 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Open source is great! You can just modify the thing yourself if it
doesn't work right.
...er, yeah. Nice in theory. Not so great in practice. ;-) Between
trying to get Linux to work properly, fiddling with CLI tools, and
trying to get revision control to play nicely, not to mention the fun
and games of communicating with other humans, it's... quite tricky.
Still, if I ever manage to get this to work, I guess it'll look nice on
my CV. :-}
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 15:20:33 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> ...er, yeah. Nice in theory. Not so great in practice. ;-) Between
> trying to get Linux to work properly, fiddling with CLI tools, and
> trying to get revision control to play nicely, not to mention the fun
> and games of communicating with other humans, it's... quite tricky.
So what problems are you having, which distro, and where are you asking?
Using openSUSE, there's nothing I had to do to "get Linux to work
properly", 11.0 basically just worked for me.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> ...er, yeah. Nice in theory. Not so great in practice. ;-) Between
>> trying to get Linux to work properly, fiddling with CLI tools, and
>> trying to get revision control to play nicely, not to mention the fun
>> and games of communicating with other humans, it's... quite tricky.
>
> So what problems are you having, which distro, and where are you asking?
>
> Using openSUSE, there's nothing I had to do to "get Linux to work
> properly", 11.0 basically just worked for me.
I've got it all straightened out *now*. ;-)
My problem wasn't actually "getting Linux to work", but rather "getting
Linux to do what I want". But in my experience, Linux package managers
are often very awkward to use. You know - the whole "I want to install
this one package, and no I don't want to also upgrade 3,657 other
packages to a different version".
Weirdly, this kind of thing never seems to happen on Windows. I guess
because "Windows" is one monolithic block of software, whereas "Linux"
is several billion tiny pieces, all of which are in a sense optional.
After that, I had all the fun of trying to work out how to operate
makefiles, where the stuff I want to alter actually is, how to operate
the version control system, and so forth. Plus getting hold of a human
over IRC seems to be like getting blood out of a stone. I guess
everybody is in a different timezone to me?
It's sorted now, it just took rather a lot of effort considering the
triviallity of what I actually set out to do. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Weirdly, this kind of thing never seems to happen on Windows. I guess
> because "Windows" is one monolithic block of software, whereas "Linux"
> is several billion tiny pieces, all of which are in a sense optional.
It's more like people actively avoid using what doesn't come with Windows,
or they buy libraries for support that allow redistribution. When's the last
time you bought a Windows program that had documentation in PDFs but didn't
have adobe reader on the CD, or a game that didn't have a DirectX install
directory on it, or etc?
When there are big enough packages that people *do* want to rely on them
(say, .NET runtimes), you wind up installing prerequisites.
> over IRC seems to be like getting blood out of a stone. I guess
> everybody is in a different timezone to me?
Or, maybe, you're not paying them so they don't care? :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:23:59 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> ...er, yeah. Nice in theory. Not so great in practice. ;-) Between
>>> trying to get Linux to work properly, fiddling with CLI tools, and
>>> trying to get revision control to play nicely, not to mention the fun
>>> and games of communicating with other humans, it's... quite tricky.
>>
>> So what problems are you having, which distro, and where are you
>> asking?
>>
>> Using openSUSE, there's nothing I had to do to "get Linux to work
>> properly", 11.0 basically just worked for me.
>
> I've got it all straightened out *now*. ;-)
>
> My problem wasn't actually "getting Linux to work", but rather "getting
> Linux to do what I want". But in my experience, Linux package managers
> are often very awkward to use. You know - the whole "I want to install
> this one package, and no I don't want to also upgrade 3,657 other
> packages to a different version".
openSUSE's package management seems to do pretty well with this. If I
want to install Virtualbox OSE, I just run "yast2 -i" (for a graphical
way to do this) or "zypper in virtualbox-ose" in a terminal window.
The package manager figures out what's needed, resolves all dependencies,
and installs the necessary packages.
> Weirdly, this kind of thing never seems to happen on Windows. I guess
> because "Windows" is one monolithic block of software, whereas "Linux"
> is several billion tiny pieces, all of which are in a sense optional.
While not as common as it used to be, dll hell still (to what I hear, not
being a Windows user) happens. But much of the time packages include the
version of the DLLs they need and use them rather than the installed
system libraries.
> After that, I had all the fun of trying to work out how to operate
> makefiles, where the stuff I want to alter actually is, how to operate
> the version control system, and so forth. Plus getting hold of a human
> over IRC seems to be like getting blood out of a stone. I guess
> everybody is in a different timezone to me?
Try online forums instead - you're already familiar with them. Ubuntu
and openSUSE have very vibrant online communities.
I never use IRC to ask for help - just never needed that sort of
immediacy.
