linux v xp for programming

[unionjak]

hello,
i have come to the following conclusions about using linux as a platform for programming.
First of all linux is a distraction, ie you have to load z to make y work...but x requires w and a whole raft of rubbish. Now to add insult to injury, some types of linux are supported(rpm) but you can guarantee that that the software you want is not. So you go to repositories, and still no joy as there is no unified linux installation So you have the binary/source/god knows what installation option, if you are a master linux user. Its simple really, get rid of linux, stop wasting your valuable life hours and except that as much as i like linux its too long winded, too user unfriendly and time wastfull to bother with.
Sorry, but untill there is a single way of installing software linux is going no ware...fast.

[iansyngin]

maybe if you take some time to read and understand what the Linux community is about you woudn't be so upset.

[iansyngin]

have you heard of symantic.
this is excellent for installing software and looks after all the programs dependencies.

[23meg]

The original poster hasn't said a single word about "using Linux as a platform for programming", and this is the programming forum, so there's no way to take them seriously.

[fordfan753]

The original poster hasn't said a single word about "using Linux as a platform for programming", and this is the programming forum, so there's no way to take them seriously.

I'm with you there. It cracked me up when they said something about how we should stop wasting our time, I found that ironic, because to me, Linux is a hobby, I screw around, I install programs, I break things, I fix things, I try to help people on the forums, it's fun for me, something to do apart from school, work and sleep. My friends, or course, know that I spend all this time on computers, and I'm top of their list to call if the **** hits the fan, but hey! it's something to do.

[Kimm]

First of all linux is a distraction, ie you have to load z to make y work...but x requires w and a whole raft of rubbish


Yes... which saves harddrive space... windows programs have got just as many dependencies as Linux programs, however, they staticly link everything they need... so you probably have the same library installed 5 or 6 times, by keeping libraries shared, as most linux programs do, you thus save harddrive space.

[fordfan753]

...and save yourself from dll hell...

[fct]

Its simple really, get rid of linux, stop wasting your valuable life hours and except that as much as i like linux its too long winded, too user unfriendly and time wastfull to bother with.

I've wasted more time on Windows trying to uninstall ATI drivers than any software installation on Linux (and in the end I had to format the disk since ATI's crap was impossible to remove from the system). And don't get me started on the *hours* it takes to install Windows XP + drivers + applications I use often.

Back in 2000, when it took me 20 minutes to install a full featured Redhat 7.0 distro, I wasted more than an hour to install vanilla Windows 2000 Professional. The situation hasn't improved since then, judging by Windows 2003 Advanced Server.

[tageiru]

hello,
i have come to the following conclusions about using linux as a platform for programming.
First of all linux is a distraction, ie you have to load z to make y work...but x requires w and a whole raft of rubbish. Now to add insult to injury, some types of linux are supported(rpm) but you can guarantee that that the software you want is not. So you go to repositories, and still no joy as there is no unified linux installation So you have the binary/source/god knows what installation option, if you are a master linux user. Its simple really, get rid of linux, stop wasting your valuable life hours and except that as much as i like linux its too long winded, too user unfriendly and time wastfull to bother with.
Perhaps you should take a step back and look at why the linux distributions are constructed the way they are.

Linux is not a software platform the way that Windows is. The strain of making sure that software works on any given distribution is left on the distributors, not the software developers. This difference is very important since we the developers can concentrate on producing software and leave the details of packaging to the distributors.

Sorry, but untill there is a single way of installing software linux is going no ware...fast
Obviously i do not concurr. A singe way of installing software is meaningless as we already have suitable methods of distributing software.

[23meg]

I say let's keep this on topic and not turn it into another useless Linux vs. Windows debate. To do that we need the OP to clarify their original statement, so it's best to just stop posting until that happens.

[briancurtin]

Sorry, but untill there is a single way of installing software linux is going no ware...fast.
you are a windows user trying to make linux work like windows. its not happening, and it wont happen. if you were a programmer, you could make it work. i fail to see why your incompetence means that windows is a better programming environment.

[darth_vector]

you are a windows user trying to make linux work like windows. its not happening, and it wont happen. if you were a programmer, you could make it work. i fail to see why your incompetence means that windows is a better programming environment.

my sentiments exactly

[fordfan753]

you are a windows user trying to make linux work like windows. its not happening, and it wont happen. if you were a programmer, you could make it work. i fail to see why your incompetence means that windows is a better programming environment.

/me looks for that Linux is not Windows article...

