Binary incompatibility of Linux distributions

[Derek Broughton]

Jerry Houston wrote:

> On Thursday 21 May 2009 06:13:25 am Derek Broughton wrote:
>> Jerry Houston wrote:
>> > Actually, most applications for Windows don't _need_ to be compiled
>> > from
>> > sources.  They're distributed (even open source freeware) as Microsoft
>> > Installer databases (.MSI files) that are installed on nearly any
>> > Windows system without any such problems.
>>
>> Silly statement.  Of course "most" applications for Ubuntu don't need to
>> be
>> compiled from source either.  However, MSI installers need to be self-
>> contained.  Too bad if they happen to have an external dependency
> 
> Total BS.  I build MSI installers frequently (I created two new ones at
> work
> today), and they include any dependencies that are required.  It's part of
> the architecture.

Which part of "need to be self-contained" did you just disprove?  They 
include any dependencies that _you_ specify, but I have frequently installed 
MSIs that didn't have all the dependencies covered.  Debian packages, otoh, 
are _not_ self-contained.  They'll still suffer if you don't tell the 
package system what the dependencies are, but you don't have to include the 
code in the package.
> 
> On the other hand, I have yet to get RealVNC installed on my Ubuntu
> machines here at home, because although I can un-gzip a binary package to
> my machine, I can't provide the c6-something-so3.something "common
> library" that it
> requires.  If it were a required DLL for a Windows system, it would be
> included in the MSI.

Once again, you're comparing apples to oranges.  RealVNC is apparently NOT 
packaged as an Ubuntu app.  Choose any of the VNC viewers or servers that 
_are_ though, and it's just "sudo aptitude install ..." (or select from your 
favourite package tool).
-- 
derek