Yes, it's right example. Your getting into methods way above those of the average PC user, if you have the knowledge to go through building from source you also have the knowledge to script what you had to do and submit it to a repository. After that anyone can use the package manager to install it.
It was a (sorry) bad example to counter a bad argument. If you install stuff outside the package management, you have to be aware of the consequences, but it doesn't defy the point that Windows doesn't have an actual package management.
Do you need anything better? slackpkg has only officially supported packages, sbopkg, which is only a frontend for easier package management of slackbuilds, holds almost everything else.
I've upgraded the whole OS with slackpkg alone and it's not even that hard, considering you know how to read and follow a few lines.
Well, user friendliness. To me this means that it's simple and easy to use.
Okay, some dirstros aren't exactly user friendly designed, like i.e. LFS(Linux From Scratch), Slackware etc.
But then again, you have stupidly easy to use distros, like Ubuntu(which I am no fan of). But smack me if I'm wrong, it doesn't get much easier than one-click installing apps and I don't know what else.
The only thing not "user friendly" about Linux is the lacking support of some hardware, although this has improved much in the past few years. And I think this could also count into user friendliness, because it is not really user friendly that you have to spend several hours hunting and compiling drivers. But then again, if i.e. RedHat(yes, again), would ship their OS pre-installed specific hardware, I am certainly sure that it wouldn't have hardware/driver issues, just like Mac doesn't have hardware/driver issues with their "own" hardware.
It does not. Unless they are "M$ certified drivers" or "M$ signed drivers", forgot how they call them.
And slackbuilds do this too.
sbopkg downloads the sourcecode and the slackbuild script, unpacks the source, compiles the code and installs it as well.
Windows installer doesnt compare to a real package management system like APT or RPM and something like it should have been introduced as soon as the first buggy piece of software was installed on a windows system. Same goes for certified drivers, MS sold a kernel and gui, the part of the system that does the operating had to be written by the parts vendors in the form of drivers. Both of these issues led to the famous BSOD we all know and love. MS was happy to take your money and do nothing about them while they ruled the market, when OSX started to get popular and folks saw the BSOD wasn't an essential part of computing they had to do something to show windows could be stable too.
Messed up OS design if you ask me.
A bad sound driver on a unix or unix based OS only crashes the sound driver/server/whatever.
And M$ did something to prevent BSODs. They're not showing them by default, but just simply reboot the whole system. So then you have to go digging through the logs, or turn on the BSOD thingy, and hope that the error springs up some time soon again.
Of course Windows Installer doesn't compares to APT or RPM - it's superior to both of them.
Also, last time I saw BSOD on Windows 7 was approximately year ago, while last time I saw kernel panic on my netbook was uhm.. week ago? or so.
That works in theory, but doesn't in practice. When I was using Linux on my netbook, I was getting kernel panics thanks to gay realtek wifi driver every now and then.
It's so easy to blame the OS when you're an idiot, isn't it? If you're getting BSOD's on a regular base you're clearly doing something wrong. Yeah sure - switching to a OS like OSX where you can't install any apps, nothing will go wrong.
I dont get BSOD's or crashes of any kind because I use a stable system.
20:28:23 up 59 days, 4:40, 2 users, load average: 0.50, 0.58, 0.62
It's so short because the power was off here for line maintenance a couple of months ago. Maybe if I did a clean windows install, ripped out everything that needs a driver and installed no software I could hope for the same kind of figure but I like using and abusing my PC and I like software raid with volume management so I'll stick with what I have.
I'm guessing that was a poor attempt at sarcasm, kind of hard to tell though as anyone who has a clue what they where talking about knows a kernel update is the only time you need to reboot on linux. Secure AND stable.
It can but some updates need a reboot.
I kind of like 7, its a big step up from XP but you cant install it to software RAID.
I love when people pull facts out of their arses.
