Can't compile

[Ed Greshko]

Michael wrote:
> 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
>>> that?
>>>
>>> |
>>> | 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 
> accomplish that.

Right...since you couldn't find a pre-compiled binary for your use.  So, 
there is no reason to complain about having to install an environment needed 
to compile it.  At least you could do it.  I venture to say that if you 
needed something for windows that you found you had to compile yourself 
you'd be in much the same situation.

I may have missed it, but did you first ask the list if anyone knew of a 
package containing what you need so you didn't have to compile?