On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 23:19:41 +0100, clipka wrote:

>> You asked questions after looking for the answers (I remember - I was
>> one of the ones who tried to help you).
> 
> And still I was frustrated about the answers.
> 
> Aside from that, sticking to the principle of good faith, I see no hint
> in his messages that he didn't do the same before.

Perhaps I read into it something that wasn't there - I've had a couple of 
discussions in the past couple of days where the person asking the 
questions clearly and unambiguously essentially said "I'm too lazy to do 
my own work, do it for me."

Perhaps I projected that onto Joerg - and if I did that, Joerg, I 
apologise. :)

>> Joerg is asking us to read the instructions for him.  Which version of
>> boost is in the documentation in the source package he downloaded.  Had
>> he read the documentation that is included with the sources, he
>> wouldn't have had to ask.
> 
> Read his posting again:
> 
> "I soon realized that I would have to install some ominous "boost"
> packages. But as nobody could tell me exactly which of these packages I
> would have to install, I simply tried apt-get install boost* - and,
> promptly, blew my system completely as the system partition ran full."
> 
> He's not asking about /versions/ here - he's asking about /packages/. I
> suspect that his Linux distribution doesn't simply offer "boost" and
> "boost_dev" for installation, but rather "boost_date_time",
> "boost_filesystem", "boost_graph", "boost_graph_parallel",
> "boost_iostreams", "boost_math", "boost_mpi", "boost_program_options",
> "boost_python", "boost_random", "boost_regex", "boost_serialization",
> "boost_signals", "boost_system", "boost_test", "boost_thread",
> "boost_wave" and - of course - "boost_dev". Nowhere in "install.txt" do
> I see mention which of these are needed.

That's a fair point.  My bad.

>> He then went on to ask for someone to write him a tutorial on how to
>> compile code on Linux, stating "Google isn't my friend".  But a Google
>> search on the keywords I suggested turns up a good tutorial as the
>> first hit.
> 
> I don't see him asking for someone to /write/ one. I see him asking
> where to /find/ one.

Fair enough, but a Google search does in fact turn up a reasonable 
tutorial on compiling on Linux.

One does have to be willing to use the tools available instead of just 
declaring "I won't use Google" (which is the way I read his "Google is 
not my friend" comment).

> As for the quality of the tutorial, it mentions not much besides what's
> in the POV-Ray install.txt already. No hint about what an "#include
> path" is, nor any hint what to do if "./compile" and/or "make install"
> don't run successfully.

I used that first link as an example - of course one might have to dig a 
bit further to learn about include paths.

> So he may have tried a number of needles on the problem already, finding
> that they didn't help, and now resorts to asking whether someone more
> familiar with needles might be willing to help him dig out that nasty
> thing.

Fair enough.  However, it is generally considered good form to say "I've 
tried x, y, and z" so people don't suggest you do things you've already 
tried.  Suggesting things that have already been tried wastes everyone's 
time.

>> Two entirely different situations.
> 
>  From what I see it may well be exactly the same. Including similar
> responses. Except that Yadgar's reaction to the whole thing seems to be
> more like "I'm going to shoot myself" while my reaction was more like
> "I'm going to shoot everyone in the room".

Well, like I said, I remember your situation as being quite different, 
but it's very possible (I might even say 'likely') that I'm projecting 
another situation onto his situation.

If that's the case, Yagdar, I *do* apologise.  It was not my intention to 
be short-tempered with you or to drive you away from trying to build it 
yourself.

Jim

Post a reply to this message