Brand New Free Software

[julianb]

I've recently downloaded up-to-date versions of open source software for the machine I use at work, where I use windows XP.

I was a little bit surprised to learn that, compared to windows, you may end up with a slightly outdated version of OpenOffice or Firefox when you use Debian/Ubuntu.

I'm running Ubuntu 10.04, and therefore using a firefox 3.6.x browser. But this is for the beta release of Ubuntu. Meanwhile debian Sid is still using firefox 3.5.9 (rebranded as iceweasel).

So is windows a better platform for running free software? I wouldn't say so, but it does have some advantages!

Linux distributions don't HAVE to suffer this problem, no?

Something I like about Windows is that programs don't come with a complicated web of dependencies. I like the linux approach of function libraries etc except that it sometimes gets out of hand. Do all these linux programs really need many megabytes of dependencies in order to function? If we remove some of the bloat from our OS, it'll make it a little easier for us to find & fix things that create problems, and if programs are written to require fewer complex dependencies, that'll make it easier to just install new versions of software (like installing firefox 3.6 on the day it comes out as a stable release) without worrying about where dependencies will get messed up.

Hope we'll do what we can to make Ubuntu simpler so that people can alter it more readily. Open source, I like you.

[utnubuuser]

Some Linux Distributions focus on cutting-edge/state-of-the-art, some don't.
Want the latest-and-greatest, try Sidux. Fedora also tends to use the latest available versions/releases. Ubuntu and Debian-stable are meant to be that - stable.

[sixthwheel]

Something I like about Windows is that programs don't come with a complicated web of dependencies.

Have you ever tried uninstalling a program you downloaded and did not like after a while in Windows?
It leaves pieces of it all over your hard drive.
Good luck getting rid of everything.

You install something from Synaptic , it will get rid of all of it when you uninstall it.
At least this has been my experience .


Hope we'll do what we can to make Ubuntu simpler so that people can alter it more readily.

Alter an open source OS? You're kidding.

[WinterRain]

Hope we'll do what we can to make Ubuntu simpler so that people can alter it more readily.

Since you can't really alter windows at all, I'd say linux is miles ahead in that regard.

[julianb]

Want the latest-and-greatest, try Sidux. Actually, trying tiny core and trying sidux were part of what got me writing this post. Sidux is still on firefox 3.5.9 at the moment. Fedora 12 has firefox 3.5.x as well.



Alter an open source OS? You're kidding. Why would I be kidding? I'm no great expert. I can compile a kernel module but that doesn't mean I have a clue how most of the packages installed on my Ubuntu system contribute anything to the OS as a whole. In large part, tiny core makes that much transparent at least - often the packages added to the base system (and many of the files in the base system) have a purpose that's clear and if you remove them you know what's gonna be broken.

[julianb]

Have you ever tried uninstalling a program you downloaded and did not like after a while in Windows?
It leaves pieces of it all over your hard drive.
Good luck getting rid of everything.

The windows registry is a weird and messy idea, and uninstalling bad software is a problem, certainly. (and well-behaved windows programs are never the ones I'm uninstalling!)


Since you can't really alter windows at all, I'd say linux is miles ahead in that regard.

Linux really is miles ahead on this one, but it has potential to widen the gap even more. That this FOSS stuff can be "freely altered" is irrelevant to the vast majority among us if we don't know how to alter it.

[Cope57]

Something I like about Windows is that programs don't come with a complicated web of dependencies.
Just because a Windows program starts as an .exe file, does not mean it has no dependencies. Most the dependencies required are preinstalled on the PC when you purchased it.

Try installing Windows with only the operating system CD and you will find that you are missing drivers for Internet connectivity. Then you will need to use a CD for drivers for your motherboard, CD/DVD drive, sound drivers, and so on. Then after getting your drivers, you start your update process. Update installed, reboot, install more updates and reboot again. Now your system is up to date, time to install an antivirus, an office program, an instant messenger, and reboot after installing those also. Now it is time to surf the web, install flash, java, silverlight, quicktine, and other browser based plugins. Some may even require a reboot.

Dependencies... Windows has plenty.



Since you can't really alter windows at all, I'd say linux is miles ahead in that regard.
I would not agree with that statement. I would say that Linux is easier to modify than Windows operating systems.


