Binary incompatibility of Linux distributions

[Christopher Chan]

Derek Broughton wrote:
> 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.
>   
Rashkae did. I just snipped off a bit too much and you probably did not 
see any paragraph starting with 'The difference here is...' and also the 
attribution is gone so it just made it all the more harder. The windows 
part there is just to add perspective. When he says 'so easy, relatively 
speaking', I am sure he left out the Windows user.
>   
>> 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.
>   

I am assuming that Rashkae was thinking of the whole ./configure; make; 
make install thing. Unless he has another 'easy to install from source' 
method that I have not thought of.


Compilers not being installed by default hardly has anything to do with 
'users didn't want to compile'. Compilers are only included if the 
choice during installation was for a developer's install. Both server 
and user install options do not include compilers. At least on RHEL that 
is the case but I doubt that the server edition of Ubuntu will include 
compilers by default. Availability of compilers on servers is a security 
risk.