10mo ago

That's LTT in the bottom

You're viewing a single thread.

486 comments

You can do all that without ever opening a single commandline.
You can't even do that to install software on the majority of Linux.
- Majority by number of distros, or only including desktop Linux distros? Because yeah, if you're including server distros, that's true, and if you count it by the number of distros, that's true, but most people use one of a handful of distros on their desktop. Both gnome and KDE have software centers which you can use to install stuff without the command line.
- Yeah! Just use a browser. Make sure to click the right download button (not the 50 ads disguised as download buttons) to download an executable (just the installer). Then, run the installer and click "next" a bunch of times. Why would anyone want anything different?
  
  And then, experience the joy of that program spreading its files to 6 different directories, all at different levels of your drive. Who cares about having a sensical file system that clearly separates system from user?
  
  I’d still prefer it to the terminal. I get to choose installation locations and it’s easier to configure.
  
  Choosing an install location is totally a Windows only thing. Every other OS has a notion of where binaries and libraries of applications are supposed to reside, except for Windows. This is why you can't invoke anything manually installed from cmd just by typing the name of the application and hitting tab for filename completion. You HAVE TO cd to where the file physically resides, THEN type the name of the binary. Couldn't be stupider if you ask me.
  
  That works for single drive systems or 2 drive systems, but starts to become a problem when you have 5+ drives with no raid, so important applications can be installed to the faster, higher priority drive, while less critical ones can be installed to a slower one.
  It’s one of those big things that is hard to adjust to coming from Windows.
  Windows just doesn’t use the terminal and would rather you launch it from the start menu.
  
  What? People still do that 🤨? I mean... we used to do it when disk space was expensive, but come on, I live in a 3rd world country (not exactly, but it might as well be true) and even I can say that disk space nowadays is dirt cheap. I mean $25 for a 256GB (250, 240, whatever) SSD? That is dirt cheap.
  And you can also do it in Linux, but you'll have to do it manually by symlinking, since the package manager won't allow you to install in other locations.
  You can also use separate drives for home and the main install. You can define that in fstab by mounting the separate drive in /home which also kinda solves the problem with disk space, I guess. It's also a nice feature when you have to reinstall or try another distro, since all of your settings are already there, you just install everything you might need from the repo and that's it.
  Almost every app that has a GUI makes a desktop entry in the applications menu. There are exceptions, but this is just bad packaging, and it's very rare to be honest. Besides, in those few cases you can make your own "shrotcut" (.desktop file) and place it in /usr/share/applications and it will show up in the applications menu.
  It's just a getting used to thing. I know, because I have jumped ship. It's more or less the same thing, except you use the terminal more (cmd or PS in Windows), but some things are just easier done in the terminal then a GUI. Let's take the above example. You have an app that doesn't have an installer or the installer doesn't make Start menu entries. You'd have to make a shortcut and copy that shortcut to C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\StartMenu\Programs in order for it to show up in the start menu. It's more or less the same if you ask me 🤷.

486 comments