Binary incompatibility of Linux distributions

[Derek Broughton]

Christopher Chan wrote:

(without attribution)
> 
>>   The difference here is that Linux actually makes installing
>> from source so easy, relatively speaking, it becomes a visible option to
>> the masses, whereas in Windows word, that kind of procedure would be way
>> too daunting to even be considered among non-developers.
> 
> 
> Are you saying run: 'tar zxf tarball.tgz, cd tarball, ./configure, make,
> make install' is installing from source made so easy? Do you want to try
> getting a Windows user to do: Start->Run. cmd. tarball.exe?
> (notwithstanding the fact that double clicking on tarball.exe would have
> been much easier)

Er, nobody said it _was_ easy - just possible.  Now that you've got the 
Windows user to run "tarball.exe" what on earth is he going to do with it?  
It's a source tarball, for heaven's sake.

If the tarball was made correctly _and_ the user has all the prereqs 
(vitally important, and why we needed apt in the first place) the Linux user 
has a working app.  The Windows user has another prompt...
> 
> Please just stick with your previous line of thinking and don't try to
> push the envelope too much. You assume that people have no problems
> navigating a console but they cannot if they know next to nothing about
> the directory layout of their operating system.

Again, nobody has said that.  We've just insisted that if the software is 
packaged for Ubuntu, it's as easy as installing on Windows (at least) and if 
it isn't, it is at least possible to compile.  In fact, Ubuntu _explicitly_ 
makes that harder than necessary by being one of the few distros that 
doesn't install compilers by default - and that was an intentional choice 
because they knew users didn't want to compile.
-- 
derek