[EnGee]

I write in Java, and have both xp and Ubuntu. I find myself using Ubuntu for one month now most of the time while xp is for hobby and testing!
I am less distracted now than in xp and all set up and running very well. I don't need to search the internet for free small tools, they are here, and installing them is really very easy. I don't need to check them if they have spyware, as they are open source.
The biggest problem of linux for me has solved with Debian and Debian based distributions which is 'dependency hell' when installing something new. I suffered from that a lot with non Debian based distribution (I don't know if they found a solution now), that was a real distraction, but now it is almost history with Debian based distros.
Windows took me three days to finish installing and set up the hardware (right) and software, while Ubuntu just one day, i didn't install any driver, just add some information about the monitor HorizSync ..etc, and for the software i only needed to read a little and installed Sun JDK. That's all! I begun to continue writing my project the second day but with nicer font and environment.
The only distraction is this forum ;) But this is my choice and no one forced it on me.
I really find no reason now to go back coding in xp while i have everything here with better and nicer OS!

[LordHunter317]

First of all linux is a distraction, ie you have to load z to make y work...but x requires w and a whole raft of rubbish.Windows is no different. If you write a .NET application and don't include .NET in your installer, your application will not work on Windows unless the user installed .NET already.

Linux is no different. Most people don't bother including all the required software however because it's generally worthless and not needed. It's only an issue ever with cutting edge stuff using the latest software.


some types of linux are supported(rpm) but you can guarantee that that the software you want is not.Utter rubbish. You clearly understand nothing about dependency management on either platform.


So you go to repositories, and still no joy as there is no unified linux installationThere wasn't one on Windows until very recently, so I think this is a non-sequitur. At anyrate, most people don't use MSI to it's full potential so it is very much a non-sequitur. MS is no better.


Sorry, but untill there is a single way of installing software linux is going no ware...fast.I hardly believe that's true. MS has survived even without it, so there's no reason to believe Linux won't as well. Your igorance doesn't help matters in the least.



Yes... which saves harddrive space... windows programs have got just as many dependencies as Linux programs, however, they staticly link everything they need...No, most windows applications are dynamically linked. They do however, provide their own DLLs for many things, usually. And saving harddrive space isn't a big deal: code is usually an insigificant part of any application.


...and save yourself from dll hell...Linux has it's own unique, special version of DLL hell. It exists, it's just different.

23meg,
Just lock the thread. The OP was a troll, and the misinformation spread (whether out of ignorance or just plain misunderstanding) is already gross enough that I doubt anything of value will come from this.

[23meg]

I'm not a moderator and can't lock threads (I wouldn't anyway), but I've said what I have to say: everyone, just stop posting to this thread and don't come back unless the OP clarifies their statements in a meaningful way that's worth responding to. They haven't even been able to make a case. This is the programming forum, the subject and the opening sentence imply that the post is about programming, but it's not; all we have is a few accustomed trollish statements about Linux hanging around, unable to constitute any meaningful statement about "using Linux as a platform for programming".

I suggest everyone to refrain from responding to posts of this kind; they're best left ignored.

[unionjak]

hello,
lets just get a few things straight....i am in the linux community, so i clearly understand and know what i am talking about. I am not even a fan of winblows, especially as the next incarnation will start at £130 up to £350 for the whole shabang.

My main worry for linux is introducing new software to its host, and the way forward with this concept. It is not a "let the programmers program, and leave the packaging to itself". Linux is for all comers, and ubuntu is even gearing itself to compete with the new version of win(watever). The preserve of Linux being for geeks is well and trully over. To that end software introduction has to become as easy as any other os, as normal users will not tolerate wasted "life hours" searching for what should already be with the selected software. Anyone who says loading programming platforms on windows is harder is not quite with it, but that kind of simplicity is what should be aimed at ?

Many thanks, steve.

[M3ta7h3ad]

Your issue seems to be with the ease with which you can install programming SDK's as far as I can understand from your post.

While I prefer windows to program in (and it is windows, not winblows.) its purely because of favouritism for me editors and so forth. Installing for instance the java JDK on ubuntu is a matter of adding a repository and using apt-get... its about as easy as you can get.

Installing software, isnt a preserve for the geeks, its quite easy. Compiling software from source is even nigh on childs play, and those that come in packages can be installed using dpkg or alien with even more ease.

It isnt windows, because its not windows, but you can hardly say that installing software is difficult.

[LordHunter317]

hello,
lets just get a few things straight....i am in the linux community, so i clearly understand and know what i am talking about.No, being in the community doesn't mean a thing. It's also clear you don't understand what you're talking about from your techincal errors.


