Re: Finding installed package files
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_no_spam_here_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 04/08/05
- Next message: Edward Diener: "Re: Finding installed package files"
- Previous message: Benjamin Johnston: "Re: Router stops routing after about two hours"
- In reply to: james: "Re: Finding installed package files"
- Next in thread: Tim: "Re: Finding installed package files"
- Reply: Tim: "Re: Finding installed package files"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:11:48 GMT
james wrote:
> Inline:
> "Edward Diener" <eldiener_no_spam_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:b9k5e.2341$sp3.1372@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>> Edward, I think what everyone has been trying to tell you is that
>>> using Linux requires a different mindset.
>>
>> I understand that and I was not trying to change how Linux does
>> things. I was only suggesting a possibly user-chosen addition to how
>> Linux does things.
>>
>>> I have used Linux in various forms over the years and really like
>>> the way some things are done. And I also use Windows. And for
>>> "me", I don't expect Linux to be the same experience as Windows.
>>> Here is a link that is really good at answering questions for new
>>> users of Linux:
>>>
>>> http://www.linuxquestions.org/
>>>
>>> I have found answers to a lot of questions there and also using
>>> Google. There is so much documentation on line for Linux and Linux
>>> apps that a new user should have no problems finding the answers to
>>> their questions. One other thing, nearly every app I have installed
>>> in Fedora Core 3, has a web link to the author's website. There you
>>> can find updates, howto's and all kinds of things.
>>> One thing you mention is packages installing a lot of files and
>>> finding out what those files do or how you use them(I hope I
>>> understand you correctly here.)
>>
>> You have partially misunderstood me. I do not want to know what
>> every file in an installation is about. I do want to know which
>> files in some large installations are the ones I can use to
>> accomplish whatever the package entails. This includes not only the
>> main executables, but perhaps also the documentation, samples, and
>> whatever is instrumental to using the package.
>
>
> Ok, now, I understand what you are getting at.
>
>
>
>>> As a Windows programmer, I can tell
>>> you that Windows apps. install a lot of files too. And there is no
>>> way that you will ever see documentation on how each of those files
>>> are used in your application. It would be impossible to list what
>>> each dll and other needed files are there for.
>>
>> Since you know how Windows does things, then you know that when a
>> product is installed it has the option to create a program group in
>> which each item in that group points to some important file in the
>> installation. Usually having this program group is helpful to the
>> Windows user because the key files of that program group are shown
>> with links to those files. As an example, in Microsoft's own Visual
>> Studio .NET 2003 creates a program group with these items: link to
>> the Visual Studio 2003 IDE, link to the MSDN documentation,
>> subfolder which contains links to common tools which one uses in
>> conjunction with the using the IDE. Now imagine if this was not
>> provided. I would then be searching for the executable and its
>> command line for invoking the IDE, for the executable and its
>> command line for invoking the documentation, and both the names of
>> the supporting tools and their commands, in order to use them. By
>> creating a program group Microsoft is making it easier for me to
>> instantly use those areas of the installation which matter.
>
> I see what you mean here. I too use VS.NET 2003 and what you are
> trying to say
> is you want something like how it (meaning VS.NET) is shown on the
> Start Menu.
> You would like to see the added Tools and Documentation (which in the
> case of
> VS.NET 2003, is on sub-menus of the Main menu) like the C++ Debugger,
> Spy++
> etc. linked to , without having to use a command line to get to the
> extra tools.
> Is that correct?
Yes, that is the general idea. It is not even so much the ease of having a
link to a program, which has some value, as simply knowing what the relevant
programs are, as well as help files and documentation, examples, and
anything else the package would consider central to its operation.
>
>> Now I realize that Linux is different, that it places the files of an
>> installed package in generally regular places, and that I can use
>> the rpm command to find out the names of those files and where they
>> are. For most commands there are 'man' pages to tell me the way to
>> use that command. I do not argue with that. I can also see that for
>> a great number of packages, all one needs to see or know is the name
>> of a single command, and then one just invokes that command and uses
>> the 'man' page to understand how it works. I have no argument with
>> this tried and true method.
