Why doesn't Linux have install wizards? Would make things so much easier...

Dude, just a couple of weeks ago a Windows 10 update nuked people's hard drives. Stop pretending that these issues are of the past, Windows is riddled with legacy crap and supporting broken design choices from 20-30 years ago.

Windows doesn't actually have this problem because it follows proper separation of concerns, which is why most programs bundle their own libs which makes perfect sense because you can't guarantee program stability unless you have the EXACT library versions you need. In Linux la-la land though, it's all completely wacko and any software install can in principle just demolish your entire system

False and false.

Bundling all your DLLs is retarded and eliminates the point of DLLs.

>I'm a little retard short and stout. This is my handle this is my snout.

>apt install
it doesn't call itself a wizard but it's certainly doing some kind of wizardry. In fact, you can even have the universal install wizard on windows:
>MSYS2: pacman -Syuu
>choco install

And they don't do this either. Windows have developed a quasi-dependency system for dealing with multiple versions of DLLs.

It's a SHARED library between your program components, not OS-wide. Linux users are beyond retarded, no wonder you're all so insecure about your OS choice

But the fact is that MSI handles system-wide DLL dependencies, so you're full of shit anyway.

>Why doesn't Linux have install wizards?
It has to some extent. Some programs come with an install script that interactively leads you through the installation process (often for proprietary software that also needs you to accept a license agreement) and of course you can have the exact same installer when running software through Wine.
>Imagine actually typing commands manually into your terminal to install software
This only sounds alien to someone who never used Linux before. Installing software via a package manager isn't less effective than downloading and executing an installation program. I'd even say it's more effective if you already know what you want to install and do a dozen of programs in one go.
If you're referring to compiling from source, then I can only say that this concept isn't exclusive to Linux. A Windows user might also need to do it, if he needs special compile flags set.
>or using the buggy software center bundled with your distro
Yeah, Gnome Software is a buggy mess and only useful when you want to browse your distro's repo in catalogue form. And while there are better alternatives out there, nothing beats using your package manager directly.

>Yeah, Gnome is a buggy mess
ftfy

>OP has never double-clicked a .deb or .rpm package and seen the graphical install wizard that comes up
>OP honestly thinks command line is the only way to install packages in Linux

I mean at least research these things first, man.

Because if you use Linux, you are a wizard

Best comment

Wangblows user agents should be banned from posting here. I mean just look at all the posts from all these Wangtards

Worst comment

Second best comment

Because there are no incentives to improve a product that is used FOR FREE.
That's like asking why don't they serve fillet mignon in soup kitchens.

>there's no incentive to improve a product that you use

ok kid

Then how do you explian 25+ years of constant improvement to the linux kernel and associated distrois?

>25+ years of constant improvement
Constant but slow. It still lags behind proprietary OS in user friendliness/compatibility.

Linux users are wizards themselves. They don't need an install wizard.

It has something better
AppImage
works like a .app on a Mac, just double click it and it werks

Irrelevant. When you're building for specialized systems, hardware, and applications, friendliness/compatibility is nice-to-have, but not mission-critical. Delivery of tools that can be wrapped into a comfortable environment is definitely goo, but the underlying toolset has to work. Linux applications tend to be 'wrappable' and chainable via pipes or some other mechanism; those built for windows are not.

Damn I was going to make that joke.

Attached: IMG_0767.jpg (2273x2511, 874K)

Even worse, I wasn't even the first to make it

Attached: 1508704655277.gif (500x500, 2.51M)

>Why doesn't Linux have install wizards
fuck OFF retarded noob.
GUI for suckers.

i just installed the qt sdk using a install wizard

Its true though, most of what linuxtards say about windows is completely wrong. Either on the whole Linux users are the most technically inept people in the world who literally are incapable of managing a windows installation or they are lying. Personally I think its both.

Terminal is easier than a wizard
I type 1 command and im done

You cheeky bastard, well done.

Attached: 1544463204142.jpg (500x826, 37K)

Have you ever considered that most people on here might just be false flaggers, who complain about pretty much everything by coming up with extremely unlikely if not impossible scenarios?

>linux: do you want to install (y/n)

>windows: next next next next (untick box that installs malware) next next, do you want to restart your computer (y/n)

>Use software the way it was designed
>Fails
>End user is recorded

Hmmmmc

Just print out this picture to oversee you while it's installing

Attached: file.png (321x445, 229K)