Ok quick little comaparison the other day I installed windows at about 250 mbs all works fine, installing progs not worries.

I also installed MD Linux on a 900 mb partion at an install size of 700mb's.

Well I was looking for an email prog that I can use one common mailbox between windows and Linux and was told to have a look at a prog called Pronto. I downloaded the rpm and didnt work so I downloaded the install file and downloaded and installed that way. Didn't work. It was pointed out to me that I am missing modules so I went to Cpan and downloaded the 10 odd modules I needed to get it going.

I started to install these modules and promply picked up that I also needed perl. I downloaded and tried to install it but I also needed the gcc and glib or so, I did them and hence managed to get perl in. Then came the minor perl modules, managed to install a few but the rest all need some other modules to make them work. Where does it end?

perl Makefile.PL.........make.......make test.....make install. come on programmers all want to do is have a look and see if a program is viable. And I used to think windows was dependant bloatware using VB

To run a program of 650kb's I need about 30mb's of excess baggage. Yep I know windows has its baggage but at least I don't have to dowonload the net and compile it

Why the complexity? I installed windows at 250mbs and it does the job, I installed Linux at 700mbs and i can't even look a program without spending hours downloading and compiling the meaning of life yet alone checking for dependancy's and then hope that nothing gets broken, if so what broke it.

Yes Linux is a fully configurable system but come on things can be simplified whilst giving the same capabilities. Would you go out house hunting if you had to build every house that you wanted to look at? (yep crapy analogy)

I can't help but to think that something has drastically gone wrong with linux. I mean if you where to compare say windows95 and linux of today as being desktop type enviroments and technology was still at 486 / p1oo type levels with 500 mb hard drives, Linux couldn't do it, it needs to many bits an pieces just to make it work yet alone being user friendly. (just incase yes I know you can fit linux into a floppy

Is the linux hype hidding the truth about it being so bloated with dependancy's, do I need to do and waste 1+ Gb on a more complete install just to look at other software? or did I miss something?

Please only constructive critizism for I wish to learn and be informed.

Actually, you sound like too picky a user for Linux. You should stay with windows and have Uncle Bill provide all your programs for you whether they work or not, whether they are exploitable by crackers or not etc.. I have Redhat Linux 7.1 (all 5 disks) downloaded from their site. Now, why 5 disks? Not because I needed them, but because there are so many diverse ways to deploy Linux and I may want the programs. And instead of spending all my time downloading what I needed, I got it all in one spot at one time in .rpm format so that I could make what I needed and when. My first two boxes are straight installs from the default install image, they are my desktops, I have e-mail using fetchmail and Mutt. I have Netscape, Samba, PGSQL, Gnome, Enlightenment and a myriad of wordprocessor/productivity apps, and I have The GIMP. Why would I want to read my mail on a windows box and then on a Linux box? Mail doesn't care what OS you're using. Just tell your mail client where the server is provide some security information and your in. So, if you're looking for a place to whine try www.winehq.com. But if your done WhINing go to www.freshmeat.net for all your software needs, want it in RPM format go to www.rpmfind.net. Now that's all the help you'll get from me. BTW I also have a Linux distro on one single floppy (I use it to debug my friends WINDOW$) boxes when they bluescreen. Can't put Window$ on a single floppy and make it work can you? No.

Actually, you sound like too picky a user for Linux. Why because I was making an observation from recent events.

















You should stay with windows and have Uncle Bill provide all your programs for you whether they work or not, And I suppose all linux programs work perfectly? Wasn't RH7 that shipped out with over 1000 bugs forcing some to revert back to 6.2?
So in linux the word patch refers to a pirates idea of looking cool?















whether they are exploitable by crackers or not etc. So your telling me that no Linux box has ever been cracked, no vulrnabilities have ever been found or exploited? I suppose things like firewalls are only a MS thing. The greatest assistance MS has is from you, you seek the glory in hacking them, which exposes there weaknesess and hence makes them stronger. How manyweaknesess exist in linux that have yet to be exposed. But hey there is no glory in hacking linux.













I have Redhat Linux 7.1 (all 5 disks) downloaded from their site. Now, why 5 disks? Not because I needed them, but because there are so many diverse ways to deploy Linux and I may want the programs. And instead of spending all my time downloading what I needed, I got it all in one spot at one time in .rpm format so that I could make what I needed and when. I'm happy for you not all have that luxury.











My first two boxes are straight installs from the default install image, they are my desktops, I have e-mail using fetchmail and Mutt. I have Netscape, Samba, PGSQL, Gnome, Enlightenment and a myriad of wordprocessor/productivity apps, and I have The GIMP. Why would I want to read my mail on a windows box and then on a Linux box? Mail doesn't care what OS you're using As you said the diversity of linux, we all have different requiremnts and resources. Sorry but we all can't be like you, some of just have to live in less than perfect world.





So, if you're looking for a place to whine try www.winehq.com. But if your done WhINing go to www.freshmeat.net for all your software needs, want it in RPM format go to www.rpmfind.net. Now that's all the help you'll get from me. If you had read the last line of my original post you would have relized that what you call help is still to pre pubecent to bother with. I don't even know why I'm bothering to defend my observation to you. It just seems that you can't handle comments made in an observation and honestly hope that you have nothing to do with the developement of linux. As for freshmeat and rmpfind yes I did try them originally thanks for offering.



BTW I also have a Linux distro on one single floppy (I use it to debug my friends WINDOW$) boxes when they bluescreen. Can't put Window$ on a single floppy and make it work can you? No. Aghh the good old BSOD. Yep Linux never crashes, granted it doesn't always take the whole system with it but I guess in Linux Kernel panick is just a some programmers idea of a joke and debbugging tools are another MS thing. They all have their flaws, and sorry to throw rocks at your glass house but linux ain't perfect sunshine. And thats an observation and not in any form or way in defence of the other OS's.

Thanks for your comments but I think i'll wait for an adult to come by.

*sigh*...

ok... before the moderator comes in and shuts this thread down, let's try to keep the flame-baiting to a minimum.

paul12, if you've got any questions that aren't along the lines of "what's the meaning of it all?", post 'em, and we'll answer 'em as best we can.

but, as for your question, "why are linux things so dependant and complex" - for the dependancies, the answer is simply : portability. programs in linux are written to be platform-independant. that way, a program written on a Mac would be able to work on an Alpha or Sun Microsystems platform. but, in order to do this, the program has to rely on subsystems and libraries that are written for each machine. it's a matter of architecture - in order to be able to run a package on your machine, you have to have the basic building blocks of that package, ie, the tools that a developer chooses to use. perl is a very common, if not THE most common scripting language.

in terms of complexity, linux is far simpler than MS, which is what makes it more stable. (linux has less than 1% the downtime of MS) it just looks more complex because you can see the compiler output as it's going by. Visual Basic does the same thing, even more complex, but it hides the output. that way, it LOOKS simpler.
it's like one of those transparent Mac monitors... just because you can see the innards doesn't make it more complex than a regular monitor.

try to keep it simple.

Thanks isagera, atleast now I know why I have to compile everything.

I think I'll leave this thread as is, for I didn't know some could be so sensitive .


Thanks again.

Architecture. My word for the day

We're not that harsh are we? (moderators thats is) Nothing wrong with people airing their opinions, so long as they don't get too rude, although unhelpful answers do seem like a waste or bandwidth for the forum Some nice answers to the original post by the way. I was gonna add some myself but I think you've pretty much said it!

cheers

Jamie...

nah... i was just trying to stop any flaming before it happened, like with that fade2black guy a coupla days ago. i haven't had any problems yet... except for my very first post here where i accidentally cross-posted