From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin C.Atkins To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] x10 Message-Id: <20040407124132.14a45fd3.martin@parvat.com> In-Reply-To: <9d7ff25cc1cb8a187ec626f4ccfe804d@collyer.net> References: <9d7ff25cc1cb8a187ec626f4ccfe804d@collyer.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 12:41:32 +0530 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5425adc6-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 00:11:23 -0700 Geoff Collyer wrote: >... Lots of stuff I agree with... > Actually there's another reason to choose Linux last (other than > Windows): the distributions I've seen are just a collection of ~1,000 > packages and, if they even come with sources, you hope you can compile > them all, but they demand different prerequisite library versions > (often for little or no reason), some of which are incompatible and > can't co-exist, so it becomes a major pain to construct a consistent > source tree, for which you have running binaries, and which you could > recompile all (or part) of. The BSDs at least are integrated systems, > maintained as systems, not packages, so they come with self-consistent > sources, and you can compile them. For programs that aren't part of > the core system (``ports''), they let `make' figure out the > dependencies (novel!) and drag in the necessary prerequisites and they > usually build (occasionally the gratuitous overspecificity of version > numbers bites one in the ass; it's a real problem in the BSD/Linux > world). This is also mostly true, but having used Debian Linux for several years now, I can claim with some non-trivial experience that Debian is the counter example (that proves the rule? :-). Debian linux, like the BSDs also tries to release a 'system', not just a collection of packages. That is why the Debian release cycle is so long, and why the 'latest and greatest' version is always rather out of date! I apt-get modules daily (or at least, weekly), and have never had one program/library break another, or any of the usual library-version hell. Of course, if you step outside the packages in the stable system, then things can get a little more complicated, but that is your choice, and usually the package system still sorts things out with very minimal hassle. >.. > If you're bored and have an afternoon, a fast machine, a broadband > connection and ~10GBs of disk to kill, ask FreeBSD to build `gnucash': > it drags in code and compiles and drags and compiles, but the best >... Just last week I apt-getted a reasonably recent version of gnucash, and that was all there was to it. Nothing broke, all the dependencies were automatically updated, etc. etc. No scheme-version hell, either. (It's just a pity that the up-to-date manual hadn't also been packaged, but that only took a few minutes to fix). The number of times you see instructions for the installation of packages on RPM-based systems include the direction to "turn off package version compatibility checking" is truly scary! I'm not even sure if apt has such an option! > And of course there are the people who insist on programming in > (shudder) Perl. Lordy, lordy, lordy. One is reminded of Phil Wadler > on XML (see /sys/games/lib/fortunes): it's not a language (at least in > the sense of having a finite or at least well-defined grammar, or at > least a grammar!, and some attempt at having a minimal, non-redundant, > orthogonal set of constructs that cover the application space of > interest), it's not a sharp tool but rather a swiss-army > gasoline-powered chainsaw, and it's not particularly good for doing > anything. Sorry; I'm allergic to Perl. Agreed! Agreed!!!! Martin -- Martin C. Atkins martin@parvat.com Parvat Infotech Private Limited http://www.parvat.com{/,/martin}