Like you need to compile every single software under Linux. I didn't really have to compile that much software. What are we going to compare, an executable, precompiled installer on the Windows desktop as soon as you turn it on and a source tarball, somewhere in the darknet, for which you have no dependencies installed, non existent on repositories?
Most of the everyday software just requires a single command line to be downloaded and installed, in a single blow. The same thing on windows requires me to open the developer's website, look for the download link and then run it after it's one...WHAT A BOTHERSOME PROCESS....
What are we going to compare, an executable, precompiled installer on the Windows desktop as soon as you turn it on and a source tarball, somewhere in the darknet, for which you have no dependencies installed, non existent on repositories?
Well, for windows you always either have a pre-compiled installer or a ready to use executable. Not everything is available in repos and that's why we have this situation.
The same thing on windows requires me to open the developer's website, look for the download link and then run it after it's one...WHAT A BOTHERSOME PROCESS....
As I said earlier, package manager on linux don't really make installation easier because you still have to google what you want to install first. It's only easier when you already know what you want to install.
Yes, there is! Most things are quantifiable and linux just blows away windows in most of those things!
I hate this trend that people always go like "this is just my opinion" as an excuse for everything. There are facts and there are quantifiable things. We don't need opinions on that!
"Installing packages from the AUR is a relatively simple process. Essentially:
Acquire the tarball which contains the PKGBUILD and possibly other required files, like systemd-units and patches (but often not the actual code).
Extract the tarball (preferably in a folder set aside just for builds from the AUR) with tar -xzf foo.tar.gz.
Run makepkg in the directory where the files are saved (makepkg -s will automatically resolve dependencies with pacman). This will download the code, compile it and pack it.
Look for a README file in src/, as it might contain information needed later on.
You are bilingual. It's not a matter of a couple extra clicks or 2-3 more steps to install in windows, it is easier for 99% of people because the install process is written in english (or whatever native language). My wife speaks 2 languages. If we're at a party and she has a conversation with someone in a language I don't know, at some point I go get a drink and find someone to talk to that I can communicate with without interrupting them to figure it out. There is no way in hell that when she want's to install a program she is going to bother with the process listed above. Regular linux users can sit back smugly and rant about how much better it is and how much faster it is. However, if this thread were written in a foreign language that was 20% more efficient to get to the point, It would still take me longer to figure out what it says.
Use an operating system that doesn't require you to compile stuff, like Ubuntu.
Also, for a new user, installing soffware on linux is not faster than installing software on windows because you have to find what you want to install first
And if you're on windows you already know what you want to install!!1111 oh lord.
and choosing what to install usually requires looking at the screenshots of the program.
lol. Your criteria for a program is what I expect from stupid people.
I was intentionally overloading it :P and by the way, what obscure software used by the average Windows user is not on the repositories? I can hardly think of anything other than a Browser, an office suite, a web mail client maybe...Unless you are looking for the very last public beta version of every software, the repos should be well stuffed with this...stuff...I have also compiled FFmpeg for Windows anyway, because the prepackaged one sucked very bad. So that's a kind of thing that could be needed under Windows aswell.
And if you're on windows you already know what you want to install!!1111 oh lord.
No, it means that I have to google both on windows and on linux which usually takes way more time than installing.
lol. Your criteria for a program is what I expect from stupid people.
If your definition of a stupid person is the person who cares about how user interfaces look and work, I may as well declare myself a stupid person. That's the reason why I use uTorrent inb4 adware. I use 2.2.1 and not Deluge or qBittorrent. And windows instead of linux, for that matter.
As I said earlier, package manager on linux don't really make installation easier because you still have to google what you want to install first. It's only easier when you already know what you want to install.
What the fuck is wrong with you? What you're implying here is that on windows you know all programs you want to use and on linux you don't. And if that's the case, you're right. But I know the name of programs on linux but I don't know which programs I'd have to use on windows. For me it's 10x harder to even
find
something on windows.
The right methodology is the assume either (1) that the user knows what he wants to install, or (2) that the user searches an applications to do a task.
In both cases, linux is better.
Well, for windows you always either have a pre-compiled installer or a ready to use executable. Not everything is available in repos and that's why we have this situation.
Then you should use a distro that has everything in their repos or just install a distribution independent package, like a tar.gz with statically compiled libraries and/or included libraries. You decompress the package (two clicks), change to the new directory (two clicks) and start the executable (two clicks).
What you're implying here is that on windows you know all programs you want to use and on linux you don't.
I never implied that, it's your imagination. I implied that the time it takes to install a program that you have to search for is roughly the same.
Then you should use a distro that has everything
Which means that I have to know the fact that I have to use such a distro and then I should know/seach for such distros which brings us to another problem:
to use linux efficiently, you have to have experience in using linux which requires you to use linux.
Most users would come to a conclusion that it's not worth the effort.
You also don't need to do so on linux. You just *want* to do so. You could just wait for your distribution to package the program but you want it now, that's why you *want* to compile it yourself. The same is true for windows. There are people who want a new version of a software that isn't available as executable, yet, so they have to compile it for themselves.
What you said about linux is exactly the same on windows.
Then you're saying that it's faster to find a windows application than a linux application. I doubt that.
In both cases searching takes amount of time that makes the difference between installation times negligible.
You're a stupid person if you judge an application only by screenshots which is what you're saying you do.
Checking the screenshot is the first thing that I do and if I don't like what I see on the screenshot, I don't bother installing the program and continue searching. For example, if I want a winamp-like music player, I will immediately discard Amarok by looking at the screenshot. I will also discard any program that has an extremely ugly interface.
So, you've already tried all possible mixes and configurations of linux desktops? I doubt that.
No, I tried various configurations and using inductive reasoning, I came to a conclusion that most likely there's no way to make linux more convenient for me than windows.
and using inductive reasoning, I came to a conclusion that most likely there's no way to make linux more convenient for me than windows
You should take a math class about induction.
Checking the screenshot is the first thing that I do and if I don't like what I see on the screenshot, I don't bother installing the program and continue searching
Linux needs more commercial software and that's about it. Most open source programs don't really hold candle to their commercial counter-parts (no, GIMP is not Photoshop, and there is nothing that truly rivals ProTools or AutoCAD etc.).
Not to mention it's still too much of a hassle to get some games to work (World of Warcraft for example doesn't run too well on Wine).
That said I run some Linux VMs' on my windows machine because, well, Linux is so much better for many things. :)
to use linux efficiently, you have to have experience in using linux which requires you to use linux.
This is completely true. This is also completely true for Windows.
The only difference is that Windows comes pre-installed and linux doesn't. People are forced to either use windows or install linux and then use linux. People are lazy, therefor they just use windows.