michaelg at seadreamer.net
Tue Feb 26 05:57:10 UTC 2008
Ed Greshko wrote:
> Michael wrote:
>> steve wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>> | Conor Schaefer wrote:
>> |> I think a lot of people fail to realize the remarkable amount of
>> |> resources poured into the average binary install file... for instance,
>> |> ever use subversion to compile something from source? You would be
>> |> astounded at the amount of space you need to allot, just to create a
>> |> several megabyte large install file.
>> |> Programming is a beautiful, beautiful thing.
>> | I agree, but, that install file should be what the customer gets. Why
>> | do I need to have several compilers and create my own install file every
>> | time i want a different program or just an update to one i already
>> | have.
>> compiling is done on a per machine basis, and is tailored for your cpu,
>> memory, video, etc for optimum speed. with windows you get what they
>> give you, you like it or not, you have no choice. linux is choice, open
>> source. windows is not.
>> Windows does some things right and thats one of them.
>> this is what is exactly WRONG with windows. dumbed down to run on every
>> machine at the same speed.
>> I have been around PCs since DOS 2.0, but I am not a programmer, why
>> should I
>> | need to be to work with Linux?
>> you dont need to be. if you want pre compiled packages your free to use
>> what is available from the repositories. if the program isnt available
>> from the repositories then you need to download the source and issue 3
>> simple commands, configure, make, make install. whats so difficult with
>> | IMHO and YMMV and all that. :-)
>> | Mike
>> What was so difficult with that is that I had to download and install
>> multiple packages to accomplish those three simple commands. I probably
>> had to install over 25 megabytes of ancillary programs to do those three
>> simple commands. That extra software is now resident in my system
>> using up my disk space. Not all software is available in the repos.
>> All Window software comes with an installer. My point with Windows is
>> that it is easier to install software. Whether on not it is custom
>> fitted to my system is immaterial to me. I want results, I am more
>> interested in the destination than the journey so to speak. I use Linux
>> for a variety of reasons but I am not blind to its faults or to Windows
>> pluses for that matter. You have a different philosophy when it comes
>> to using the software and that's fine. I don't want to get into Windows
>> vs. Linux, it's been done to death. I do want to thank everyone for
>> helping me with getting those three simple commands to work, I
>> appreciate it.
> Silly question....but you wanted to "compile" something and not simply
> "install" something.
> When was the last time you did a compile on Windows? Do you think doing a
> "compile" on Windows is any less "expensive"?
No, I wanted to install something. I was forced to compile it to
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ubuntu-users