I am not even a fan of winblows, especially as the next incarnation will start at £130 up to £350 for the whole shabang.Like it does now?


My main worry for linux is introducing new software to its host, and the way forward with this concept. It is not a "let the programmers program, and leave the packaging to itself".No, that's how things are done, really.


To that end software introduction has to become as easy as any other os, as normal users will not tolerate wasted "life hours" searching for what should already be with the selected software.It is. It's arguably even eaiser, to a certain extent. Synaptic is quite easy to use.


Anyone who says loading programming platforms on windows is harder is not quite with it, but that kind of simplicity is what should be aimed at ?What? This sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

At anyrate, none of this is support for your argument, merely a poor rehash of what you already said.



Your issue seems to be with the ease with which you can install programming SDK's as far as I can understand from your post.No his issue is that he's some programmer or kid who's managed to get Visual Studio half installed and understands nothing about real world configuration management, and is trolling 'cos Linux doesn't have InstallShield-esque installers.

Certainly, that's all we can conclude from what he's said at this point.


Compiling software from source is even nigh on childs play, That tells me you haven't compiled a lot of software.

[unionjak]

hello,
for the record its not installing software thats the issue...if you can get it through synaptic/red carpet/apt-get etc then it is childs play....the problem is what happens when you cant get software on the repo`s ?
You see...thats when the trouble starts, and frankly it shouldn`t be like that. As for the linux isn`t windows, you are correct...obviously. But why should we as linux users accept sloppy software packages, because "linux is for hard-core pc geeks". It is on the start up to becoming a potential threat to microsoft(unless xp goes open tee-hee) but is in danger of becoming user-unfriendly.
Ubuntu has tradition of "it just works" and so should all the software producers that add to an impressive choice ?
Many thanks, steve.

[LordHunter317]

for the record its not installing software thats the issue...Yes, it is.


the problem is what happens when you cant get software on the repo`s ?Then you have a problem that doesn't commonly exist on Windows, because Windows does things differently.


You see...thats when the trouble starts, and frankly it shouldn`t be like that.Why not?


But why should we as linux users accept sloppy software packages,We don't. That's why distributions exist in the first place, because programmers are poor packagers.

That's why I run Debian and Ubuntu, and not RedHat where I can help it.


but is in danger of becoming user-unfriendly.This issue has existed since the beginning. Once again, it's apparent you have no idea what you're talking about in the least.


Ubuntu has tradition of "it just works" and so should all the software producers that add to an impressive choice ?No, because they're free to do with their software as they please. MS doesn't exert any control over their third party developers, why should Ubuntu do the same?

[M3ta7h3ad]

That tells me you haven't compiled a lot of software.

Really? I seem to remember hating package management back in the days of mandrake 9 and redhat shrike. I've compiled my fair share of software, in fact most of the apps I download from the net require it.

./configure (followed by any tags needed typically specified in a readme)
make
make clean (or install)

is hardly a difficult affair, and dependencies? once again as long as you can actually read english and have a head on your shoulders to translate the message into something meaningful arent that difficult.

I'm not saying its easier than windows, but its definately not that hard.

I'm nowhere near competent on *nix but compiling software was the only way I installed programs at the start, due to not fully understanding how to use RPM's or Deb's.

[LordHunter317]

./configure (followed by any tags needed typically specified in a readme)
make
make clean (or install)

is hardly a difficult affair,Your response being this shows me that indeed, you haven't compiled a lot of software. Sure, it can be easy if you have GNU autoconf and the options are well documented. Anything else is just a PITA. And the "Anything else" category is quite large.


and dependencies? once again as long as you can actually read english and have a head on your shoulders to translate the message into something meaningful arent that difficult.Actaully, they can be. They're frequently poorly documented, e.g., anything done by the GNOME project.


I'm not saying its easier than windows, but its definately not that hard.It's no walk in the park. It's just a PITA, pure and simple.

[thumper]

But why should we as linux users accept sloppy software packages, because "linux is for hard-core pc geeks".
So fix it!

C'mon, really, many if not most of the linux developers are volunteers. And LordHunter317 is right, most developers are bad packagers.

Even the Ubuntu MOTU are volunteers. The bigger linux distributions can only afford to hire so many people, and many of them are for polish. Admittingly clean install of packages and dependancy resolution is polish, but there are a limited number of paid for people to do this, and many bits of code out there.

I have found ubuntu to be among the best (and really I haven't tried that many) distro and I have had very few problems with dependancies (only one in the KDE 3.5 upgrade).

