Binary incompatibility of Linux distributions

[Chan Chung Hang Christopher]

Derek Broughton wrote:
> 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.
>   
No, he said: "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."

and 'I' asked him whether he thinks 
'tar zxf tarball.tgz, cd tarball, ./configure, make,
make install'
is 'so easy'.


>> 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 
>   
Once one learns how to navigate on the console and blah, blah.

> 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.
>   
Obviously. Hence my agreement with part of Rashkae's post.

>> 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".
>
>   
Sorry, never was a Debian guy. Just recently moved to Ubuntu. Redhat X, 
Caldera OpenLinux 2.2 all did not come with gcc installed by default in 
the server or desktop installation choices and I doubt it was only just 
because it was not necessary. It is not as if you do not get unnecessary 
packages with the server or desktop choices.
>> 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.
>   

Maybe for Ubuntu. Perhaps you have a link for that reasoning :-D. Say, 
did you have a holiday lately?