>>
>> But there are packages for Linux which, much like the installation
>> of Visual Studio .NET 2003, create a large number of commands,
>> documentation, and whatever else etc. In order to use these packages
>> effectively one has to find out what the important parts of the
>> installation are simply by studying the list of files which the
>> package installs. I do not think this is that easy, but perhaps
>> experienced Linux users know ways in which they instantly understand
>> in such a large scale package what and how to use it. My simple
>> suggestion, however, is that, for such large scale Linux
>> installations, a program group on the desktop, or even some
>> directory beneath the user's home if you will, be optionally
>> creatable which contains links to certain salient files of that
>> installation which make it easier to use the package.
>
> I don't have my Linux setup running at the moment, so I cannot check
> this, but,
> I do believe that some apps do have sub-menus with added tools &
> doc's listed
> from the main menu. It may be possible to reconfigure the Main Menu
> in KDE or
> Gnome to do something like that. I do know that some applications
> that are not
> included in a Distro , that you install from another source (such as
> a website) usually do not add anything to the Main Menu.
> I installed Gambas ( a Basic Programming IDE) and had to first
> compile it and then
> make an install setup and then ran the install and after that point I
> ran it , first from a command line. But, later I created an Icon on
> the Desktop and set it to run Gambas. And that works really good.
> But, I have not tried to add it to the Main Menu.
>
>
>
>> Please notice I am not trying to change the way installations work.
>> I am only suggesting an optional improvement, which can be chosen by
>> the user when the command to install the large scale package is
>> given, and then only for packages which want to use that option, to
>> make it easier for the end user to see the most important parts of
>> what has been installed after the installation is finished.
>>
>> Also realize that the way Windows installations usually work is to
>> create the program group, but it is certainly not mandated that the
>> installation program do so. Similarly, with my suggestion, the way
>> Linux packages will almost certainly usually work will be to not
>> create a program group ( or directory ), since most Linux packages
>> are fairly simple usages. But some will, especially large scale
>> packages whose usage involves much more than either a single command
>> or a simple 'man' page, and that will be very beneficial to the
>> Linux user, especially those who are not as experienced as your
>> Linux guru.
>>
>> I hardly deem this suggestion as either revolutionary or
>> complicated. I do not mind that many experienced Linux users find it
>> unnecessary. But I do mind when they can not even understand why it
>> might be beneficial to others even if they feel that the benefit is
>> not worth changing anything in the way that Linux installations are
>> generally done.
>
>
> I don't think that your suggestion is out of the ordinary or
> complicated. As I have only recently started working on building an
> application (for a test at the moment)
> for Linux, for a potential client that wants to mix WindowsXP &
> Linux. (very long
> story) I cannot say how hard it would be to impliment the ideas you
> have with the current installers for Linux. Or wheather or not you
> would have to build a custom installer to make it work the way you
> suggest. I am used to using what comes with Visual Studio to do
> installs in Windows.
> However, I did try a simple test app written in RealBasic (in their
> Windows IDE) that compiled for both Windows & Linux, and all I had to
> do was run the executable in
> Linux. ( after telling Linux that the file could be executed).
> Pretty simple.
> But, it seems to me that the installers that come with different
> distros may not all be able to add an application and it's tools,
> documentation to the Main Menu. That is something I will have to
> investigate.
I am not even suggesting that Linux installations put anything on the KDE or
Gnome menu system, or even something on the desktop, although if an
installation was smart enough to do these things for the end user that would
be nice. But it is very easy for an installation to create a directory off
of the end-user's home directory where it could put links to its most
important files. And remember I am just saying that this could be an option
of the installation, not the default behavior for all installations.
This is just an idea of how Linux could be improved to make things easier
for the end-user post-installation. But there seems to be this tremendous
resistance among Linux experts that Linux could be made easier for desktop
users. Clearly a good part of the reason why Windows is so dominant in
overall users on the desktop is that Microsoft considers such ease of use
features important to promoting and selling their OS. Yet Linux is against
it, even though it would like to compete effectively with Microsoft for the
desktop market. Go figure.
- Next message: Edward Diener: "Re: Finding installed package files"
- Previous message: Benjamin Johnston: "Re: Router stops routing after about two hours"
- In reply to: james: "Re: Finding installed package files"
- Next in thread: Tim: "Re: Finding installed package files"
- Reply: Tim: "Re: Finding installed package files"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
