Binary incompatibility of Linux distributions

[Derek Broughton]

Christopher Chan wrote:

> 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...' 

No, he said it was just a matter of "./configure; make; make install" - 
which is not the same thing as saying it's easy enough for any old user.
> 
> 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.

Which _isn't_ that hard.  Even for somebody who's never done it before.  It 
just needs a small bit of education.  Even so, it's not what anybody is 
recommending - we have a great binary packaging system, and it's better and 
easier than _Windows'_ binary packaging system.
> 
> Compilers not being installed by default hardly has anything to do with
> 'users didn't want to compile'.

Er, yes, that's _exactly_ why they weren't included.  Debian always included 
the components of "build-essential".  Ubuntu explicitly chose to not include 
it because it was intended as an "end-user" distro, and "would not be needed 
by most users".

> Availability of compilers on servers is a security risk.

But was not, to my recollection, the reasoning used for removing it from the 
basic installation.
-- 
derek