You have just pointed out exactly why Linux is not a viable desktop for most people. The average user won’t understand:
front-end
dpkg
Debian
deb files
binary packages
FAIL
The average user doesn't need to know that Synaptic is a front end to dpkg any more than they need to know that Internet Explorer uses winsock.dll. Nor does their lack of "understanding" of a binary package mean that they use it any more or less on Linux than on Windows. The poster was just volunteering a little knowledge for its own sake to a user that is presumably using Synaptic without issue. For that he "FAILs"?
Wow. You're right, with standards like that, any OS is doomed to "FAILure"
“The poster was just volunteering a little knowledge for its own sake to a user that is presumably using Synaptic without issue. “
Incorrect. The poster was volunteering a little knowledge to a user that had to use the command line interpreter twice today to install a printer driver.
I shouldn’t have to know any of that stuff. If this was an isolated occurrence I wouldn’t have mentioned it. I cannot remember the last time I had to use the command line for anything in XP or Win2000. I know I have never needed it for any of my Macs.
For the average computer user, this means Linux fails to be a viable desktop operating system for them. The point of the article was that it’s a myth that Linux isn’t easy to use. The article is wrong. Every Linux box I have built has required me to run the command line interpreter from time to time, starting with Red Hat several years ago and including Fedora Core and now Ubuntu. The shells are getting better, but they aren’t good enough.
As always, I appreciate the help that I shouldn’t need.