Honestly, you're making this far more difficult than it is. If you have knoppix 5.1 (on DVD), you've got Lazarus pre-installed.
Follow these steps: 1. Run Lazarus 2. Paste my source code in from my website. 3. Place an image control on Form1. 4. Place a TColorSelect dialog on the form. 5. Place a TOpenDialog on the form. 6. Run the program by pressing F9. That's all there is to it. I just uploaded an updated version of the source to my website. The new version allows you to load a bitmap image from disk, so you can draw your shapes over top of the image. [To save, just choose alt+prntscrn] Anyway, this is spectacular programming in record time (less than 24 hours). Don't miss out on it just because you're feeeling lazy :D You have the source; feel free to make a .deb package for the application. I don't do that. I don't know how yet, and I don't need to because my software is better than everyone else's :D dos-man On Oct 9, 6:25 am, Chris Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Dos-Man 64 <[email protected]> wrote: > > EBIDX is a shape-drawing application that uses the keyboard > > exclusively. This is useful for drawing elipses, diamonds, rectangles, > > circles, etc. > > > The (astonishingly) small size of this program means that I don't have > > to bother posting the executable. I just post the instructions and > > the source code. Others are encouraged to upgrade the project. > > Ah, yes, the fallacy that we have ${YOUR_TOOLS} installed on our computer. > > The entire point of software packaging is to allow people to run > software without needing a compiler. > > And if you used ANY non-default Pascal libraries, nobody will be able > to use your software, either. > > Even KDE has been tauting their new application bundles (wads the > executable, relevant libraries, and resources into one folder - I > wholly expect for some Apple lawyers to show up and ask for their .app > system back, but that's besides the point). My point is that while > everyone else is moving towards making things more streamlined for the > user, you're running in the opposite direction. > > I expect for most of the people here to have thought something along > these lines: > > "Ah, Pascal. Can't be bothered." > "Eh, probably uses a library I don't want to track down." > "Do I even have Pascal installed?" > "What's the best Pascal interpreter? Nevermind, this isn't important > enough to me to figure that out." > > If you really want to gain some awesome skills, learn how to make a > Debian .deb file or a .rpm that can reference the relevant libraries > and interpreters. For such a small project this is massive overkill, > yes, but look at it as an exercise in making the software more > accessible. Perhaps this is just my personal soapbox (I am a Mac-head > for reasons) but you can have the best software in the world, but if > people can't use it, I contend that it's far from the best! > > Software should be quick, easy, and fast. Like your blender. Sure, > when you get into it, the blender is a really interesting piece of > equipment with curious buttons and a nice strong motor and sharp > blades, depending on the thickness and cut thereof you can do > different things. But ultimately, it's just a blender, and the less > time you are using it the better it is. I think of computer software > the same way. You want it to be quick, easy, "get in, get it done, > and get out" kind of methodology. We here are all computer > enthusiasts. We love it, we study it, some of us at the expense of > other things. But even an enthusiast can appreciate what I'm talking > about here. > > So, to keep with the metaphor, you want to try and make that blender > as easy to use as possible. While I'm sure your Pascal program is > easy to use, it's not easy to install. Metaphorically speaking, it's > freaking hard to plug in your blender. > > A few years ago I was big into the Digital Mars D programming > language. It was simple, fast, and really quite beautiful. But it > had massive toolchain problems. It was all but useless without DSSS, > a build system that made makefiles look like a kind of voo-doo ritual > next to a spaceship. It also couldn't make anything interesting > without a competent library, so into the mix comes Tango (what I think > is a better standard library) and DWT, a D re-binding of the SWT > toolkit. Also in the mix was an OpenGL binding I forgot the name of. > > But all these things were hard to install. Most painful were Tango > and DWT. Tango had a very complex build system because it essentially > created a partial shared object file that had to be linked against by > all other code because Tango created a run-time. It actually replaced > the Phobos garbage collector and a few other things. DWT needed some > very specific DLL files to link against. Curiously they weren't in > any MSFT MSVC redistributable. I'm not sure where they came from, but > it was hell to track them down. > > So eventually (took me about two weeks) I got a full, working > toolchain for D. DSSS, DWT, OpenGL, Tango, DMC, the works. It was > great. So I made a move that would end up making me quite popular. I > taught myself to make NullSoft Scriptable Installer scripts. People > could install a basic D toolchain by literally clicking "next" a bunch > of times. Windows developers love this. > > Several versions later Windows Vista took a massive dump on itself and > I lost all Windows capability for quite some time. This is THE reason > I do not develop on Windows platforms any more. (If someone wants me > to, they will pay me. I do not to it for fun). Later on somebody > made another installer system which did more or less the same thing. > But during its peak, I was getting 30 downloads a day for that > installer. Considering the D community had perhaps only 100 people in > it, that's quite amazing! Several people thought I was making it > easier for people to start using D (which was my goal). Some didn't > like that (small communities tend to have a few pills who don't want > change). > > But the point of my story is this: you can take any software, even > your Pascal program. Make it easy to install and use, and people will > use it. > > I hate to see good code limited by such things as "Oh I don't have a > Pascal interpreter installed right now." If it's a .deb file, people > can work with that. If it's a .rpm file, people can work with that. > If you want to show that you've got mad skills, give them an ebuild > file. :) > > So that's my tale. Please don't take this the wrong way. I'm not > trying to be rude. I just hope you'll consider making some kind of > way to make your software more accessible to those of us lazy fools > out here. It might not be the right choice, but I think it's worth > taking a look at. > > Cheers! > > -- > Registered Linux Addict #431495 > For Faith and Family! | John 3:16!http://fsdev.net/http://0x5f3759df.org/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Linux Users Group. To post a message, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit our group at http://groups.google.com/group/linuxusersgroup
