Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on July 25, 2005 10:40 AM
Here's two things about my situation:
1. I manage multiple distros, with inconsistent package managers.
2. Some of my favourite software is only available from source.
Since compiling from source is pretty much as easy as installing from a package manager, I would say the onus is on you to explain why I SHOULD use a package manager.
Consider:
1. The source is almost always available, packages are not; 2. The source will work cross-distro; 3. It is much cheaper for me to download one source package than multiple binary packages (think dial-up modem); 4. For me, the reason I came to Open Source - was for the source! 5. If you can be bothered looking, the source often includes extra bits of information, readme's, extra resources and so on.
You also seem to be putting some sort of value judgement on out-of-date software. I have tested a dozen or more distros, yet the one I use for my personal pleasure is the one I started with 5 years ago. Why should I stop using a distro that I know well, and which works, just because you seem to be hung up on 'flavour of the month', or seem to think I should be concerned with security on a machine with no network connections.
Look at it this way: If nearly every distro includes gcc and make, what makes your situation so special that you should not compile from source?
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:(Was:) Not all standard comment is bad
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 25, 2005 10:40 AM1. I manage multiple distros, with inconsistent package managers.
2. Some of my favourite software is only available from source.
Since compiling from source is pretty much as easy as installing from a package manager, I would say the onus is on you to explain why I SHOULD use a package manager.
Consider:
1. The source is almost always available, packages are not;
2. The source will work cross-distro;
3. It is much cheaper for me to download one source package than multiple binary packages (think dial-up modem);
4. For me, the reason I came to Open Source - was for the source!
5. If you can be bothered looking, the source often includes extra bits of information, readme's, extra resources and so on.
You also seem to be putting some sort of value judgement on out-of-date software. I have tested a dozen or more distros, yet the one I use for my personal pleasure is the one I started with 5 years ago. Why should I stop using a distro that I know well, and which works, just because you seem to be hung up on 'flavour of the month', or seem to think I should be concerned with security on a machine with no network connections.
Look at it this way: If nearly every distro includes gcc and make, what makes your situation so special that you should not compile from source?
Does that help?
#