Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<y5h_a.4570$UB4.4131@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>...
> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> > In article <bhbdcp$r88$1@news-int.gatech.edu> gte972z@mail.gatech.edu
> > (David Harris) writes:
> >
> >
> >>"Alan Connor" <xxxxxx@xxxx.xxx> wrote in message
> >>news:Gv9_a.3317$Nf3.1227@newsread4.news.pas.eart hlink.net...
> >>
> >>
> >>>Nice, David. And if you learn to install apps this way, you can
> >>>delete whatever fancy package manager your distro uses and free
> >>>up tons of space and system resources...
> >>
> >>I said to use the Readme file. Most Readme files tend to explain
> >>how to do an RPM install quite clearly.
> >>
> >>Though I've always thought package managers were overrated anyway...
> >
> >
> > Me too. Most of the packages I've downloaded install like this:
> >
> > 1. gzip -d foobar.tar.gz
> > 2. tar -xvf foobar.tar
> > 3. cd foobar
> > 4. ./configure (if that doesn't work, try "make config")
> > 5. make
> > 6. make install (must be run as root)
> > 7. make clean (cleans up work files and frees lots of space)
> >
> > To uninstall, cd foobar; make uninstall, then do the appropriate rm.
> >
> > Clean and simple. But then, I'm a Slackware guy, and I must be
> > choosing the right packages; the readme file usually just describes
> > the above steps.
>
> Until you need to install init script, specific users, library changes,
> and customize other services for different operating systems. OpenSSHp1,
> for example, does not automatically create the "sshd" user on your local
> operating system for the SystemPrivilegeSeparatiobn trick. Apache does
> not set up init scripts for your particular OS, or inform you of the
> library dependencies that will be broken when you update your OpenSSL
> version for the mod_ssl package, nor does it rip out the *old* config
> files and set them aside when you upgrade from version 1.3 to version 2.0.
>
> Such things are what package managers are really, really good for.

Slackers Unite! hehehe; seriously; that is a good point about package
managers. Especially since I don't have the diskspace for all those
sources lying around, and I have found more than one "make install"
that doesn't have a corresponding "uninstall". I gave up looking for
packages a long time ago; and usually compile from source. A few
exceptions come to mind: mozilla (takes 3 hours or so), mplayer (way
way way too many compile time options; they should write a script for
all that stuff).

Checkout 'checkinstall'. It can create rpm/deb/slack packs from the
"make install" command, allowing for easy removal with 'removepkg'.
It also allows for custom install commands, so it isn't limited to
'make isntall'; you can even use a bash four-liner to install an ap
that only requires moving a directory and placing something in
'/usr/local/bin', as in the case of Mozilla Firebird. I even use it
for new kernel installs; which comes in handy for creating backups.

All in all it's a handy little app. Homepage:
http://asic-linux.com.mx/~izto/checkinstall/

-t.

On 13 Aug 2003 11:38:20 -0700, Xyerp <Xyerp@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Well yes, a good point and a bad point. I'd really rather know exactly
> what changes have just happened during my upgrade, rather than just
> being blinded by someone elses package manager. Who knows what I have
> done to my (taking an example) apache configuration? Maybe I'm a dirty
> hacker ;P heh. But yeah, sometimes I don't want to know all that, and
> just chuck the guff in any ol' where. Heh. Just as long as I have the
> choice...


I like knowing exactly what's going on, and to be able to optimize the
install for my setup.
As for applications that are so complex and huge that this is impractical?
I do my best to find several smaller and specialized ones that cover the
same territory.

Package managers are like the "locate" tool/db. All you need is to use "find"
in several simple scripts and you've freed up a lot of space and have a
lot more control.


Alan C.

