On 10/13/06, Paul Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
what so many linux users + developers seem to forget is that there are
sets of products that do *NOT* want to be distributed by distributions.
how would a commercial product ever be a part of the multiplicity of
linux package management systems? its an absurd goal. the fact that it
is a huge engineering project in itself to create an installer
underlines how hard it is for any ISV who wants to make a product that
they themselves distribute.
That products do not want to be included on distributions is normal. Nothing wrong here.
Writing installers isn't rocket science either.
> Of course. One needs to write an install program, it's as simple as that.
yes, so simple that even on win32, companies make a living doing *just*
install programs. how simple is it to write the equivalent of
installshield for linux?
InstallShield for Linux exists.
And if people can make money out of it on Windows and Mac, then they can on Linux too.
> Or, you can link it in such a way that all the code needed is included
> and you do not depend on the system anymore. Disadvantage is size of
> course.
you can't do this easily. both the GTK and ALSA libraries require
dynamic linkage - it is essentially impossible to build them fully
static.
That I didn't know.
> A lot of libraries are fairly well documented.
> Usually searching for the library via google gives enough information.
> But not always.
as weak as the actual APIs are, the MSDN developer/tech docs make most
linux docs look like 5th grade work. even well documented libs under
linux lack the kind of in-line commentary you can see on MSDN.
MSDN is overrated. Really. It's so full of junk that finding some information in a short time is not always possible. (At least with visual studio 6 that was, for me).
> Microsoft does not provide everything though.
> On the other hand, it looks like some people become lazy and expect
> everything to be served on a dinnerplate.
not lazy! they are just totally occupied with the task of writing useful
application code and wish to avoid developing infrastructure that should
be present already.
Most of it is already present on Linux.
> I want to write Photoshop:
> I need:
> - Graphics lib
> - Color management
> - UI
> - ...
>
> And I just link one to another.
> That's not programming (at least for me).
this particular description is so naive, its really not even worth
commenting on.
Maybe it is, but maybe you could tell me why it is naive?
You know, if you don't tell me, I can't change my mind and see it from a different perspective.
_______________________________________________ Desktop_architects mailing list Desktop_architects@lists.osdl.org https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop_architects