> It's sorted now, it just took rather a lot of effort considering the
> triviallity of what I actually set out to do. ;-)
Which was what, out of curiosity?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I've got it all straightened out *now*. ;-)
>>
>> My problem wasn't actually "getting Linux to work", but rather "getting
>> Linux to do what I want". But in my experience, Linux package managers
>> are often very awkward to use. You know - the whole "I want to install
>> this one package, and no I don't want to also upgrade 3,657 other
>> packages to a different version".
>
> openSUSE's package management seems to do pretty well with this. If I
> want to install Virtualbox OSE, I just run "yast2 -i" (for a graphical
> way to do this) or "zypper in virtualbox-ose" in a terminal window.
>
> The package manager figures out what's needed, resolves all dependencies,
> and installs the necessary packages.
Yeah. It's great when it works like that. But sometimes it decides that
it wants to install version X of the thing you asked for, which depends
on a completely different version of something critical - GCC, the Linux
kernel, libc, whatever. Obviously, replace that and you have to replace
half the software on your HD. :-}
> While not as common as it used to be, dll hell still (to what I hear, not
> being a Windows user) happens. But much of the time packages include the
> version of the DLLs they need and use them rather than the installed
> system libraries.
This, of course, completely defies the entire purpose of shared
libraries! :-D
>> Plus getting hold of a human
>> over IRC seems to be like getting blood out of a stone. I guess
>> everybody is in a different timezone to me?
>
> Try online forums instead - you're already familiar with them. Ubuntu
> and openSUSE have very vibrant online communities.
>
> I never use IRC to ask for help - just never needed that sort of
> immediacy.
No - this was for help with the open-source project I'm trying to
contribute to, not for Linux. ;-)
>> It's sorted now, it just took rather a lot of effort considering the
>> triviallity of what I actually set out to do. ;-)
>
> Which was what, out of curiosity?
I added a section to the user manual. (Which is written in something
called "docbook", by the way.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 20:03:53 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> I've got it all straightened out *now*. ;-)
>>>
>>> My problem wasn't actually "getting Linux to work", but rather
>>> "getting Linux to do what I want". But in my experience, Linux package
>>> managers are often very awkward to use. You know - the whole "I want
>>> to install this one package, and no I don't want to also upgrade 3,657
>>> other packages to a different version".
>>
>> openSUSE's package management seems to do pretty well with this. If I
>> want to install Virtualbox OSE, I just run "yast2 -i" (for a graphical
>> way to do this) or "zypper in virtualbox-ose" in a terminal window.
>>
>> The package manager figures out what's needed, resolves all
>> dependencies, and installs the necessary packages.
>
> Yeah. It's great when it works like that. But sometimes it decides that
> it wants to install version X of the thing you asked for, which depends
> on a completely different version of something critical - GCC, the Linux
> kernel, libc, whatever. Obviously, replace that and you have to replace
> half the software on your HD. :-}
Funny, I don't run into that problem - and generally haven't in the
nearly 15 years I've been running Linux.
You *can* run into this if you use nonstandard repos regularly, but I
don't. What's in a repo like the openSUSE repos is tested so that these
types of conflicts don't occur.
Case in point:
--- snip ---
[jhenderson@krikkit ~]$ sudo zypper in virtualbox-ose
Downloading repository 'Packman Repository' metadata [done]
Building repository 'Packman Repository' cache [done]
Reading installed packages...
The following NEW packages are going to be installed:
virtualbox-ose virtualbox-ose-kmp-default libXerces-c-28 libXalan-c-110
Overall download size: 6.2 M. After the operation, additional 26.2 M will
be used.
Continue? [YES/no]:
Downloading package virtualbox-ose-kmp-
default-1.5.6_2.6.25.5_1.1-33.1.x86_64 (1/4), 71.0 K (1.7 M unpacked)
Downloading: virtualbox-ose-kmp-
default-1.5.6_2.6.25.5_1.1-33.1.x86_64.rpm [done]
Installing: virtualbox-ose-kmp-default-1.5.6_2.6.25.5_1.1-33.1 [done]
Downloading package libXerces-c-28-2.8.0-10.1.x86_64 (2/4), 1.0 M (4.5 M
unpacked)
Downloading: libXerces-c-28-2.8.0-10.1.x86_64.rpm [done (200.7 K/s)]
Installing: libXerces-c-28-2.8.0-10.1 [done]
Downloading package libXalan-c-110-1.10-116.1.x86_64 (3/4), 862.0 K (4.4
M unpacked)
Downloading: libXalan-c-110-1.10-116.1.x86_64.rpm [done (91.6 K/s)]
Installing: libXalan-c-110-1.10-116.1 [done]
Downloading package virtualbox-ose-1.5.6-33.2.x86_64 (4/4), 4.2 M (15.6 M
unpacked)
Downloading: virtualbox-ose-1.5.6-33.2.x86_64.rpm [done (12.9 K/s)]
Installing: virtualbox-ose-1.5.6-33.2 [done]
--- snip ---
And just to make the point:
--- snip ---
[jhenderson@krikkit ~]$ rpm -ql virtualbox-ose | grep bin
/usr/bin/VBoxAddIF
/usr/bin/VBoxDeleteIF
/usr/bin/VBoxManage
/usr/bin/VBoxSDL
/usr/bin/VBoxSVC
/usr/bin/VBoxTunctl
/usr/bin/VirtualBox
/usr/bin/vditool
--- snip ---
Nope, these are not source files. These are *binary* files from the
package I installed.