Hi there

I am a newbie using Linux

I understand quite clearly the first guy who posted

Don't knock the guy otherwise he and many others will just stay with Bill
Gates

Linux is strange to say the least and installing files is for the moment
complicated

I downloaded Mozilla and that was Ok as there was a "install me" file but
then I tried AMSN and still have not be able to install it, just don't
understand how to, even though I was able to un zip it

Have bought the book for 'Linux for Dummies' which helps but ..... as
someone rightl suggested

Using XP is a piece of cake I build my own PCs so I don't think that I ama
dummy, but please give us newbies a break and be patient with us

Trevor





"David Harris" <gte972z@mail.gatech.edu> a écrit dans le message de
news:bhb482$nns$1@news-int.gatech.edu...
>
> "Kortoom" <tomlombardo@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:792b0fd5.0308102219.139add88@posting.google.c om...
> > I'm using RedHat Linux 8.0, KDE 3.0.3-8, and Konqueror 3.0.3-13 on my
> > laptop now, having abandoned everything Microsoft.
> >
> > I don't understand how to install an application. I want to get
> > StarOffice from Sun, but I can't even install and run their little
> > free download manager. I can unzip their file, but I don't know how
> > to "run" the file they indicate for installation, nor do I really
> > understand how to install an application without a Microsoft-like,
> > idiot proof wizard. I can't get a straight answer out of my RedHat
> > Linux Bible (which looks like it ought to gave everything in it).
> >
> > How do you "run" a file like "sdm.sh" or "sdm.bat" to install an
> > application? Assuming the install works, how do you know where the
> > application is, or how to run it?
>
> I figured you might want a non-Jerk comment. If the linux community is
ever
> going to grow, people need to be nicer to the new guys.
>
> Many times, applications will come with a Readme file that will explain
> detailed instructions on how to install it. Read through this file, and
> follow all the instructions. Other times, you'll see an install.sh file or
> some other script that will install it automatically. To execute this,
open
> up a terminal, navigate to the directory you have it stored in, and:
> $ ./install.sh
>
> Commands in linux work much like DOS/Windows as far as executing. You
merely
> type the filename in to execute. The only difference here is that you're
> telling it to look in the current directory (./) for the file install.sh,
> and then execute it. To execute a file in your home directory, it would be
> ~/ instead of ./ and for a file in the directory below it would be ../
>
> So, this will get you started. You may open up an editor to see what the
> install script is doing. Type "pico install.sh", where install.sh is the
> correct script. You can see what is actually going on.
>
> As far as where it's stored, it doesn't really matter, so long as you set
> your path to there. Common places are /bin/ and /usr/bin/. System-related
> files are in /sbin/ and /usr/sbin/. You'll pick up more as time goes on.
To
> know exactly where the files installed, check out the manual pages ("man
> <programname>") and see if it lists it there. If not, then check out the
> documentation or readme file, or even the website.
>
> It's actually more intuitive than Windows as you will be able to tell. All
> you have to do is execute a script, it does the rest. Eventually, you'll
> want to pass options to the install, or edit the script to suit your own
> needs. For now, just run it like it is.
>
> Good luck!
>
>

In article <3f3bc032$0$16163$626a54ce@news.free.fr>, Shazbot wrote:

> then I tried AMSN and still have not be able to install it, just don't
> understand how to, even though I was able to un zip it

amsn, if I remember correctly, is nothing but a tcl/tk script. You don't
install it, just run the executable.

--
Juha Siltala

Hello again

Managed to run the script, but took three days just to understand and some
help from another posting, a scipt is complety unknown to us simple Win
folks, even now that I have been able to run it I still have not been able
to create a alias so that I can run it from the bureau, everytime I have to
use a terminal CD etc etc , thats a lot for a simple script/progam

I suspect that a lot af people try linux but go back to Windows after a
while

Linux = Steep very steep learning curve Phew;;.....


"Juha Kustaa Siltala" <jsiltala@cc.helsinki.fi> a écrit dans le message de
news:slrnbjng7h.8do.jsiltala@kruuna.Helsinki.FI...
> In article <3f3bc032$0$16163$626a54ce@news.free.fr>, Shazbot wrote:
>
> > then I tried AMSN and still have not be able to install it, just don't
> > understand how to, even though I was able to un zip it
>
> amsn, if I remember correctly, is nothing but a tcl/tk script. You don't
> install it, just run the executable.
>
> --
> Juha Siltala

In article <3f3ca9da$0$1114$626a54ce@news.free.fr>, Shazbot wrote:

> Managed to run the script, but took three days just to understand and some
> help from another posting, a scipt is complety unknown to us simple Win
> folks, even now that I have been able to run it I still have not been able

You can write batch files on DOS. Unix scripts are a vaguely similar
concept, just done better.

