Linux Question #1
I've put the CD for Tux Racer into the drive of the laptop. Double-clicking the CD brings up this screen. I have clicked a variety of these icons, such as INSTALL and Setup.exe and nothing happened. What am I supposed to do?
Also, I used apt-get to install a music composition program called Rosegarden. It's not in the Applications menu. This has had no noticeable effect on the computer as far as I can tell. Where am I supposed to look to open this program?
Comments
paranthropus on Jul. 3, 2005 9:16 PM
Looks like a Windows app, possibly Linux too. That "setup.sh" file is probably your best bet. It's a shell script which you should run from a terminal window. It might install a Linux binary that is hiding in one of the subdirs. I've even seen shell scripts with the binary embedded inside. By convention, "INSTALL" (all caps) is a text file which contains installation instructions. Naturally, you might also want to check out "README" and "Readme.txt".
As far as Rosegarden is concerned, "which rosegarden" in a shell window will tell you where the binary is located, assuming it is in the conventional places (/bin,/usr/bin,/usr/local/bin...).
matt-arnold on Jul. 3, 2005 10:32 PM
When it reaches this point, this is failed software. I'm biting my tongue to keep from uttering obscenities at the gormlessness of open-source developers, and reminding myself that this software is free. But I'll say this: it should not be necessary to do any of what you describe. All software installation CDs should auto-launch, and failing that it should have an obvious icon that runs an auto-installer. The open-source world desperately needs OpenUsability.org. Eric S. Raymond once described it as:
"...discoverability. That is, the quality that every point in the interface has prompts and actions attached to it from which you can learn what to do next_."_
I can understand not having that in some elite hacking software. But I remind the gentle readers that this is a frickin' game. Tux Racer.
Tux...
Racer.
The Readme files actually have no installation instructions. On a little game.
Double-clicking INSTALL does nothing. On a little game.
How do I get a terminal window?
What is a shell script?
What is a shell window?
I assume a "subdir" is a subdirectory?
To install Tux Frickin' Racer under Linux you have to know the answers to the preceding questions, which I do not. [/end rant]
paranthropus on Jul. 3, 2005 11:14 PM
Step one: relax. Remember, it's only a game :)
Secondly, I sympathize. Years back I went through these troubles, and it's a great opportunity to learn.
Okay, practical solution time. Do you have experience with the Linux terminal window, AKA shell, command line interface, or xterm? I hope so, but if not, it's easy. The Gnome desktop certainly has something like that. Once you start it up, "cd" to that directory (I'm going to hazard a guess that it would be "cd /mnt/cdrom0"). Now you can have a look through the contents of that directory. Start by reading the INSTALL file. Type "less INSTALL". The "less" command will page through text files, spacebar = page forward, b key = page back, q key = quit. If INSTALL does not give you adequate instructions, try the "readme" files.
The installation is probably as simple as executing the "setup.sh" script (simply a series of shell commands collected in a text file, like a Windows batch file). Try running the shell script by typing "./setup.sh" (note the preceding "./"). The command line is really the most efficient way to do some things, and is worth knowing. I use a Mac and, despite the super-friendly GUI, I usually have a couple of shell windows open.
Personally, I hate it when CD's auto-launch. I like to be in control, and that's why I like Unix OS's. For instance, when you "click" on the INSTALL file, you are asking the computer to make a choice for you. You are asking it to associate a file with an application. In this case there is no file extension, no metadata, and the MIME type is not immediately obvious, so you really don't know what you are going to get when you click. The command line puts you back in the driver's seat. Commands and their associated data must be entered explicitly which, to my way of thinking, is better than asking the computer to make the decisions. That way lies frustration, as you have discovered. Have a look at Neal Stephenson's In the Beginning Was the Command Line for an entertaining and in-depth exploration of related topics.
matt-arnold on Jul. 3, 2005 11:40 PM
I have seen some nice uses of the command-line interface and am appreciative of that, but it should be rarely used. I have no experience with it and although I'm willing to play with it, I adamantly refuse to need it. Do you enjoy tinkering with auto engines or just turning the ignition key and driving? You seem to be asking the computer to not make decisions which are "duh" obvious decisions.
1. The act of putting an installation CD in the drive was a decision to install a program. As opposed to what else? DUH.
2. I want the computer to associate file types with actions. If I click an icon named "install," what else do I want it to do? Bake lasagna? DUH.
3. I want to be presented with a list of clickable options instead of having to remember commands to type in a command line interface. DUH.
I do not need to be in the driver's seat for this. Imagine if my car asks me when I turn the key, "does that mean you want the engine to start or do you want to-- oh I don't know-- adjust the mirrors?" The car would be playing dumb just like this. I hope to set it up to do all the above things, and if not, I'm seriously considering installing WinXP on it again. I'll wait another year or two to see if open source operating systems learn that I have better things to do with my time. In the meantime, definitely screw Tux Racer. I won't install it; the programmers have got to be kidding me if they think it's worth this. I'll go back to the endless feast of awesome free Windows games like Akuji The Demon and Bontago that instantly install and just work.
paranthropus on Jul. 4, 2005 12:04 AM
You are right, of course, about ease of use. If someone was to make software for a profit, I would think that ease of use, or at least ease of installation, would be a priority. You have, however, chosen to install an OS that is created and supported by people who have donated their time. For this reason, for the privilege of using free (as in beer and speech) software, more of the burden rests on the user. Part of that burden is learning the command line... a rare an useful skill for an artist, by the way. I started using Linux in 1996, and it's gotten a bit easier since then, but not much. If you expect change in a year or two, I am afraid you are going to be disappointed. Computers are often frustrating, but reflect on it for a day or two, and you might be willing to give Tux Racer another chance.
Have you tried suing apt-get to install Tux Racer? There is always more than one way to get something done in Linux.
matt-arnold on Jul. 4, 2005 1:55 AM
You forget that the user pays some pretty good money for hardware. When I turn that into a paperweight based on the false advertising on the Ubuntu website-- "Linux for Human Beings"-- I think I have the right to feel a little bit lied to and suckered, and embarrased for having advocated it to my family and taken the time of friends to get it set up. Should I feel privileged to break my machine just because it's free?
I don't dispute that programmers are within their rights to waste their time creating a free program that only meets the priorities and use-styles of a handful of IT professionals. If that were their only intent, I question why they would wish to do so when so much is being made these days about "democratic computing" and the potential of free software to overthrow the control of corporations. If it's really justified to say "hey, they're doing it for free, so get over it," then they do it more for their own fun than to do good for users. I doubt that. Look at the Ubuntu manifesto and you'll see what I mean: they really seem to want to provide accessibility to a large user base. I only get upset because it would be so great for that to happen and I don't want to see the movement fail. So the real explanation is they just can't get outside the Hole Hawg mindset which Stephenson describes. I would rather think that than to think they really don't care about providing free software for those who can't afford the prices of Microsoft or Adobe. And yet I would dare say (setting aside the importance of Linux to servers) that Firefox for Windows, Open Office for Windows, and The Gimp for Windows have made more of a difference in the world than open source operating systems.
So what's it going to be? Is this about tech or is this about society? Should free and open source operating systems help Aunt Tillie? Or should they be amusing novelty toys for techies, full of obstacles to entry like an elite club, while tens of millions of people continue to line the coffers of Microsoft? As a result they'll keep turning their machines into zombie boxes that send you viruses and spam. This situation is not right.
stormgren on Jul. 4, 2005 3:49 AM
This is really a case of Occam's Razor here.
I'd like to start by saying however, that there's nothing BROKEN with any of this. What actually seems to be broken is your understanding and apparent unwillingness to learn. It's not a paperweight, it's now a tool that you have no comprehension of how to use. The fact that you have advocated something that you do not have the slightest understanding of is your problem, blame may not be assigned elsewhere.
Ubuntu has only been around a short while. The strides they have made, compared to other Linux distributions, save possibly SuSE, have been monumental. It is now, for example, my preferred laptop distro because of all the things I don't have to manually configure upon installing. Given there has only been a few releases, it would be EXPECTED of it to be far from perfect. Any one who had spent any time studying Linux distributions would know that it takes time and active usage to make a distribution great. They have stated their goals, and I think they're doing a pretty good job of meeting them so far, given the amount of work they've had to do.
