It innocently started, as most experiences in Dependency Hell do - I stumbled upon a piece of software (PacketFence), and thought to myself how great it would be to have that running on my network.
Four hours and five distros later, it's still not running.
Dependency Hell is what 'Microsofties' will always be able to point to when *nix aficionados laud the superiority of their OS. In the interests of full disclosure, I will say that I am an MSDN developer and trend that direction, but I've also spent a couple of years as a Solaris admin and a couple years as an admin for a hosting company exclusively running RHEL, so I'm no stranger to the nix world - however, when it comes to doing anything more simple than running out-of-the-box configs, nix quickly turns to a clusterfuck of developers who make fragile software with dependencies that don't come standard on the recommended distro, and when you have problems, said developers shrug their shoulders.
In the Windows world, I download an installer and it works. In the Linux world, I download an installer and it proceeds to tell me why it won't work, and then in attempting to resolve the initial dependencies, several more pop up for some shitty little binary, and before you know it, your weekend is gone. Linux developers, IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to check dependencies ALL THE WAY THROUGH and ensure that your software will work when I run it. Just fucking do it, you tards. The rest of the civilized world is tired of going on an internet egg hunt for days/weeks at a time to try to make our environments match yours as closely as possible, so your stupid app will run correctly, and that's why you'll never be able to fully sell your OS to any business or individual who values being able to run software easily and hassle-free. Stop it with this incessant "Oh, yeah, if you happen to have some weird distro, like a standard Fedora Core install straight off the CD, you're going to need to visit these fifteen websites and figure out how to add their software to yum. I could've had my app do it for you, but I've been too busy trying to find an extremely rare version of GTK so I can install this IRC client so I can start explaining to Windows guys why Linux is superior."
If it weren't for Apache, I think most of the world wouldn't even be using Linux. The only reason it's "more secure" is because it's less of a target, but when it really comes down to it, many Linux programs are plenty vulnerable.
I too was having
I too was having difficulties installing Packetfence.. I can tell you that ALL of your troubles were caused by the Perl modules that PF needs. I'm also forced to chime in on your Linux is less secure by obscurity idea. In some aspects that maybe true when speaking about "stack smashing" and other types of exploits, but speaking from experience there is always going to be those no matter what OS you use. Linux as well as all the other Unix/BSD type POSIX OS's are more secure by design and can be make increasingly secure by an avid and knowledgeable admin who's not afraid to get his hands dirty. All I have to say is OpenBSD .. When you do checks for exploits and use older more stable based kernels and programs your less likely to get hacked. Also most popular Linux Distro's are in such a rush , they have these 6 month release dates and they rush out a new release without fully testing it *cough Ubuntu* SO as for me and my house I will continue to use CentOS and FreeBSD for servers and Arch Linux and Vector Linux for Desktops.
Package management. Problem
Package management. Problem solved.
I only face a dependency issue in an EXTREMELY limited case and it's usually pretty easy to resolve for an experienced user. And the cases in which I run into dependency problems are when I am trying to use a development build or something that inexperienced users probably aren't doing anyway.
Some Linux distributions
Some Linux distributions (Slackware) are extremely consistent, well documented and provide more than enough information about needed dependencies. As an example see slackbuilds.org
"In the Windows world, I download an installer and it works. "
That's true, but Windows is a desktop OS, while Linux is not originally designed to be a desktop OS. Linux is mainly used by developers and Internet security experts, as it is extremely versatile, stable, secure, free and flexible. It requires more reading and studying than Windows, but is in no way inferior.
I personally use a Linux gateway, which runs a secure mail server, a Firewall, an IPS, an anti-virus system, an anti-spam filter, a VPN server, a proxy server and an SSH server. This linux gateway protects my windows PC from intruders, malware and other sites which take advantage of vulnerabilities in windows. It is also free, can you believe that? I use my windows PC behind this Linux gateway to run games for which there is no Linux installer.
"The only reason it's "more secure" is because it's less of a target" No true. My Linux server receives (and successfully blocks, logs and alerts) hundreds of attacks. It even gets boring after a while. But again, this requires a lot of study, patience and reading.