[unionjak]

hello,
so to use lord`s analogy if you build a car its all good to make it without wheels,
and expect the end user to go find said wheels...and fix them on....Mmmmm really ?
We have to get out of the mind set that all software for linux should be hard to load up, because thats how papa used to do it. There is no joy in hunting around for hours, solving one dependancy only to create another.

As for the "linux programmers are mainly volunteers" battle cry, well its utter rubbish. What you mean is that they volunteer their profesional skills to help develop other software apps/os`s etc in their spare time. They are still pro`s and work hard at what they do.

....and lord as i (for my sins) beta tested win 95, i have a reasonable understanding of what the end user wants....and it is not problematic installs and time wasting.
Many thanks, steve.

[cwaldbieser]

hello,
so to use lord`s analogy if you build a car its all good to make it without wheels,
and expect the end user to go find said wheels...and fix them on....Mmmmm really ?
We have to get out of the mind set that all software for linux should be hard to load up, because thats how papa used to do it. There is no joy in hunting around for hours, solving one dependancy only to create another.

As for the "linux programmers are mainly volunteers" battle cry, well its utter rubbish. What you mean is that they volunteer their profesional skills to help develop other software apps/os`s etc in their spare time. They are still pro`s and work hard at what they do.

....and lord as i (for my sins) beta tested win 95, i have a reasonable understanding of what the end user wants....and it is not problematic installs and time wasting.
Many thanks, steve.

I am not sure I follow what you are saying. You say that using tools like apt-get makes installing software easy, but if you want to use software that is not in the repositories, the installation process is more difficult. You have not really suggested a solution to the problem you pose, though.

Even when using Windows, if you have to install software that doesn't have a click through installer written for it, it can be a chore to install.

You have not made it clear to me at all what message you are trying to convey. That programs that don't have installers are more difficult to install than programs with installers?

[thumper]

As for the "linux programmers are mainly volunteers" battle cry, well its utter rubbish. What you mean is that they volunteer their profesional skills to help develop other software apps/os`s etc in their spare time. They are still pro`s and work hard at what they do.
Yes that is what I said. They are volunteers. I didn't say they weren't professional, and I didn't say they don't work hard.

But, being a good developer does not make one a good packager, or tester even.

[LordHunter317]

hello,
so to use lord`s analogy if you build a car its all good to make it without wheels,No, it isn't, unless the car is a kit car or something else of the sort. Your analogy already falls apart because it's not a comparable situation.


We have to get out of the mind set that all software for linux should be hard to load up, because thats how papa used to do it.It's not. It's easy. I have a far eaiser time then I do on Windows, and get far greater control, generally. Your spouting tautologies without support for them.


There is no joy in hunting around for hours, solving one dependancy only to create another.I haven't done that in years, so I don't know what you're talking about.


As for the "linux programmers are mainly volunteers" battle cry, well its utter rubbish. What you mean is that they volunteer their profesional skills to help develop other software apps/os`s etc in their spare time.Which makes them volunteers by definition. They're not making their living developing Linux software.


They are still pro`sMany are not.


....and lord as i (for my sins) beta tested win 95, i have a reasonable understanding of what the end user wants....No, you've made it readily apparent you have no clue in the least. And then some.


and it is not problematic installs and time wasting.You've failed to demonstrate that's a problematic issue on Linux. Solutions exist for it, you know. VMWare installs everywhere without little issue, and it's not packaged by anyone AFAIK.

[Jimmey]

I was at first reluctant to post, firstly becuase some people said not to, and secondly, because I almost definately know less than most on this topic, but...

I don't have to know much about programming, or either Linux or Windows to realise that whatever argument Steven is trying to make, is being made in a way that can only be described as, crappy.

And, just to share my opinion on the whole argument itself -

Linux is...Linux. It's how it is.
Windows is...You guessed it. Windows.

I'm not saying that comparisons between the two are bad. Infact, I've read many. I love them.

I'm saying that, as has been put so much better by many others throughout the forum, they're not the same.

Simplified - An apple will still taste like an apple, even if you wrap a skin around it, to be like an orange. So why bother?

Jimmey

[blanky]

I too have a problem with development in Linux, but it's for a far different reason.

If I have to get something installed, I'll install it any way possible, beggars cant be choosers.

But my main problem is development environment. Now, lets get this straight, Linux is probably THE development environment; open source, tons of libraries, CVS, SubVersion, the whole thing.

Now, my problem is very very minor yet still irritates me.

First of all, more people use Windows (yes, it's sad). That's not a big problem, I could use mingw to cross compile, ok.