>> While not as common as it used to be, dll hell still (to what I hear,
>> not being a Windows user) happens. But much of the time packages
>> include the version of the DLLs they need and use them rather than the
>> installed system libraries.
>
> This, of course, completely defies the entire purpose of shared
> libraries! :-D
Of course it does. But you were lamenting that "This never happens in
Windows" - this is a big part of the reason why.
>>> Plus getting hold of a human
>>> over IRC seems to be like getting blood out of a stone. I guess
>>> everybody is in a different timezone to me?
>>
>> Try online forums instead - you're already familiar with them. Ubuntu
>> and openSUSE have very vibrant online communities.
>>
>> I never use IRC to ask for help - just never needed that sort of
>> immediacy.
>
> No - this was for help with the open-source project I'm trying to
> contribute to, not for Linux. ;-)
And questions about VirtualBox (for example) are not out of place in an
appropriate Ubuntu or openSUSE community group.
>>> It's sorted now, it just took rather a lot of effort considering the
>>> triviallity of what I actually set out to do. ;-)
>>
>> Which was what, out of curiosity?
>
> I added a section to the user manual. (Which is written in something
> called "docbook", by the way.)
Very cool. Make sure you note that for your CV as well, things like that
can be useful.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Yeah. It's great when it works like that. But sometimes it decides that
>> it wants to install version X of the thing you asked for, which depends
>> on a completely different version of something critical - GCC, the Linux
>> kernel, libc, whatever. Obviously, replace that and you have to replace
>> half the software on your HD. :-}
>
> Funny, I don't run into that problem - and generally haven't in the
> nearly 15 years I've been running Linux.
>
> You *can* run into this if you use nonstandard repos regularly, but I
> don't. What's in a repo like the openSUSE repos is tested so that these
> types of conflicts don't occur.
I'm guessing KNOPPIX is configured to look for something silly. When I
tried to repeat the process with Ubuntu, it was fairly painless. I
remember Gentoo was always a PITA though... and Debian, for that matter.
(Debian was years ago tho.)
>> This, of course, completely defies the entire purpose of shared
>> libraries! :-D
>
> Of course it does. But you were lamenting that "This never happens in
> Windows" - this is a big part of the reason why.
I think maybe like Darren said, people on Windows try to minimise
dependencies. For example, I remember trying to set up an email program
and discovering that you can't install it unless you have sound enabled
in the Linux kernel. (WTF?) Because the package manager thinks foomail
depends on libsound, or something.
>>> I never use IRC to ask for help - just never needed that sort of
>>> immediacy.
>> No - this was for help with the open-source project I'm trying to
>> contribute to, not for Linux. ;-)
>
> And questions about VirtualBox (for example) are not out of place in an
> appropriate Ubuntu or openSUSE community group.
Even if you want to know which one would be the best choice to run
Ubuntu on your Windows box? ;-)
>> I added a section to the user manual. (Which is written in something
>> called "docbook", by the way.)
>
> Very cool. Make sure you note that for your CV as well, things like that
> can be useful.
And you think I embarked on this crazy mission, *why*?? 0;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Of course it does. But you were lamenting that "This never happens in
> Windows" - this is a big part of the reason why.
This really hasn't been a problem in about 8 years. DLL hell was caused by
people replacing working code in the OS directories with broken code. As
soon as you implemented the policy that you can't overwrite microsoft's code
with your own, the DLL hell bits went away.
> Very cool. Make sure you note that for your CV as well, things like that
> can be useful.
Yep. All that stuff is good.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
So OK, so it's saturday night... and I'm recompiling my compiler. o_O
Yah, that's right. First you install a binary version of the compiler.
Then you use that to compile a minimal version of the compiler from
source. Then you use *that* to compile a full version from source.
Not forgetting that since the compiler is written in the same
programming language, gotta compile all the standard libraries twice
too. Oh, and then on the final pass, the libraries get compiled into
several versions - "normal", "debug", "profiling", etc. And the user
manual needs to be converted from DocBook to HTML - but you don't need a
compiler for that, fortunately!
I should probably get out more...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
