It's not quite as simple as linking dynamically vs statically. The fact soft is still tied to a GCC "fixed" by mainwin (or was last I checked) isn't exactly helping matters either. That said shell requirements are a non issue honestly, the issues are others and on a completely different scale. It's not all roses for some other software either, but yeah soft tends to be the pickier of the lot On 29 Jul 2013 20:19, "Christoph Muetze" <c...@glarestudios.de> wrote:
> > On 07/27/2013 12:04 PM, Chris Chia wrote: >> >>> It's not because it is fragile in Linux but there are so many flavours >>> of Linux and the system lib versions differ in these flavours. >>> >> > that is true.. and yet just an excuse. so many other developers manage it > quite well to redistribute their software properly - developers who know > how to do dynamic and/or static linking so that the programs won't break > outside of exactly defined lab conditions. > > and while we are at it, i don't get why Softimage users after over 10 > years and who knows how many paid upgrades still have to jump through so > many hoops just for installation and starting. Whats the deal will all the > sourcing and tcsh-using? And why do we have to use a console to start > Softimage as a default at all? not sure about you, but i really don't need > that cozy 90s SGI-feeling anymore... Also the fixation on certain graphics > cards and drivers is beyond my grasp. It's not as if Softimage is doing > anything special here... > > :/ > > Chris > > >
