[ale] just installed LibreOffice in Linux, should have been easier

[Ron Frazier]

Hi Don,

Nothing said here is meant to be offensive or antagonistic in any way, 
but it may be controversial.  We all have our opinions.  See below.

On 03/15/2011 05:50 PM, Don Lachlan wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:54 AM, Ron Frazier
> <atllinuxenthinfo at c3energy.com>  wrote:
>    
>

<snip>
>> If I
>> count each OS as a separate machine (even though some have multiple OS's
>> on the same hardware), I have to do this conversion on 3 Linux machines
>> and 5 Windows machines.  So, you can see how that original procedure I
>> found put me off substantially.
>>      
> You later responded to someone else:
>
>    
>> I was praising the fact that I got LibreOffice up and running on Windows
>> a heck of a lot faster and easier than I did in Linux by following the
>> most obvious method of installation.
>>      
> It wasn't "the most obvious" - it was the most obvious to *you* based
> on *your* prior experience. You Did It Wrong. You made a mistake.
> That's understandable, because it was the obvious/right decision based
> on your experience, but I think you're still stuck believing that
> GNU/Linux should operate according to your expectations, based upon
> your prior experience with other systems.
>
>    
a) I first tried the Linux way.  I looked for LibreOffice in the Ubuntu 
software center and in Synaptic.  No luck.
b) I'd never heard of a PPA in my life, so I didn't try that.
c) Then, I tried another Linux way, I followed the instructions on the 
LibreOffice.org website.  That certainly seems pretty obvious, certainly 
not way out in left field.
d) Then, only after I'd posted it on this board, did I find out about a 
better way, and I'll have to admit, that way wasn't too hard, if I had 
only known about it.  At that point, I found out about the possible 
negatives of my installation, so I went back and undid it and redid it 
the better way.
e) How much more forgiving and persistent does a newby Linux user have 
to be to get an app working?  I think I went way out of my way to do 
things the Linux way.
f) At no time did I try to do this the Windows way, except when I wan 
doing it on Windows.
g) If the Linux community is going to convert existing computer users 
over, for all intents and purposes, they will come from Windows or Mac.  
Statistically speaking, 12 users will come from Windows for every 1 
which comes from Mac.  It may be worse than that, since Mac users tend 
to be very devoted to the platform.  I think it's entirely appropriate 
to do a few things like Windows does, if necessary, so those users don't 
have to learn all new ways of doing things.
h) At the very least, in the case under discussion, there should be a 
link to the PPA resource and procedure from the LibreOffice.org download 
page.

> It doesn't and it shouldn't. GNU/Linux has its own way of doing things
> (based on a lot of old school UNIX conventions) and Ubuntu has its own
> way beyond that - and GNOME has its own way beyond that. But it will
> not be like Windows.
>
> Some of your criticisms are very valid, but some are not.
>
>    
>>> Yes, I can come up with solutions which meet your requirements;
>>> however, it's impractical when you're accommodating dozens of
>>> distributions, architectures, versions, etc. for THOUSANDS of software
>>> projects.
>>>        
>> I understand what you're saying.  I'm a geek, so I can edit config files
>> and go through elaborate procedures when necessary, if I have a motive
>> to.  I've been around the block for 27 years or so with Windows.
>> Believe me, especially pre year 2000, configuring software and
>> installing it or uninstalling it could be a real bear.  There is a whole
>> sub industry of "installers" for Windows.  However, modern applications
>> installations, for the most part, are double click it, answer some
>> prompts, done, it works, use it. That's what Linux developers are
>> competing with if they want mind share of average users who are not
>>      
> You are factually wrong. Modern application installations on *Windows*
> are mostly double-click but on MacOSX (and previous) it's
> drag-and-drop and on GNU/Linux it's select-and-install from a GUI like
> Synaptic or "install packagename" from a CLI. In fact, I think some
> GNU/Linux distributions or desktops allow you to double-click a
> package and it will run the package manager.
>
> And that's just desktop operating systems. The iP([ao]d|hone) and
> other mobile platforms use an "app store", while some allow you to
> install from web pages.
>
> Those are ALL modern application installations. Please, stop assuming
> the Windows way is a) Right and b) Universal.
>
>    

Actually, the way I phrased my statement about application installs is 
exactly accurate, and exactly true.  The context of the discussion was 
Desktop applications.  Non desktop applications and mobile applications 
were never under discussion.  My statement was:

However, modern applications installations, for the most part, are 
double click it, ...

I used the phrase, for the most part.  Statistically, 87% of those apps 
are going to be Windows that that certainly qualifies as for the most part.

The "rightest" way is the one that allows the user to do what he's 
trying to do with minimal fuss.  I cannot speak to the Mac method of 
installing things.  I can definitively say, from my recent experience of 
installing LibreOffice on both Windows and Linux, that the Windows 
installation was much easier, and went much smoother, than even the easy 
Linux way.  And, it was infinitely easier than the harder Linux way 
recommended on the LibreOffice website.

I never said the Windows way was universal.  What I said, in essence, 
was that it is pervasive, which it absolutely true.