My Windows XP
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/8290/78538841.th.png (http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/8290/78538841.png)

customize.org (http://www.customize.org/)

LiteStep (http://www.litestep.net/) is a replacement desktop interface instead of using Explorer for Windows.

Windows 7, I do not see to many modifications that can be done to it yet.

[WinterRain]

Try installing Windows with only the operating system CD and you will find that you are missing drivers for Internet connectivity. Then you will need to use a CD for drivers for your motherboard, CD/DVD drive, sound drivers, and so on. Then after getting your drivers, you start your update process. Update installed, reboot, install more updates and reboot again. Now your system is up to date, time to install an antivirus, an office program, an instant messenger, and reboot after installing those also. Now it is time to surf the web, install flash, java, silverlight, quicktine, and other browser based plugins. Some may even require a reboot.

Dependencies... Windows has plenty.


Excellent point that people tend to forget. In a distro like mint, almost none of that silliness is required.

[Armor Nick]

Perhaps it's worth mentioning that you can simply remove an application without removing its dependencies, and then downloading the latest binary or source package from the application's website.

Or search launchpad for someone who distributes the latest version.

Or use Arch Linux.

Although I prefer to use tested, stable software instead of the latest greatest. Because what's really the difference between firefox 3.5 or 3.6? It still browses the web, doesn't it?

Also, I agree with cope57 that Windows isn't so static as people think it to be. But the graphical software is always a bit more unstable than linux, because it's essentially a hack ;) .

[mastablasta]

Although I prefer to use tested, stable software instead of the latest greatest. Because what's really the difference between firefox 3.5 or 3.6? It still browses the web, doesn't it?



Difference is major security patch. It was so important they had to release it well ahead of schedule.



You install something from Synaptic , it will get rid of all of it when you uninstall it.


Including things you might not want to get rid off. Seriously it asks you do you want to uninstall this and that library and then warns you other programs MIGHT use them. Well how am i supposed to know, i am not the expert. so i leave them on and system could be getting bloated just like Windows.


I would not agree with that statement. I would say that Linux is easier to modify than Windows operating systems.

Really poor example. You modified your desktop theme not the core system itself. You can not modify Windows kernel for example (even if you knew how to imporve it). You can modify the GUI.


EDIT: About versions - don't get hung up on numbers. Linux might not be using same version numbers as WinXP. For example Skype windows 2.x is not the same as Windows Skype 2.x.

[Linuxforall]

You can add ppa for cutting edge, OO has PPA for ubuntu to make it to the latest, same goes for Pidgin, Transmission and best of all, its all automatic.

[mick222]

Including things you might not want to get rid off. Seriously it asks you do you want to uninstall this and that library and then warns you other programs MIGHT use them. Well how am i supposed to know, i am not the expert. so i leave them on and system could be getting bloated just like Windows.





In the past I have had windows asking me the same Question.Also I 'm not a programmer but arn't .dll's the same kind of thing as libs . If you want the latest versions you could always use ppa's .

[mick222]

You can add ppa for cutting edge, OO has PPA for ubuntu to make it to the latest, same goes for Pidgin, Transmission and best of all, its all automatic.

Snap. I think you should be careful with ppa's they could make your system unstable the stuff in the repos is tested.

[mastablasta]

In the past I have had windows asking me the same Question.Also I 'm not a programmer but arn't .dll's the same kind of thing as libs . If you want the latest versions you could always use ppa's .


yes that's how it was, but as i've noticed now most programmes just leave them behind or they put them in their own folder which they delete upon uninstallation. i haven't received this message for a very long time now.

then again windows do seem to be growing and growing :-)

[3rdalbum]

Something I like about Windows is that programs don't come with a complicated web of dependencies. I like the linux approach of function libraries etc except that it sometimes gets out of hand. Do all these linux programs really need many megabytes of dependencies in order to function? If we remove some of the bloat from our OS...

Whoa, there, you've got it the wrong way around.

Linux programs don't "depend on megabytes of dependencies" because they are bloated. They actually use dependencies to avoid bloat.

On Windows, the programmer might use megabytes of libraries too, but they will be statically compiled into the program. This means that if you have five Windows programs that use "libfoo", you'll have five copies of libfoo on your hard disk.

On Linux, the first time you install a program that requires libfoo, it will be installed. The second program that requires libfoo will not come with that library, it will just use the existing copy of libfoo. You'll only be given the library if you don't already have it.

