Linux Format forums Forum Index Linux Format forums
Help, discussion, magazine feedback and more
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

BBC Onlie (sic)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Linux Format forums Forum Index -> Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  

is Linux ready for the desktop
yes
76%
 76%  [ 20 ]
no
7%
 7%  [ 2 ]
maybe
15%
 15%  [ 4 ]
Total Votes : 26

Author Message
jjmac
LXF regular


Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 2:32 am
Posts: 1996
Location: Sydney, Australia

PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 2:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

>>
By comparison, I also downloaded the Windows version and with a couple of clicks it was installed and ready for use.
>>

I would imagine that down-loading the binary version for your Linux would have been the same. Excepting a possibly missing shared library issue which is trivial. But, it's also not really fair to compare a pre-compiled packages install with a source package ... is it ?

I can remember when i used to install different updates of IE4 ... there install process also involved a stealth directory scan of my C:\ drive for Java Kits ... based on what was found, there would depend on what class zips were put in C:\windows\java. That being, lots of Windows specific java class files (wfc's) that i would hopefully use, and get __bound__ to. Very sneaky too i thought. I proved it to myself by completely wiping windows (OSR2), reinstalling, and hiding the Kits. The install result and log record said the rest. All that ease does can come with a hidden price.


jm
_________________
http://counter.li.org
#313537

The FVWM wm -=- www.fvwm.org -=-

Somebody stole my air guitar, It happened just the other day,
But it's ok, 'cause i've got a spare ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marrea
LXF regular


Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:32 pm
Posts: 1868
Location: Chilterns, West Hertfordshire

PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 12:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rhakios wrote:
For qmake you need qt3-devel and you will probably need to give the full path to call it as it's unlikely to be in your default path.

Incidentally, I find that SuSE usually does set QTDIR


Rhakios
Many thanks. I had a further go at this last night and discovered that QTDIR was in fact set. (I do have qt3-devel installed by the way.) I managed to get Album Shaper compiled and installed (I think!) but can't get it to open. I ran out of time last night and will need to have another look over the weekend.

One thing that is puzzling me is that I tried to install it system-wide as per the instructions (ie becoming root and then doing a make install) http://albumshaper.sourceforge.net/download.shtml but the program has placed itself in my home directory. I'm not sure that is right.

Quote:
Incidentally, incidentally, oh look:

http://rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/sourceforge/a/al/albumshaper/AlbumShaper-2.0-1.i586.html

says on the page it's for SuSE 9.2


Thanks also for this link, of which I was unaware. If I find I can't get the source version to run, I will try this rpm.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marrea
LXF regular


Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:32 pm
Posts: 1868
Location: Chilterns, West Hertfordshire

PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jjmac wrote:
>>
But, it's also not really fair to compare a pre-compiled packages install with a source package ... is it ?

jjmac - agreed, I'm not comparing like with like. Unfortunately so often there aren't rpms available. Rhakios however has discovered one for AlbumShaper so if I can't get the source version working I will then try the rpm.

Quote:
I can remember when i used to install different updates of IE4 ...
IE4? What's that? Oh, yes that browser thing that came with my first home version of Windows !! I still run Win 98 on a spare desktop, incidentally, which currently has IE6 (via IE5). These days I hardly ever use IE, having largely moved over to Firefox.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
youlikeicecream
LXF regular


Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:40 pm
Posts: 721
Location: Oxford

PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 1:15 pm    Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: BBC Onlie (sic) Reply with quote

funny thing is that the SPARC has had 64-bits for a loooong time,

"Go on my Sun"

Linux although a little unstable has more advantages for the Home user than developers. Linux releases are rarely similiar and differ if only slightly from one machine to another. this makes for an uncertainty in the API so that developers cannot be sure as to whether the software will run on another given machine. Windows has a very slow release cycle and therefore nearly every windows installation will have the same kernel and DLL version so ... life is easier.

From an end user's POV, Linux is better ... there is a wide range of Free QUALITY software which is richly featured and has a hoard of ENTHUSIASTIC, HONEST programmers and developers backing and supporting it.

I was discussing with a friend of mine last night that for both Windows and Linux there are distinct features that we like and dislike in both. The only real difference is that with Linux, WE are able to do something about.

anyone up for Longhorn? (I wouldn't touch it with yours - lol)

can't really comment on MAC OS as the last time i used a macintosh the current version was System7 !!!!!!

