 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 13:35:54 -0500, Warp wrote:
> "In Linux when you want to configure anything you have to edit obscure
> files in obscure system directories using a text editor."
[...]
> nowadays almost exclusive to Slackware (and a few less known distros
> based on it or on the same principle).
Yes. It also was common in RedHat when I was using it (5.2 - 9, pre-
Fedora). The historical context is more important - Andy points this
out, actually, by repeating many statements that used to be correct about
Linux in general 10-15 years ago but are seldom correct today for the
vast majority of distributions.
> "When you want to install new software, you have to always compile it
> from sources."
I would say that this latter comes from a combination of very early Slack
and LFS rather than Gentoo. Gentoo is the most popular distro that uses
that as a package management system today, but the history of "build from
source" goes back farther than Gentoo.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> PS. What the hell is it with Linux and "commands" that fill three
> screenfulls of a terminal console?! What's that about?
Run make with -s next time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:14:17 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> PS. What the hell is it with Linux and "commands" that fill three
> screenfulls of a terminal console?! What's that about?
If there's a problem, you can look back and see what the error was and
fix it.
I suppose it's the theory that too much information is better than too
little.
BTW, only three screens full of info? That's a pretty small program,
relatively speaking. Compiling Rockbox for my iPod fills more than that
easily. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> As I recall, the "minimal text mode" install gave you the barest minimum
>> to have a working system. It seems now there's a "text mode server"
>> option, but it still installs a whole crapload of stuff. I was trying to
>> set up a VM and I wanted the install that would take the least amount of
>> time. It didn't work too well...
>
> That's what individual package selection is for. I tend to start with
> the text mode server and remove the stuff I don't need.
My plan was to start with the minimal text install and *add* the stuff I
needed. Except it isn't "minimal" any more - much to my irritation.
There's probably some way to select exactly what packages you want
before you boot the intall disk, but I haven't figured that out yet.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> PS. What the hell is it with Linux and "commands" that fill three
>> screenfulls of a terminal console?! What's that about?
>
> If there's a problem, you can look back and see what the error was and
> fix it.
>
> I suppose it's the theory that too much information is better than too
> little.
No, I mean... why would you need commands that freaking long in the
first place??
> BTW, only three screens full of info? That's a pretty small program,
> relatively speaking. Compiling Rockbox for my iPod fills more than that
> easily. :-)
Well, when you're in text-mode, it's not easy to measure how many
screenfulls are scrolling past faster than the refresh rate of your
monitor. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> "When you want to install new software, you have to always compile it
>> from sources."
>
> I would say that this latter comes from a combination of very early Slack
> and LFS rather than Gentoo. Gentoo is the most popular distro that uses
> that as a package management system today, but the history of "build from
> source" goes back farther than Gentoo.
Again, this is The Unix Way(tm). That's why every Unix always comes with
a C compiler (not to mention autoconf). It's because every Unix is
slightly different, so while you can usually write a program that works
on every Unix, you're going to have to recompile it for each one...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Again, this is The Unix Way(tm). That's why every Unix always comes with
> a C compiler (not to mention autoconf).
Actually, as far as I remember, a default OpenSUSE installation does not
install gcc (you have to specify it during installation if you want it, or
install it later). The same is probably true for many other "user-friendly"
distros.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Again, this is The Unix Way(tm). That's why every Unix always comes with
>> a C compiler (not to mention autoconf).
>
> Actually, as far as I remember, a default OpenSUSE installation does not
> install gcc (you have to specify it during installation if you want it, or
> install it later). The same is probably true for many other "user-friendly"
> distros.
Sure. Today most things arrive as binary packages, and there's really
not much need for a compiler unless you happen to be a developer yourself.
Even so, the whole Unix mentallity seems a lot more set-up for this kind
of thing. On Windows, there isn't even a standard place for header files
to live...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Even so, the whole Unix mentallity seems a lot more set-up for this kind
> of thing. On Windows, there isn't even a standard place for header files
> to live...
That's because Windows doesn't assume you'll only have one compiler. :-)
It's really quite a recent thing (approximately since Red Hat) that UNIX
software came as executable binaries.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Even so, the whole Unix mentallity seems a lot more set-up for this
>> kind of thing. On Windows, there isn't even a standard place for
>> header files to live...
>
> That's because Windows doesn't assume you'll only have one compiler. :-)
>
> It's really quite a recent thing (approximately since Red Hat) that UNIX
> software came as executable binaries.
Then again, how many machine architectures does Unix target?
How many machine architectures does Windows target?
I rest my case.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