My, more, main problem is IDEs. Eclipse is very nice, it's by far my favorite. Kdevelop wont work right under Ubuntu for me if I dont install it in KDE, anjuta is nice but I dont like it's interface. GLADE is cool for creating GUIs for GTK+, and so is FLUID for FLTK. Now, I know most of you are going to argue with me, but my main problem, (lol), is the 'intellisense' like features. In Visual Studio, I could start lerning any API very easily. Include the header, link the library, and start coding. I have references to anything I want, even if the API has very low documentation, intellisense helps in that it tells me almost everything possible in it.

Eclipse' 'intellisense' feature doesn't seem to work for me besides if you're trying to access information from things written in your program, but if you're writing a GTK+ program and you include gtk/gtk.h, does intellisense work? I'm not being sarcastic, just asking, so that I could at least try to make it work. I've heard good things about KDevelop's documentation pane, supposedly gives documentation on the current API being used? Not sure, that could help, however like I said, whenever I install KDE apps like Kdevelop or Eric (for python), it get messed up for some reason (the interface). I could fix that.

Maybe intellisense isn't my problem, because intellisense is a privilege, not something that's absolutely necessary. I could easily go to the API's documentation/reference and learn from there, since any programmmer could learn any way. But then comes the other 'problem' (?) or irritation. If I make a program, as simple as it maybe, either the person who wants to try it will compile it with gcc-g++ (if it's very few files). Otherwise, I create a makefile. Eclipse automates this process making it easier to try out my program each time I make a change to it.

Once I'm done, what if I want to give my program to a friend. I dont know, enlighten me, since I'm new as well, but whenever I've compiled program from source (with all the frickin differences between distros, I'd say this is the most universal way), dont I have to make a configuration file or something to check if the host has all dependencies and stuff, then a makefile, then some install file or something? This might be easy once I learn it and convenient as well, but now that I dont, this is ridiculus and more if I'm just making a small program.

To finish off, everything could be customized and be easy if you really want it to be, above I've shown a couple irritations I have, and have provided solutions to some. Once all your irritations have been solved, it's pretty much you're biased. But that sure helps out a lot more than things like,

"Windows sucks dude, use linux, it's t3h 1337"
"You can avoid DLL hell" - Doesn't linux use .so? Shared Libraries? It's just that they're kept all in one concentrated place. Also, with the DLL Manifest from Microsoft, that 'DLL hell' should be solved soon (Probably because of Vista's Release)
"You're just a noob, you could make things work" - Of course, but that doesn't help much.

Please dont flame me, I was just trying to show the process of solutions, rather than make a one sentence flame.

[Lord Illidan]

I have compiled numerous apps before.
Basically, if you get the dependcies right, then 95% you are ready and set. Yet, there always exist those programs who give obscure errors upon building them that are only solved by googling around. These are the bad eggs in my opinion. Otherwise, it is not as hard as many people picture it, harder than clicking on an .exe, true, but not so hard.

What about files which can be installed by doing this

sh **.run? Those are quite easy, too!

[adelgado]

I've read the whole topic... These are my thoughts:

1. There are basically two ways to install software in Ubuntu:
a. Go on Add/Remove or Synaptic or apt-get or aptitude and install.
b. Compile from source, and hope you have all the dependencies because if you don't, then you have to hunt them and some of the dependencies are hard to find.

Both methods are easy. The second one is just more, as LordHunter317 said, PITA.


The Linux way is harder because it is much more well structured than the Windows way. This doesn't make the Linux way inferior.

Saying the Linux's way is inferior because it's harder is like saying a bike is better than a car because it's simpler.


Anyway, I still don't understand .a. the OP position, .b. the OP's solution, .c. the OP's experience on Linux or Windows environments and .d. the OP's point as a whole.

[RIchard James13]

I too have a problem with development in Linux, but it's for a far different reason.

Once I'm done, what if I want to give my program to a friend. I dont know, enlighten me, since I'm new as well, but whenever I've compiled program from source (with all the frickin differences between distros, I'd say this is the most universal way), dont I have to make a configuration file or something to check if the host has all dependencies and stuff, then a makefile, then some install file or something? This might be easy once I learn it and convenient as well, but now that I dont, this is ridiculus and more if I'm just making a small program.


You need to use autotools and friends. They turn your code + makefile into all that ./configure then make then make install stuff. Unfortunatley they are quite hard to get started with. I did find one good tutorial http://vindaci.members.sonic.net/cbreak/projects/autotools/
. Also some IDEs like Kdevelop will automatically create this stuff for you when you create a project.