Mike Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Marrea
LXF regular


Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:32 pm
Posts: 1868
Location: Chilterns, West Hertfordshire

PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 2:35 pm    Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: BBC Onlie (sic) Reply with quote

Guitarists use different instruments for different songs/tunes because a Strat for instance might be better suited to one song and a Les Paul to another. Or they might pick up an electro-acoustic or a classical, or whatever they feel will be most appropriate for the sound they want to produce.

Aren't operating systems the same? I use Windows, Linux and Mac roughly equally at home (only Windows at work though) and enjoy them all. Each has its strengths and weaknesses (although I'm a fairly new Mac user so can't speak authoritatively about OS X yet). I'm all for diversity.

It does seem rather pointless endlessly arguing about which is best. If you like Windows, use it. If you like Linux, use it. If you like Mac, use it. If you don't like 'em, don't use 'em. Simple. Freedom of choice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rhakios
Moderator


Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:18 am
Posts: 7602
Location: Midlands, UK

PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 8:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Marrea wrote:

One thing that is puzzling me is that I tried to install it system-wide as per the instructions (ie becoming root and then doing a make install) http://albumshaper.sourceforge.net/download.shtml but the program has placed itself in my home directory. I'm not sure that is right.


Just gave it a go, and while it leaves a copy in my build directory, it has also installed system wide under /usr, the output gives it away.

Code:

rhakios@pythia:~/tmp/albumshaper_2.1_src> su -c "make install"
Password:
cp -f "bin/AlbumShaper.bin" "/usr/bin/AlbumShaper.bin"
cp -f -r "bin/images" "/usr/share/albumshaper/"
cp -f -r "bin/text" "/usr/share/albumshaper/"
cp -f -r "bin/themes" "/usr/share/albumshaper/"
cp -f -r "bin/translations" "/usr/share/albumshaper/"
cp -f -r "bin/xmlConversion" "/usr/share/albumshaper/"
cp -f bin/AlbumShaper /usr/bin/AlbumShaper;


However, I'm not especially happy about a compiled app installing under /usr, I'd prefer /usr/local. In any event it runs fine, now why did I install it?
_________________
Bye, Rhakios
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marrea
LXF regular


Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:32 pm
Posts: 1868
Location: Chilterns, West Hertfordshire

PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rhakios wrote:

In any event it runs fine, now why did I install it?


Um, perhaps just to find out if you could? !!

I have been playing about with this again this evening and came to the conclusion that I must have something missing somewhere (yes, I know - probably in that space between my ears). I thought I'd uninstall and try re-compiling and reinstalling - just in case it hadn't installed properly the first time. I did a make uninstall and saw various error messages about certain directories being empty, which made me think again that it had probably not installed properly in the first place.

Anyway, on the spur of the moment I thought I would just check out the version on the LXF68 DVD and, guess what, there was a nice SuSE rpm lurking there. So I didn't even have to download from the rpmfind.net site you kindly provided. A quick "Install with YaST" - which placed the program in usr/local/ - and it's now up and running.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rhakios
Moderator


Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:18 am
Posts: 7602
Location: Midlands, UK

PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
on the spur of the moment I thought I would just check out the version on the LXF68 DVD and, guess what, there was a nice SuSE rpm


I wonder if we can expect a post from nelz, that's why he does the disc and so on and so forth Very Happy
_________________
Bye, Rhakios
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nelz
Site admin


Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 8364
Location: Warrington, UK

PostPosted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Marrea wrote:
Anyway, on the spur of the moment I thought I would just check out the version on the LXF68 DVD and, guess what, there was a nice SuSE rpm lurking there.


*sigh*

When will people realise the magazine goes with the disc and the disc goes with the magazine. The whole point of putting programs fro the magazine onto the disc is so that people don't have to go through what you have unnecessarily subjected yourself to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jjmac
LXF regular


Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 2:32 am
Posts: 1996
Location: Sydney, Australia

PostPosted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

>>
jjmac - agreed, I'm not comparing like with like. Unfortunately so often there aren't rpms available.
>>

Marrea ... Howdy Smile, it was just the use of the term "by comparision ..." (grin). But ... unavailable binaries ... well, thats also true for any particular system really. Qt stuff sure does seem to be tight on its' dependency ranges it seems ... all solved once all the correct development packages are familiarised. I remember having to install around 600 - 700 Mbs' of stuff once just to compile a single gnome app once. Some html wizywig ide type of thing, can't remember its name. Took me a month to get that all together, and about 30mins to decide i didn't like it once i had it compiled Rolling Eyes (nearly feel over then) hehe.

Also ..., If something is very very new... i would usually expect some lag on package availability.... And, at least with the source compile you have the opportunity to apply some optimisation for your own system, which may be quite good, depending on the app.

