Posted by: Administrator
on October 11, 2005 02:19 PM
Yes, Windows JUST WORKS!!! It's great, isn't it?
Linux has the no-spyware thing and that's why I love it but Windows just works.
But that's not QUITE why. It's not an issue of how the installation is performed. In fact, executables and such would actually not work in Linux, it'd be a major pain in the ass cause of the way the local security works.
Now, here's the reason why these things don't work:
1) Sometimes programs link to stupid things. They'll like to a library very very specific. "libGtk.so.2.156" or something, and the someone tries to install the poorly built RPM into a system which just has 'libgtk.so.2' and... ERROR! This is just carelessness on the part of the packager.
2) Very often, programs are built to require libraries which aren't standard... Or are they standard? Which standard?
People like to build for code reuse, Linux coders are very uppity about it. Which is nice, but when your program requires some obscure module and the user has to go manually install 5 dependencies, things are just plain obnoxious.
There is no excuse for that. I saw some asshole post something like "They like to keep it simple because they are stupid". No, they like to keep it simple because they're not dateless nerds who spend all their time learning what an 'RPM' is.
Basically what we need for both is a standard.
Not like the LSB, I just looked at LSB 2.0 and it doesn't define nearly enough. 3.0 might work but I haven't checked.
But everything needs to be defined into what makes up the "open source platform". This means X, Gtk, Qt, etc. inclusive.
Basically, all distros compliant to the standard would have the listed libraries and programs installed for compatability.
Programs compliant to the standard would link to thinks libraries ONLY - dependancies not in the standard ought to be statically linked.
Then you would have packages built for the "standard" and they would install on any distro compliant...
What do ya'll think of that? Comments, suggestions? Does LSB 3.0 already do this?
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Close!
Posted by: Administrator on October 11, 2005 02:19 PMLinux has the no-spyware thing and that's why I love it but Windows just works.
But that's not QUITE why. It's not an issue of how the installation is performed. In fact, executables and such would actually not work in Linux, it'd be a major pain in the ass cause of the way the local security works.
Now, here's the reason why these things don't work:
1) Sometimes programs link to stupid things. They'll like to a library very very specific. "libGtk.so.2.156" or something, and the someone tries to install the poorly built RPM into a system which just has 'libgtk.so.2' and... ERROR! This is just carelessness on the part of the packager.
2) Very often, programs are built to require libraries which aren't standard... Or are they standard? Which standard?
People like to build for code reuse, Linux coders are very uppity about it. Which is nice, but when your program requires some obscure module and the user has to go manually install 5 dependencies, things are just plain obnoxious.
There is no excuse for that. I saw some asshole post something like "They like to keep it simple because they are stupid". No, they like to keep it simple because they're not dateless nerds who spend all their time learning what an 'RPM' is.
Basically what we need for both is a standard.
Not like the LSB, I just looked at LSB 2.0 and it doesn't define nearly enough. 3.0 might work but I haven't checked.
But everything needs to be defined into what makes up the "open source platform". This means X, Gtk, Qt, etc. inclusive.
Basically, all distros compliant to the standard would have the listed libraries and programs installed for compatability.
Programs compliant to the standard would link to thinks libraries ONLY - dependancies not in the standard ought to be statically linked.
Then you would have packages built for the "standard" and they would install on any distro compliant...
What do ya'll think of that? Comments, suggestions? Does LSB 3.0 already do this?
#