Actually depending on the linux your using is can almost as easy as download, click and install for just about everything that any sane person may wish to install and in many cases finding the software you want to install is a 1 click away. One only needs to look at the bloatware that is YAST in SUSE, point it at a suppository search and click install. Or in the now many Gentoo bases using emerge, 1 click to download, compile and install.

There will be exeptions to the rules of course, but for the most part linux is just as grown up as Xp in that regard.

Actually, research scientists are more likely to be able to find the software they're interested in within the repositories, he mentioned doctors and engineers to demonstrate the point that the "average user" may not be the idiot Joe Public figure that you may be thinking it is, just that the average user is not someone who's as likely to fall into Linux nearly as easily as the members of a group of programmers.

I know that, a few years back (before she passed away), I routinely tried to comply with my Mother's wishes by helping to "teach her about computers" so she could try to deal with the modern technology that her competitors used. She was a brilliant and very successful stockbroker who had entered that field after she left the education field where, in her time, she'd made significant teaching standard breakthroughs that are still in use throughout this country and she had earned her Master's degree by actual college attendance. But by the time computers began to enter her personal world, she was in her 50s and fast approaching retirement age. While she did want to learn about them, they were a complete mystery to her and the computer industry was not doing much to help demystify them for her. She's the sort of person I think of as the Average User most of the time: smart enough to be able to understand computers as easily as any of us, but completely unfamiliar with even the basic concepts that we take for granted. Frankly, even Windows has made leaps and bounds worth of improvements over the last decade to help bridge that gap, but Linux has a scary reputation (to those who are already scared of their new computer to begin with) and Windows is the one that comes pre-installed.

Even Fedora has the option for that using Synaptec as a front end for apt or using yum, but in Fedora you have to install Synaptec first. *shrug*
Ubuntu and Debian come with Synaptec installed by default, but those very repositories were what we'd been discussing. I think Samson's point is that in Windows newbie users are given IE and advertisements all over all their "favorite" new sites tell them about new stuff they can download everyday. Most flavors of Linux seem to also come with a browser capable of all that IE is, and the ones that include a package manager like Synaptec seem to have no trouble installing the appropriate links between that browser and that package manager as well. I certainly know that in Ubuntu if I download a file with the deb extension or the rpm extension, it asks if I want to save it to disk or open it in Synaptec every time.

Hey, that's funny, I still thought we were talking about average users. Do you think that medical applications and scientific applications that doctors and engineers need are average use cases? I should think not.

I disagree with your assessment that he was talking about the intelligence of the user because he was talking about what makes a given application obscure. I cite:

In other words, he is saying that I might find something obscure, but a doctor wouldn't. He was responding to the statement I made about obscure programs not being in repositories by giving the example of doctors or engineers. I maintain that the medical/scientific that programs doctors and engineers want are hardly average cases…

They are not average, to you. Are you saying that because you do not use them to someone in that field they are not average, or common tools?

That is exactly, entirely, the point. Linux isnt a mystery to you, or me, or others. We deal with computers and technology and bits and all of it. Others deal in entirely different things and to one group obscure may become normal and normal obscure.

-Syn

-edit, conner also got my larger meaning exactly.

I think you are misunderstanding the use of the term "average". The term "average user" has nothing to do with one given field. Take the set of all users. It is obvious that doctors, engineers etc. are not the average case in that set of all users.

If you are aiming to criticize the statement that the average user will find their programs in the repository, then it makes little sense to bring up such special use cases. This has nothing to do with intelligence of anybody: it has to do with what the average case is…

Then the intelligence of the average user has just dropped substantially. Most people pick their laptop because of the cool color it is, or the shiny back ground. A repository most likely wouldnt even make sense to an average user. Do you ever watch the TV shows where people go around and ask 'normal people' questions about the country they live in or just normal things? Its pretty scary.

Though again, you are trying to force the 'average' average of… what? Everyone? Is everyone going to use everything? No, you target what you want your 'average' user to be and market, or include items for them.

Second I wasnt making an alliteration that there was any lack of programs in the repository itself, simply that other people have no iota of an idea what a repository is, let alone want to venture into Linux land, the fabled world of the shaggy haired computer wizard. I was somewhat pouncing on the throwing around of the term 'average user' when really that is completely subjective and entirely has to do with the 'average user' for 'target group/demographic/knowledge level'.

I understand quite well how you use average, I do not think it is appropriate however, it is much to one sided, and has not been explicitly defined. Average for people who are fairly competent and knowledge enough with computers to investigate a repository? Sure, Average for my mother/father/aunt/friends who do not use a computer except for itunes? No, not really.

-Syn

I don't understand where this point got lost. So let me back up a bit and try again.

It was said that on Linux, you can't find what you want in the repositories and have to keep dropping to command-line to compile and run programs. It was said that on Windows, this is not a problem because program installers are downloaded and double-clicked, end of story.

It was replied that for the average computer user, most programs they use (email, web browsing, music, video viewing, instant messaging, …) are in fact in the repositories that can be accessed with a very simple "What do you want to install?" interface. You do not even need to know what a repository is: all you need to know about is the (pretty obvious) entry in the menu that says "Add/Remove programs".