On it installing in your "home" directory though ... that should be considered more of a feature than anything else. Basically the author/maintainer is trying to protect your system from clutter and the like by not installing in the standard system wide locations .. aka .. /usr. (Not an unusual practice). Unless specifically requested to do. Usually invoves passing a "--prefix=/usr" or "--prefix=/usr/local" switch to "./configure". As mentioned above, i would prefer "/usr/local" for an unpackaged compile. It just makes things easier to cleanup/uninstall later, if it mucks up or anything.

If the source has a "configure" stage, which would be surprising if it dosen't, though i haven't had a lot to do with Qt based compiles (by that i mean some packages will use a script that automates that stage) ... running "./configure --help", just to dump the options isn't a bad initial idea.

>>
IE4? What's that? Oh, yes that browser thing ...
>>

(grin) Smile Smile Smile

Yeees, that thing, hehehe


>>
... incidentally, which currently has IE6 (via IE5).
>>

I still remember when i naively thought i could just uninstall IE5 and go back to IE4 (grin)..... But, I really don't know (grin), i'm sure it's lurking out there somewhere.

Smile


jm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marrea
LXF regular


Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:32 pm
Posts: 1868
Location: Chilterns, West Hertfordshire

PostPosted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nelz wrote:

*sigh*

When will people realise the magazine goes with the disc and the disc goes with the magazine. The whole point of putting programs fro the magazine onto the disc is so that people don't have to go through what you have unnecessarily subjected yourself to.


Ah, yes, well .... struggles for excuse. The thing was, you see, that the blurb about Album Shaper on page 42 of LXF68 spoke about the application needing qmake to compile and I assumed (without checking) that the DVD only had a source version.

Anyway, now that I have the rpm program running nicely on SuSE and being a glutton for punishment, I am going to try and compile from source on my FC2 box. I need to become more proficient at this sort of thing.

Cheers, nelz
Marrea

Well, I've just finished compiling and installing Album Shaper from source on Fedora Core 2 - without a single hitch. Worked like a charm, as they say. Brilliant. Very Happy


Last edited by Marrea on Sat Jun 11, 2005 9:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marrea
LXF regular


Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:32 pm
Posts: 1868
Location: Chilterns, West Hertfordshire

PostPosted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And howdy to you, jjmac.

If there is an rpm available I'll usually pick that option because I know it's easier. I also realise that source is sometimes a better choice because of the optimisation aspect (which you mention). Unfortunately I don't feel I yet have sufficient know-how to try this. Personally, I'm just thrilled to bits when a standard configure, make, make install works for me, let alone trying to adapt anything !!

However each time I do an install from source, I learn a little more. And now, because of Album Shaper, I've learnt something about qmake.

But, going back to the "is Linux ready for the desktop" issue, I don't really think the vast majority of computer users (which essentially means Windows users!) are going to want to spend time discovering how to install programs from source. They are all too used to double-clicking on a nice little .exe file.

I suppose it all depends on whether we are asking "is Linux ready for the desktop" for the already converted; or "is Linux ready for the desktop" for people who might be considering moving over from Windows. If the former, yes it definitely is. If the latter, well, no, I don't think so.

I have to say, I quite enjoy these little exchanges of opinion with fellow forum members. All very stimulating.

Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nelz
Site admin


Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 8364
Location: Warrington, UK

PostPosted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It also depends on the environment. Home users may install new software or hardware but business users are rarely allowed to.
_________________
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." (Albert Einstein)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
M0PHP
LXF regular


Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 8:40 am
Posts: 737
Location: Bishop Auckland, County Durham, UK

PostPosted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I could give my mum any linux distro with a GUI, and as long as her icons are appropriately named, she'd get on fine. But I know my brother would struggle. His desktop is full of icons for games that run on Windows.

I think it depends if Linux is up to the user's individual needs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Nigel
LXF regular


Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:03 pm
Posts: 1141
Location: Gloucestershire, UK

PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

M0PHP wrote:
I could give my mum any linux distro with a GUI, and as long as her icons are appropriately named, she'd get on fine. But I know my brother would struggle. His desktop is full of icons for games that run on Windows.


Good point. Someone with a little knowledge of how things work in the Windows world (the office "expert") is going to struggle a lot more with Linux than someone who just does a bit of web browsing, emailing & word processing, and calls an "expert" in when things don't work.
_________________
Hope this helps,

Nigel.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Linux Format forums Forum Index -> Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Linux Format forums topic RSS feed 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


Copyright 2011 Future Publishing, all rights reserved.


Web hosting by UKFast