Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD
- From: "Daveman750" <dsimcha@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 8 Dec 2005 13:55:41 -0800
> This is an RPM problem, not a binary problem, and it is a well-known and
> much-ridiculed one. If you were to use, say ,rpm2tgz (or whatever it's
> called), and turn those packages into a tarball and extract them, if you
> met the required dependencies (actually met them, not met whatever your
> distro chooses to call them), you can run that program. Most programs
> worth using usually make a few binary forms available, and a plain tarball
> is usually one of them. