from the problems with installing dependencies you describe, i gather you are nor running debian or ubuntu? maybe you should switch to one of these which are easier for the beginning linux admin (imo) than for example suse.

Robert, thanks for the advice, but that assumes I have a choice. I get to pick what the hosting company allows, but then maybe I should find a new hosting company.

Points 1-3 boil down to the same point. This is fair enough; I agree, but as long as you know what distribution you're on, it isn't a problem (at least not in my experience -- unless you're doing hardcore-by-the-standards-of-your-typical-IT-maintenance-guy compiles of lesser-known software).

Point four is also valid. The dependencies paradigm is based on the UNIX philosophy of software doing one thing well, and not reinventing the wheel. This modular approach among other things stops bloat and reduces attack vectors -- due to regular assessment of the particular piece of code.

Point five and six are surely one problem: The settings are relevant if you're compiling code, but they rarely don't work out unless you're doing the "hardcore" stuff mentioned above. Builds fail rather than installing broken, and a failed build will typically report the specific problem.

Point seven: Google isn't the right place to start, rather try the relevant usenet group for your distribution.

I agree with robert, the packaged systems mentioned simplify software installs immensely.

You ask why UNIX is difficult for civilians: because hitherto, it has typically been the system admin who has wanted to install software. Times have changed, but the infrastructure hasn't kept up. My advice: learn more about the system; ask more questions.

I'm reminded of that saying about democracy... Democracy is a terrible frustrating system of government, and the only thing worse is all the other systems.

I agree *nix systems could be more consistent, but have you ever tried administering a Windows server? Or *shudder* OS/2? As frustrating as it is to have lots of people doing things lots of ways, it's a hell of a lot better than only having a single choice.

Also, I concur with Robert, you should consider switching service providers and distros. Give ubuntu a shot. I hear good things about slicehost, and they seem to offer an ubuntu option.

Thanks for the suggestions, I appreciate it. I rechecked and I did have an ubuntu option, so I reimaged the server. It isn't bad, but managing from the command line and not a GUI is still a very different world. Thank god for apt-get and aptitude, but I still think it doesn't need to be this hard, although things are getting incrementally better.

Heheh. I agree. All my colleagues seem to like running a linux box as their desktop workstation. But I run Windows. You know why? Because we have someone else on staff to take care of windows support, but I'd have to support my own linux desktop. And I have enough stuff to support already!

That said, I have no problem with linux as a server OS. I expect my server OS to require some technical expertise to run, frankly. And we do, finally, have an actual expert sysadmin on staff, whose job it is to adminster our several dozen servers with his expertise (so even that's not mine either! But he wouldn't admin my desktop box).

I think any library probably needs an actual sysadmin on staff--or as an outsourced contractor, whatever. For your personal stuff though, well, them's the breaks. There are ways to pay for commercially provided hosting where you get all (or most) of the flexibility of your own box, but don't actually have to admin it yourself. But yeah, it'll cost you.

You can run synaptic over ssh. This gives you a (slow) GUI fo package management.

BTW: I tried to post this the other day, but your ASP was not working -- which may mean that it's not just UNIX that sucks.

Brinxmat: Just to be clear, Library Journal is not the source of my personal server. I rent a server from an outfit that has no association with this blog.

But your reply totally proves my point. You suggest that I should use synaptic over ssh. But this requires that I first have GTK+ installed on the computer I'm using to access it. Did you mention this? No. But it doesn't need to be this difficult, which is my point. Even just a little more explanation and hand-holding would go a long, long way. Please, meet the rest of us half-way. Otherwise, you'll continue to be on the fringe, and that doesn't do any of us any good.

The use of "your" does indeed imply that you have something to do with the technology behind this blog, I apologize.
<P>
While I understand your point about dependencies, satisfying dependencies in Synaptic is as easy as clicking "OK", and on the command line, just enter 'apt-get build-dep <i>package-name</i>' (the build-dep flag should cause apt to read the package's dependencies file, and attempt to satisfy these dependencies).
<p>
Note: If you're trying to run synaptic over ssh from Windows, you could try Cygnome or somesuch.

first off I would like to say. you didnt give very man hardcore reasons why linux or unix for that sucks. you failed to list that 85 percent of the internet is hosted on the internet. I am sure if we took a survey from some of the biggest isps or datacenters it would surely prevail. but thats just my personal opinion. I am a strong FreeBSD supporter myself. beyond most linux distros itself.
in stability,networking etc.

first off I would like to say. you didnt give very man hardcore reasons why linux or unix for that sucks. you failed to list that 85 percent of the internet is hosted by linux or unix tell windows to beat that. I am sure if we took a survey from some of the biggest isps or datacenters it would surely prevail. second most of the people on here dont seem to know that linux isn't unix. HELLO THERE IS A DIFFERENT PEOPLE. thats just my personal opinion. I am a strong FreeBSD supporter myself. beyond most linux distros itself. in stability,networking etc.

I must agree with the above post. Instead of listing reasons as to why Unix itself is bad, you instead gave reasons as to why you are unable to operate it efficiently. We can see now, more than ever, how Windows has corrupted the internet: Windows users see Unix to be difficult to operate, whereas Unix users see how incompetent most Windows user are.

hmmm..at least you tried to list why you don't like Unix..those who claim to be strong supporter of Unix didn't even mention the benefits of using it...

It always depends *on what you want to achieve* with your system. The Unix philosophy is mostly about writing specific kinds of (system) programs.

The problem is that most users that are not system administrators use a computer as a tool. For example for writing documents, creating flowcharts, cutting videos - things that are eventually used outside the context of a computer.

It is inefficient if these people have to understand how linux works and training is expensive.

Linux is very versatile and can do lots of things. But it is too open, it can be reconfigured so much even the best expert will need a whole day to get something fixed if it stops working.

For the every day person it is better to have a good program that guides the user to do a certain thing, and not the other way around.

A lot of development in the Open Source space begins on Open Source platforms such as Linux or Unix. As many of these projects are by their very nature new, one can expect that documentation would be slim and issues to arise. Trying to get a project that originated on a *nix platform to run on Windows is not easy either. Even simple PERL utilities can't be ported to Windows without fussing, depending on what libraries are involved. The fact is that familiarity trumps our perception of usability. Windows is a standard and we accept it's problems because they are familiar, whereas the issues we run into on unfamiliar platforms stick out like sore thumbs. Yes, diversity can be a problem in the *nix world, but a committed effort towards documentation would cure 90% of all ills in this regard ...there are great similarities between all members of the unix family, both technical as well as things like: Stability, Speed, Flexibility, Security, Modularity, low-resource requirements ...ETC.
Example: I have an 8 year old PC running Linux that logs in in less than 1 second and has never had a single virus or spyware infection. Its worth the learning curve as much development would be difficult if not impossible without this platform family.

Bubnoff

Not worth

i thought you will give something very imp points but your thoughts SUCKS!!!