On 11.2.2013 4.38, "Xiaofan Chen" <xiaof...@gmail.com> wrote: > >Ubuntu is working toward that. On the other hand, I >do not like Ubuntu Software center at all. I prefer >Synaptic better and sometims use the command >line apt.
I had high hopes for Ubuntu, but then Unity changed it all and I had to give up on it, despite trying hard get used to it. >It is no different for typical software for major Linux >distros, you can use GUI or command line to install >the packages if it is already packaged. If it is packaged... > >The thing is the odd software like libusbx. Show me >a dmg for libusbx (or libusb-1.0) if you can find one... My point is that end users (of applications) should not know or should not need to know there is such a things as libusbx. My application should have libXXX 'built into it' so that I can take responsibility that it has been built with the correct options, configuration, compiler and linker that I've tested. > >Show me a few applications in dmg format which >bundle libusb-1.0/libusbx if you can. > >I know one, Microchip's MPLAB X. Other than that, >I do not know of any others. I'm sure there are not many but that is neither here nor there I think. > >That is why I use Homebrew under Mac OS X. You >have Fink and Macport for similar purpose. I've used Fink, but at that point in time it had too many problems, MacPorts is better but just proves the inconvenience of installing from source. I've spent hours compiling Octave and related libraries, when I needed some library that required things were built that way, whereas I just tried the 'preferred way'. Googled for 'octave macos', third result looked promising, clicked that, yep, a link points to .dmg image, click that, yep, there it is, click that, 50 seconds later the diskimage is on my Downloads folder, double click that to mount it, and double click on the Octave.app and now it is running. No hassle, no installation, no nothing, just worked. And now drag it to trash, and things are like nothing ever happened. > >You can choose to support Debian/Ubuntu/Mint and that >covers many user already. Adding Fedora/OpenSuse >and probably you cover majority of the user already. Yes, which sort of brings me back to my original point: in my view we should try to keep the 'udev'/theothermechanism for implementing the Hotplug as a runtime decision, not compile time decision, especially if it the major distros have use different mechanisms. I suspect that Peter is promoting compile time decision making as it 'enforces' build from source philosophy and his goals. br Kusti ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Free Next-Gen Firewall Hardware Offer Buy your Sophos next-gen firewall before the end March 2013 and get the hardware for free! Learn more. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sophos-d2d-feb _______________________________________________ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