Windows shocked me once - I downloaded Quicktime and then I downloaded iTunes. When running the iTunes installer I realised that the iTunes installer already has a full copy of Quicktime in it. That's bloat! I also remember seeing a program that was available for Linux and for Windows; the Linux Debian package was under a megabyte, the Windows version was nearly five megabytes.

[Juan Largo]

Windows does have one advantage over Linux: Backward compatibility. I can take a piece of software that I installed on Win98 back in 1999, and there's a very good chance it will install on Win2K, WinXP, and maybe even Vista and Win7. That's because the "dependencies" (a.k.a. dll files) are carried forward with the new versions of Windows. However, the downside to backward compatibility is that is creates what is perceived as "bloat". So it's a trade-off really.

[mastablasta]

"... the Linux Debian package was under a megabyte, the Windows version was nearly five megabytes.

only if you don't have the dependancies needed to run it already on your disk you might end up downloading 5 MB (or even more) anyway...

yes it does run more efficiently only oyu need to knwo if the dependancy can be removed or not (when you remove the programme) a newb like me will not know this, so better to leave it in the system. which get's slowly bloated (but probably still not as much as win).

Windows ships with everything because they do not know if the user will need it or not, so just to be sure they add them. at least it always works and noo additional downloading is necessary. makes it easier to move the progs arround. then again viruses are also progs :-)

[Shakz]

Try installing Windows with only the operating system CD and you will find that you are missing drivers for Internet connectivity. Then you will need to use a CD for drivers for your motherboard, CD/DVD drive, sound drivers, and so on. Then after getting your drivers, you start your update process. Update installed, reboot, install more updates and reboot again. Now your system is up to date, time to install an antivirus, an office program, an instant messenger, and reboot after installing those also. Now it is time to surf the web, install flash, java, silverlight, quicktine, and other browser based plugins. Some may even require a reboot.

Dependencies... Windows has plenty.


I could not agree more. I have been reloading virus ridden PCs for my family for years at least twice a year. The thing I noticed about ubuntu right away is everything just works.....how refreshing. My family knows if they send a box to me again...its getting linux. Any flavor they want but am not putting windows back on....they can pay Geek Squad for that.

One example I found this weekend as I loaded my desktop was Doze required me to unplug my netgear card...load the drivers...plug it back in restart and it would work. Of course I had to do this 2 times before the card took and the hardware finder found it.

Ubuntu though just found the card...boom I was downloading my nivida drivers.

Sorry for getting a bit off topic.

[lancest]

Windows does have one advantage over Linux: Backward compatibility. I can take a piece of software that I installed on Win98 back in 1999, and there's a very good chance it will install on Win2K, WinXP, and maybe even Vista and Win7. That's because the "dependencies" (a.k.a. dll files) are carried forward with the new versions of Windows. However, the downside to backward compatibility is that is creates what is perceived as "bloat". So it's a trade-off really.

The other bad thing about backward compatibility is that it causes security problems. Alot of older software must run as single user in Windows and therefore enhances security flaws.

[Ms_Angel_D]

Moved to the cafe, Since this really isn't a testimonial or experience, but a discussion in the differences of FOSS software between windows & Linux.

[Johnsie]

You can manually download the latest free software for Linux. The problem is that Linux apps don't have auto-updaters built into them. This means that the programmer doesn't even have control of his/her versioning and rollout times. Personally if I released a Linux app I would try to have an auto-updater that bypasses the repositories.

PPA gives versioning control to developers but is not user very friendly for non-IT people who want to install programs.

[3rdalbum]

only if you don't have the dependancies needed to run it already on your disk you might end up downloading 5 MB (or even more) anyway...

Granted, but if you install another program that does a similar thing and uses the same libraries, you'll be downloading 7mb and not 10.


Windows ships with everything because they do not know if the user will need it or not, so just to be sure they add them.

No, you're not listening properly. Windows doesn't "ship with everything". The programs you download contain all the libraries that are used in the program, apart from what's just the basic Win32 API.

Oh, you could do exactly the same on Linux. Some proprietary software developers do that. But even they usually have it as an optional download (i.e. "Here's the static binary and here's the dynamic one"). The truth is that few people actually want to bloat up their systems and open security holes by having five different copies of libQt on their hard drive.