To apply my opening sentence to the proceeding paragraph, I think you're expecting perfection where it cannot be obtained yet. Why are you doing this? To someone who has been using Open Source software for quite some time, and having been a part of the culture for quite some time, your "real explanation" is, frankly, bullshit.
Secondly, you treat all Open Source as if it were one coherent project. Stop. This will never happen. It is not one monolithic entity that you are expecting.
The beauty of the Open Source software concepts is that one can do whatever the hell one wants. If they want to write software for themselves and publish it if anyone finds it useful, so be it. It is their freedom to do so. I daresay many Open Source projects don't give a damn about overthrowing corporations. It's as if you expect them to all have some social discourse platform running through their heads as they program. This implies that you do not understand the hacker mindset. They do not always write tools for others, quite often they are writing code to meet their own needs. Publishing often only comes when they think someone else (read: another hacker) might be able to use it. Then, rarely, a software project coalesces around it. Interestingly enough, the Linux Kernel is one of those things.
To imply that those who write tools and give them away freely are "wasting their time" just because they do not benefit everyone is a massive slap in the face to those individuals for the choices they made. As one such tool-writer, I have been attempting not to lose my temper over such an insult, but I remind myself that the best way to address this is to have discourse over it. I highly suggest you re-think your wording. The fact you have no use for it does not make it a waste of time. The fact that you "question why" again points to your lack of understanding of the hacker culture.
You have expected miracles time and time again, and when you don't get them, you dash your gods against the rocks and declare them anathema.
Third, Linux and the derivations thereof is still very much a frontier to be tamed. Learning the ways and rules of said frontier would be of great help to you. Right now, you're coming across as the city-slicker who has stepped off the train and is complaining, even possibly whining, about the lack of running water in this backwater town. Your criticism and high-brow commentary are coming out as thinly veiling your own ignorance.
With Microsoft's Windows, even with OS/X, there are things to be learned in order to use it. OS/X is a beautiful OS, really, and if one doesn't want to deal with their computer, one can get away with it. Nonetheless, you need to learn the nuances of either of them. Why are you expecting everything to be handed to you on a silver platter when it comes to Linux when many of the issues that you've had today I've seen many times with Windows and OS/X?
If you want to have your hand held at this point and time, go back to the city. Go back to OS/X. Go back to Windows. We'll let you know when all the bears have been killed and the swamps drained.
matt-arnold on Jul. 4, 2005 4:02 AM
I apologize. My attitude and choice of words were wrong. It comes as no surprise to those who know me that I react very badly to disillusionment.
There remains the fact that Linux has never been intended as a replacement for Windows or MacOS, but has different purposes that suit different people. The deliberate philosophy of bothersome micromanagement around which *Nix is built is not an oversight or an accident, it works very well for some people. It just happens to not be appropriate to my needs or inclinations. You're right, my endorsement of something I didn't understand was to blame. I trusted and believed a lot of hype and once again I've been separated from a lot of money and commitment, just like with my old church. It's high time I learned not to be so trusting.
For all that I love Firefox, OpenOffice and The Gimp, I'm a Windows user and I now see that my proper place is to stay there until the open source community decides to create an alternative. Linux was never intended to do what Windows or Mac does, and is under no obligation to do so.
stormgren on Jul. 4, 2005 4:28 AM
Healthy skepticism is good for the soul.
That being said, perhaps I didn't contain my temper as well as I should have. I would never assert that you have a "proper place" in the operating system hierarchy. The point I was trying to make is that if you're going to use it, accept it for what it is, and the learning curve around it.
Perhaps in a few releases, Ubuntu will be ready for you. They have great goals. Watch them. They may be the ones who have the right idea in the end.
You have two choices. Stay with Windows, accept that, and wait. Or accept that Linux is different and set up your own homestead (to continue my analogy). Learn the ways of UNIX to meet your own ends and take full control of your computer of the tool that it is instead of letting the programmers make decisions for you. Make each problem a lesson for learning instead of an opportunity for heartbreak.
In that way lies the essence of the hacker.
You've got some great ideas about what software should be, and while I'm not suggesting that you become a programmer, if you were to be a "power user" of Linux, you'd be able to constructively give back to what you see great potential in.
I didn't want to put you to the sword in my comments. Handing out a reality check was more like it.
Leave a Comment