3 ms·

I'd argue that has more to do with a unified package manager and installation process than GUI vs. CLI.

tzakrajs 10y ago
And I argue it has more to with the fact that *nix applications are traditionally configured via static configuration files as opposed to interactive process.
- ams6110 10y ago
  The real benefit is that they are configured with text files, not a monolithic inscrutable system "registry."
  - enraged_camel 10y ago
    This is about how the user interacts with the configuration process, not where the configuration variables are stored.
flukus 10y ago
I'd argue it's because it's a lot simpler to to explain than "start synaptic, got to the search box and type x, click the install button, etc".
- vog 10y ago
  On the other hand, on mobile platform it is perfectly accepted to say "install foo via app/play/whatever store", which is essentially the same process, isn't it?
zeta0134 10y ago
Indeed. For the built in installation process that Microsoft wishes everyone would use in Windows 10, it could be this simple: - Open the Store - Search for "Name of App" - Click Install Bonus, this works for GUI software managers in Linux distributions which use them. Unifying the process simplifies most instructions greatly. I think the simple existence of Linux package managers, and the push to use them by the community, helps tremendously with this perceived ease. The installation complexity is largely solved by the package repository maintainers. On the flip side, software which is not distributed with the OS can have very complex installation requirements even with command line instructions. Sometimes it's as easy as: - ./configure - make install But more often than not, you need to manually hunt down dependencies, and if the system uses automake / cmake and requires you to satisfy conditions for a build, those can get hairy and cryptic fast. I've gotten better at it over the years, but I wouldn't call this process any easier than a step-by-step installation wizard in a GUI.
- themodelplumber 10y ago
  > But more often than not Simply not true. More often than not you'll get static binaries. And if the software is supported by a commercial team, any dependencies on your supported platform are already tested and working.

And I argue it has more to with the fact that *nix applications are traditionally configured via static configuration files as opposed to interactive process.

ams6110 10y ago
The real benefit is that they are configured with text files, not a monolithic inscrutable system "registry."
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  This is about how the user interacts with the configuration process, not where the configuration variables are stored.

flukus 10y ago

I'd argue it's because it's a lot simpler to to explain than "start synaptic, got to the search box and type x, click the install button, etc".

vog 10y ago
On the other hand, on mobile platform it is perfectly accepted to say "install foo via app/play/whatever store", which is essentially the same process, isn't it?

zeta0134 10y ago

Indeed. For the built in installation process that Microsoft wishes everyone would use in Windows 10, it could be this simple: - Open the Store - Search for "Name of App" - Click Install Bonus, this works for GUI software managers in Linux distributions which use them. Unifying the process simplifies most instructions greatly. I think the simple existence of Linux package managers, and the push to use them by the community, helps tremendously with this perceived ease. The installation complexity is largely solved by the package repository maintainers. On the flip side, software which is not distributed with the OS can have very complex installation requirements even with command line instructions. Sometimes it's as easy as: - ./configure - make install But more often than not, you need to manually hunt down dependencies, and if the system uses automake / cmake and requires you to satisfy conditions for a build, those can get hairy and cryptic fast. I've gotten better at it over the years, but I wouldn't call this process any easier than a step-by-step installation wizard in a GUI.

themodelplumber 10y ago
> But more often than not Simply not true. More often than not you'll get static binaries. And if the software is supported by a commercial team, any dependencies on your supported platform are already tested and working.