> to create a alias so that I can run it from the bureau, everytime I have to
> use a terminal CD etc etc , thats a lot for a simple script/progam

You need to read some documentation I guess.

> I suspect that a lot af people try linux but go back to Windows after a
> while

I'm sure they do. Some other folks learn their way around, stay and enjoy.

--
Juha Siltala

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 11:37:36 +0200, Shazbot wrote:

> Hello again
>
> Managed to run the script, but took three days just to understand and some
> help from another posting, a scipt is complety unknown to us simple Win
> folks, even now that I have been able to run it I still have not been able
> to create a alias so that I can run it from the bureau, everytime I have to
> use a terminal CD etc etc , thats a lot for a simple script/progam
>
> I suspect that a lot af people try linux but go back to Windows after a
> while
>
> Linux = Steep very steep learning curve Phew;;.....
>
>
> "Juha Kustaa Siltala" <jsiltala@cc.helsinki.fi> a écrit dans le message de
> news:slrnbjng7h.8do.jsiltala@kruuna.Helsinki.FI...
>> In article <3f3bc032$0$16163$626a54ce@news.free.fr>, Shazbot wrote:
>>
>> > then I tried AMSN and still have not be able to install it, just don't
>> > understand how to, even though I was able to un zip it
>>
>> amsn, if I remember correctly, is nothing but a tcl/tk script. You don't
>> install it, just run the executable.
>>
>> --
>> Juha Siltala

Hi,

I am a newbie to linux as well.
I learned from the step to Linux that I really didn't know anything about
Windows either.
The best thing to do is,
- FORGET HOW IT WAS DONE UNDER WINDOWS ( it is probably different with
Linux and you only confuse yourself )
- READ the HowTo's ... that is a tricky one ..don't understand half of it.
- Admit to yourself that you're a newbie and don't forget to mention it if
you post a question. There are Linux users who are happy to help you get
started with Linux.
- READ a lot !! .. there are good newbie sites that explane the basics.
Those simple basics are what gets you going.
- Most Linux users are "command line" users and expect that the commands
are present in the distribution.
- Windows users on the other hand think that you only can change things in
the graphical interface and that you need to purchace a special program
for it.

I advice you to do some basic reading on the simple stuff how to start a
program, how to copy files, how to find things, why all programs have
man(ual) pages and how to use them ( and you will need them )
.... stupid things like that.

http://www.linux.org/lessons/beginner/toc.html is a nice place to start.
.... It helped me to understand ...

Rolf

In article <pan.2003.08.15.10.46.55.791737@home.nl>, R@LF wrote:

> - Most Linux users are "command line" users and expect that the commands
> are present in the distribution.

Most answers to questions in Linux newsgroups give the solution in shell
commands, because it's the most generic way and will apply to most/all
systems. Different distros have different graphical setup programs, but
the shell commands probably will work.

Of course, newbies tend not to mention their distribution and other system
information, or they say they have "Linux 9.1" installed on an "Athlon
box" with an "onboard sound card"

In addition, when talking about Samba setup for example, we don't know if
someone has SWAT installed but we do know they will have a smb.conf file
on their system. Therefore it's best to talk about this file instead of
SWAT settings. As for file editing advice, it's best to use vi commands
because it's likely to be present on every system.

It doesn't mean most users are "command line users" when setting up their
own systems. It just means giving as generic information as possible, to
benefit the largest possible number of people. As you say, the it's safe
to assume that certain "commands are present", while it's useless to talk
about the Mandrake Control Center or Webmin when we don't know if they're
there.

--
Juha Siltala

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 12:31:21 +0000, Juha Kustaa Siltala wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.08.15.10.46.55.791737@home.nl>, R@LF wrote:
>
>> - Most Linux users are "command line" users and expect that the commands
>> are present in the distribution.
>
> Most answers to questions in Linux newsgroups give the solution in shell
> commands, because it's the most generic way and will apply to most/all
> systems. Different distros have different graphical setup programs, but
> the shell commands probably will work.
>
> Of course, newbies tend not to mention their distribution and other system
> information, or they say they have "Linux 9.1" installed on an "Athlon
> box" with an "onboard sound card"
>
> In addition, when talking about Samba setup for example, we don't know if
> someone has SWAT installed but we do know they will have a smb.conf file
> on their system. Therefore it's best to talk about this file instead of
> SWAT settings. As for file editing advice, it's best to use vi commands
> because it's likely to be present on every system.
>
> It doesn't mean most users are "command line users" when setting up their
> own systems. It just means giving as generic information as possible, to
> benefit the largest possible number of people. As you say, the it's safe
> to assume that certain "commands are present", while it's useless to talk
> about the Mandrake Control Center or Webmin when we don't know if they're
> there.

