clipka wrote:
> in addition. I don't think Linux package managers will automatically 
> un-install those if you uninstall that image processing package (it 
> would be ill-advised, as I might have installed other, 
> non-package-managed software that also relies on that library).

Non-package-managed software installed by hand is of no concern to the 
package manager.  It will uninstall swiftly.

I'm used to compile up-to-date libs required by some hand-compiled 
up-to-date software and install it to my ~/lib.  It's only annoying to 
do the usual "LD_LIBRARY_PATH=~/lib foo" everytime, but, hey!, that's 
why bash history is for. :)

> The only difference is that in Linux this is less opaque, and having 
> additional libraries installed may therefore not be regarded as "growing 
> of the system".

At least .NET is capable of having multiple versions of the same lib 
installed at the same time.  The .NET runtime resolves the right 
dependency for each program.  So, as .NET advances through desktop apps, 
be prepared to see lots and lots more junk like this! XD

> The reason is that by convention, Unix software doesn't automatically 
> install (or even ship with) libraries it needs, while Windows software 
> comes full with all components required, automatically installing them 
> if not already present. I guess this is one of the core benefits and 
> banes of Windows.

Don't forget huge statically compiled executables... easy to install, no 
DLL hell and lots of space lost...

Post a reply to this message