Then, the question was raised as to which programs the average computer user would desire to use that are not found in the repositories.

The "average user" is not a subjective concept nor is it vaguely defined. By definition, the average user is determined by examining the set of all users and … averaging over that set. Average program use is determined by looking at what programs everybody uses and determining which ones appear the most frequently. If you can't look at all possible users (which indeed you cannot because there are too many) you take random samplings; this gives satisfactory results, assuming of course that your sample size is indeed sufficiently large and randomized.

Of course, you have different average users if you start talking about subsets of the set of all users. But that isn't what we were talking about.


In light of the above, I don't think you and I are talking about the same thing… I was following the chain of statements I described, and I feel that you replied to something entirely different.

For example, if you were not meaning to imply that there is a lack of programs in the repository, then your comment is non sequitur, because we were talking about the availability of programs to the end user without having to use the command line.

No, obscure as in "where the hell did you find THAT?". Trust me when I tell you, the sales force at the company I work (worked?) for was very skilled at finding all sorts of strange things, from screensaver packs to games to IM and browser plugins. Most of it also came laden with spyware infections, but that's beside the point.

They may well be able to find that stuff in the repositories, but since Windows hasn't got an equivalent of those they're not going to be in the habit of using one. So they'll troll the net looking for the usual shitware they're so good at finding and likely get frustrated when it won't install.

Well, that's probably the best argument so far: if somebody is transitioning from Windows to Linux, and don't know anything about what a .exe is, they will be unpleasantly surprised to see that all that stuff (.exe files) doesn't work anymore.

There's a culture difference here: Linux people don't typically provide the kind of stuff you're talking about (all that random crap that seems to exist for Windows). So it's not just that it's hard to install; it's that it's very hard to find in the first place, if it exists at all on the same level as the Windows stuff.

So this is more likely to be an availability problem in the first place, really, not a repository problem. Even if you were completely happy with CLI, you're just less likely to find all that random stuff on Linux in the first place. And chances are (usually) that if it's big enough to be released somewhere, it probably has a package somewhere in the repository.

Well, I'll take that as a bonus for Linux, as in it won't let you install the "shitware" for Windows. It becomes an even bigger bonus if the "shitware" contained spyware, viruses and/or trojans.

If these are the obscure programs you're talking about, then I don't really see a valid point against Linux in this case.

So you say.

Why did you quote the entire post just to add a non-informative one-liner? Could you be more specific? Do you disagree with my summary of the points? Do you disagree with something else? If you don't care, it would be easier to just say so…

So an average windows user would be dismayed, and not have access to what, for them, is normal… right? Because everyone is average, and understands that exe's dont work everywhere. Tell that to people who can barely right click.

If you see this as switching tact, good luck, conner already completely understood my angle, and this is a large part of it. You classify average as people who share basic knowledge that not every computer does, even remotely. I wasnt specifically talking about the repository, except that they would have no idea what it really was, or how it actually worked. Can people screw up a simple click install? Sure. At least if they are even remotely familiar with windows they know what to do, or can call up microsoft and find out how they screwed up their computer. Does ubuntu come with tech support? :thinking:

-Syn

It was as useful as I thought your reply was, isnt it obvious?

I'm not sure what point you think you are making. We were talking about access to programs that average users would need via easy installation, not running random executables off the net. It was said that package managers with GUI interfaces are easy methods to install software. Do you disagree with that statement?


Switching tack? No, I'm not switching tacks at all. It was a separate issue.


I'm not sure why knowledge of how repositories work is relevant. All you have to know about is how to open up Add/Remove, click on the program you want, and click "install".


No, it is not obvious at all, unless your goal is to insult me (you've done a good job so far). I'm trying to keep this productive. Please explain how my post was useless… perhaps you could start by answering my questions. What did you disagree with?

Package managers are awesome cause its easy to find/install what you're looking for, however if its not in the list then windows generally makes it easier to install.

Yes, I fully agree with that. Fortunately, though, the repositories are big enough that the average user is very, very likely to find whatever they need. They're not perfect yet, but they're really not that far off…

You are pretty good at it yourself. You just think its being clever. I did answer your questions, you glazed over the ones I provided. Those are what I gave, if you do not understand them, that sucks. It is plain English. You obviously entirely missed my point, tried to drag on some moronic tangent, and nail me to a cross for which I wasnt even speaking. Kudos, good luck with the head to wall movement from here, I said what I wanted.

-Syn

So now the defintion of "average user" is reduced to a subset that includes only "average windows user"?
What about the average OS X user? The average Linux user? The average Unix user?

I thought the discussion was about a generalized computer user, not specific to any OS.

As for finding applications to install, I have found that this is much easier to do in Linux than Windows due to the fact that (at least in Ubunto) there is in the main menu a section labled "Applications" with a suboption labled "Add/Remove…" which gives a hover-over hint of "Install and remove applications." Whereas in Windows, this "Add/Remove" option is hidden in the control panel and can only install things that can be provided by Microsoft. In Ubuntu, the option exists to install applications that are provided by other sources other than the Ubuntu distributor, and this option is very easy to find and change.

I haven't had any experience with this on a Mac(OS X), so I can't say with any certainty if the situation would be closer to Windows or Linux, or completely different all together.