Windows Installer is not an actual package manager, it's just a tool which copies files from MSI and executes few installation scripts. Compared to APT, RPM or say pacman it's extremely slow, does not provide any means of verification that the MSI installer is legit, cannot update or download software from centralized secure repositories, does not do any file conflict or dependency checks which forces programmers to bundle everything to with their apps(DLL hell anyone?). It often gets me enrages when I have to explicitly say "you have to install MSVS 20xx redists to run my app", one would expect Windows to figure it out on its own.
I have exactly the opposite experience with W7 which BSOD'ed multiple times a day until the uberklug uncancellable autorepair feature (Which always reported that there was nothing wrong with the system) killed the system altogether.
Use proper hardware as about 90 % of kernel crashes are caused by thatm the rest is down to drivers' developers.
Hey there, on Windows, updates that don't touch Windows core don't need restart either.
Why would you ever want to install system onto software RAID? RAID array degrades = yay, gotta find liveCD.. awesome scenario right.
Funny you mentioned pacman, cause I don't remember it having digital signature verification.. While Windows Installer supports it just fine.
Neither can RPM.
It has support for doing that (heard of WinSxS for example? Under Windows, you can have multiple versions of some library on which software depends, uder Linux.. plausibly), but not all packagers use that support. It's not fault of Windows Installer itself.
See, Windows is trying to be as less intrusive as possible. While on debian you can't install package "php5" without having to install package "libapache2-mod-php5" which in turn means you have to install "apache2.2-common", "apache2-mpm-prework" (although those 2 have nothing to do with PHP), on Windows you're NOT forced to do something even if you don't want it.
Use proper hardware as about 90 % of BSODs are caused by that, the rest is down to drivers' developers.
It's funny how MS addressed the problem by adding more complexity to it, only to drop it with MSVS 2010 and move to a system that has been used by UNIX OSes for years.
And how is that better? When I install a piece of software, I want it to work right away and if php5 in Debian depends on these packages, it's only logical to install them along with it. You can always ignore dependencies if you know what you're doing.
RAID degraded = borked drive, without RAID you would be looking for the liveCD, then trying to remember all the tweaks you had made to the system, then months of 'damn, its not installed' for all those rarely needed but essential apps etc.
With RAID there is a bit of slowdown as everything is rebuilt on the backup drive, noticeable but wont stop you doing laps. Then pull out the dead drive and put in a fresh backup drive, no need to reboot. Performance is good (cant compare to SSD's though) and data loss is a thing of the past (still need backups to be sure of that though, which reminds me....)
Ok, so a user selects wireshark, clicks install and..... some mystic voodoo happens, harmonic vibrations with the earths magnetic field cause the 1's and 0's on the hard drive to assemble themselves in the pattern of wireshark and its dependencies... cool, wonder how many dead chickens it can wave simultaneously on a quad core?
Those kind of dependencies can be a pain, their usually easy enough to fix though. You can force installation too, usually thats just a quick way to find out the package manager knows best though and its been a long long time since the package manager was unable to fix the results of my own stupidity.
Most of my dislike of windows comes from the exact opposite of this.
So its worth paying extra for good quality hardware and bullet proof drivers? Isn't that what apple are offering?
Oh wow, not even 10 years passed since Arch's birth and now it has signature checking! That's awesome.
See, php5 itself has nothing to do with Apache. But Debian's retarded maintainers think it is (and build packages for i386, but that's another story).
It's not RPM you're talking about. RPM itself DOESN'T supports repositories and stuff.
yum / yast others do, but RPM does not.
Vanilla kernel doesn't hold the ralink chip driver.
And I've installed like a zillion of rt* drivers as modules, some crashed, never received a kernel panic. Like I said, only received a kernel panic when recompiling the kernel, which is way out of normal usage specs.
How hard was that?
(BTW most Windows executables are compiled with i386 instruction set too, so I don't get what are you complaining about, it's not like you can't rebuild the packages yourself with -march=native if you want it so badly)
I said realtek, not ralink. modprobe rtl8187se.
That wasn't hard.. but it's not intuitive. Intuitively, one should just apt-get install php5 to get php5, and he shouldn't get a freaking webserver (and a crappy one, at that) bundled with it.