find the package pre-compiled, you can of course download the source and install it manually. And that most software is only available for Windows is certainly not Linux' fault. A good example for a binary installation is Quake III IMHO, so they do exist.

I certainly agree with you that one has to get used to this way of package management. But once I got the idea, I got completely hooked and find it much more consistent than software management in Windows. For four years now I've been using Linux (virtually) exclusively, and I don't regret it.

Cheers,
Drag0n

Quote: Original post by Drag0n

Quote: Original post by Horatius83In XP if I want to install a program I just download the installer and double-click, if I can do that in Linux that would be wonderful.

Why would you want to do that? One thing Linux newcomers need to get used to is the centralized package management. But, in my opinion, this is much safer than actually downloading any software from anywhere on the web and just installing it, not knowing what it actually does. In most cases, I agree, it's not a problem. But in some cases, it is (spyware, virus, you name it).

What about distribution rights? If I make a closed source application that I want to run on linux, and want to distribute it myself, I have to setup a package repository myself for every major package management system (AFAIK, correct me if I'm wrong). I don't like this from both the user and developer perspectives:
- The user has to add the repository of each vendor they use software from. On Windows, I have software from a *lot* of different vendors, and it certainly wouldn't be fun to hunt for their repositories when all I need from them is a single program. This is actually more work than with the unified-installer model because here I had to:
1) Go to their website
2) Add their repository
3) Install the software from the package manager

With a unified installer I just do #1, download the installer and that's it.

- The developer has to support a variety of package management systems, on top of the support for the various linux distributions. When you go to Opera software to download their browser, you're given the choice of a large number of distributions to choose from so that you'd get the package suited to yours. That's inefficient, IMO. It's basically like you're supporting different OSes with different releases even though they use the same kernel. Why not unify things a little more?

Quote: Now, when you look for a specific package that can't be found in the distribution's package tree, you're very likely to find it somewhere else. For Ubuntu specifically, there are lots and lots of repositories with unofficial/non-free/unsupported software.

The non-free/unsupported repositories are rarely up-to-date, in my experience. Which makes sense, because they're not managed by the original vendor. Which means I still have to bypass the package system and go to the vendor's website to get the latest.

Quote: And if you still can't find the package pre-compiled, you can of course download the source and install it manually. And that most software is only available for Windows is certainly not Linux' fault.

I disagree with this. On Windows, it is much easier to develop and deploy an end-user application that'd magically work across almost all Windows versions - a lot of stuff goes into this, from the availability of powerful tools (VS, for example) to binary compatibilty across Windows versions, to a unified deployment model.

Quote: Original post by Muhammad Haggag
What about distribution rights? If I make a closed source application that I want to run on linux, and want to distribute it myself, I have to setup a package repository myself for every major package management system (AFAIK, correct me if I'm wrong).

No. Just provide a package on your site. Most repository managers have a way to install separate packages as well. A tar.gz, rpm and deb package should give you plenty of coverage across the various linux systems (about all distro's minus Gentoo and deratives -- and I think even Gentoo can handle rpm's and tar.gz's)

If you don't care about the distribution rights, but just the closedness of the source (e.g. a closed source freeware program) you could still try to get your package added to the repositories of the major distributions (the non-free one's for example).

I think that for developers, the difference between the windows EXE/installer way and the Linux package way isn't that big (unless you also open the source in which case you'll deal with upstream contributers). For end users, installing a program from a non-trusted third party is slightly more difficult than doing the same in Windows (a good thing IMHO) while installing applications from a trusted and known source is much easier than on windows.