>> ultra geeks.  I'm sure many would say the diversity of Linux is the
>> beauty of Linux, but as you pointed out, it also comes with a price.  If
>> I were to develop for Mac, I have maybe 2 major versions to worry about
>> - 9 and 10.  If Windows, maybe 3 - 5 versions.  For Linux, dozens or
>> hundreds.  So, I can see how that would be a problem.  If I were a
>> developer, I think I would focus on the top 5 or so, as I mentioned.  If
>> each project could make their applications installers click and go, but
>> compatible with the distro package manager, then that would really help
>> average users get things going the way they want.
>>      
> You are not speaking from knowledge or experience, you are
> hypothesizing and conflating two separate issues: making it simpler
> for users to install software and making it simpler for developers to
> create a package.
>
> Installing software is usually pretty easy; your experience w/
> LibreOffice was harder than it needed to be because you were working
> under false assumptions. Additionally, you're still pretty new to
> Linux but you're trying to live a bit more "on the edge" of software,
> so it makes sense that you ran into a problem that most users would
> not. But generally, installing software in Linux is incredibly easy.
>
> OTOH, building (and then maintaining) packages is a fair amount of
> work and can be very difficult for someone who doesn't know the
> platform they're building for - RPM is very different from dpkg, and
> even building a RPM for both CentOS and OpenSuSE will require
> significant work for each platform.
>
> Currently, a developer writes their application, probably distribute
> binaries for their choice distros, and leaves source code for anybody
> that wants to build it for other systems. Then, after it gets a user
> base, people ask their distribution to begin carrying it and someone
> steps up to say, "Hey, I'll build foo for our distro!"
>
> Each distribution is different. Each application is different.
> Sometimes an app gets packaged up quickly, sometimes it takes years.
> Sometimes the developer does the packaging, but usually not.
>
> Your model would shift a significant amount of work onto developers
> when the current system works pretty well and gives our users far more
> software than Microsoft or Apple do.
>
> My point is, I've written software and packages for GNU/Linux - for a
> living -  and you haven't, please stop telling me how easy it would be
> to change.
>
>    

I don't believe I ever said it would be easy for the developer.  I 
believe you when you say it's complicated and hard.  I believe I said 
that the methodologies I mentioned, ie point and click installers for 
the top 5 distros, aren't too  much to expect based on the expectations 
of the user, their prior experience, and the competition in the market.  
I understand, that from your point of view, you may disagree with that 
statement.

>> all.  If they need to install something, it needs to be very obvious and
>> simple, or something I can talk them through on the phone, or I end up
>>      
> This comes back to what's "obvious". Apple makes some of the most
> intuitive applications yet they are nothing like what you're claiming
> is "obvious".
>
>    

Refer back to what I said about 12 users converting from Windows for 
every 1 converting from Mac.  Whatever they're used to and expect, by 
definition, is what is the most obvious to the most people.  None of the 
available solutions that exist might be obvious to most people if none 
of them had ever seen a computer, but that's not the reality we're 
dealing with.

>> By making Linux easier to use, and more accessible to average people, it
>> will gain mind share and new users faster than ever.  That way, people
>> will see that they probably don't have to use expensive proprietary
>> solutions.
>>      
> GNU/Linux is much easier than you seem to think it is. It's not as
> easy as OSX, but it's also not a restrictive sandbox.
>
> GNU/Linux _seems_ harder than it is because it works differently than
> what most people expect, either based on experience with Windows or
> OSX. To fix that, I think we need to focus on teaching users the UNIX
> way (and Ubuntu way (and GNOME way)). Yeah, we should improve some OS
> level issues, but the impression "Linux is hard!" is about
> expectations versus reality - if people expect GNU/Linux to act like
> MS Windows, it will always fail. If they expect it to behave like
> GNU/Linux, it wins.
>
> -Don
>
>    

You're acting like the psychology people feel based on their experience 
and expectations is not real.  If the NEW thing, is substantially 
different from the OLD thing, then it IS harder.  It cannot be 
otherwise, until they retrain themselves.  Let's say I start Ron's car 
company.  Let's say I want to market the Ron's Ultimate Car model in the 
US, and that I reverse the order of all the foot pedals, put the gear 
shift on the steering column, the turn signal on the floor, and the 
steering wheel on the right.  This is a perfectly functional design.  
The locations of those controls are arbitrary, and they could work 
equally well in the new locations.  The car is not intrinsically any 
harder to use than the one in your driveway.  HOWEVER, I guarantee you 
that it would be a tremendous FLOP.  Those few people who purchase one 
would probably wreck it.  If I want to sell the car, I MUST accommodate 
the EXPERIENCE and EXPECTATIONS of the existing user base.  Computers 
are no different.  If you want existing users to convert to Linux, it 
needs to be easy.  To be easy, it needs to be intuitive and familiar 
ENOUGH to match with THEIR prior experience and expectations.  Make it 
easy, intuitive, familiar, functional, reliable, and yes sometimes 
pretty; and remove some of the disadvantages of the competition, and 
you'll win mind share and market share.

Ron


-- 

(PS - If you email me and don't get a quick response, you might want to
call on the phone.  I get about 300 emails per day from alternate energy
mailing lists and such.  I don't always see new messages very quickly.)

Ron Frazier

770-205-9422 (O)   Leave a message.
linuxdude AT c3energy.com