While I used Windows (speaking for myself of course) I did not even know
what chipsets / kernel version / logfiles / debug-options / ... (etc.)
were. Most of the time you don't need to know.
If you ask a question in these linux groups, everyone is asking for
distro's, logfiles, installed drivers, etc.
If you don't know how to find these, you don't get a clear answer to your
question (or none at all).
The easiest way - sometimes the only way - to find these is via the
command line. That is my expirience at least.

So, if someone wants to install anything, it's good to know how to check
where the files went and what is required to start/customize the
application. Most of the time, it will NOT magically show up in your menu
like it does in Windows.
When I started with Linux, I could not even check if it wás installed in
the first place. I did not have a clue where to look.
I think, you are in big trouble if you think that it will be the same as
Windows.

My advice is learn how to use the command line first !!
For "most", that will be a new experience.

Rolf

>
> Learning Linux is hard, period. If you are not in the business, took a course while young or started using it at the university where you now work, you are in for a good uphill fight.

Well it;s becoming easier everyday. Its much less of any fight than it
was a few years ago and I was impressed by the installation of many of
the distributions.

> First, you got the assholes that populate these ngs that are just here to humilliate you and troll you to death, they don't want you to learn shit, they want you to quit because that will uplift their sick egos.

Thats not really common and people who do that are generally flamed by
others

> Then you got the good intentioned ones who want to help you but can't, because you know didly and this OS is not for people who like to guess but for those who like to study and follow instructions. There is no easy way out, you have to pay the price and do some serious reading.
>
> If I had to do it all over again, I would get me a copy of Knoppix 3.2 for a couple of bucks at the usual companies especializing on Linux cds and give it a spin without installing it. Then install it when you feel confortable with it, they come with good up-to date programs, Morphix, is another good one, they are all based on Debian.
>
> Do not waste your time with RPMs based distros if you are a newbie. Try Debian based ones, they use a package system called "apt-get" as in:

You get similar stuff with RPM based distros too. I havent had any
dependency hell with Mandrake 9.1 at all. It finds everything needed and
puts it there on its own. It has an extremely intuitive Control Center
and I havent once had to open any manuals or ask questions except laptop
specific things (which is IMHO one place where linux lags behind
windows). Everything you need is already present in the GUI, I have
rarely, if ever used the command line.

> #apt-get install mozilla
>
> or
>
> #apt-get install <whatever the hell you want>
>
> You got it, no headaaches. It's the civilized way. No RPM dependency hell.
>
> Read Rute, GOOGLE whatever you don't understand, Read The Linux Documentation Project, and read installation manuals for newbies. Google, google and fucking google until you are blue in the face, ignore the assholes, there are good people in this ngs, just be ready to explain what is it exactly you don't understand and what you have done about it.
>
> IMO, this is the best Debian installation manual for newbies:
>
> The Very Verbose Debian 3.0 Installation Walkthrough -
>
> http://osnews.com/story.php?news_id=2016
>
> It will answer questions about partitioning a hard drive, apt-get, how to keep your installation lean and fast, framebuffer, passwords, what not to install, how to use the console to install a program, one hell of a good manual in an hour or less.
> Once you understand this, you can install any Debian or not debian distro out there. Libranet 2.7 is a free download from www.libranet.com, it auto-detects your hardware and comes with a ton of software, debian based, 45 minutes to install.

Again, there are many distibutions which have such a nice install
procedure that you just leave them to themselves and they generally do
the right things including keeping all your Windows data and resizing
and formatting partions without knowing squat about anything.

Pop the first MDK, SuSe, Redhat (not for home users thanks to the
decision to make mp3 and DVD support gone) CD in and youre on your way
to be a convert. No driver downloads no nothing needed for anything
because its all there and autodetected.

> my 2 cents,
>
> Luigi
>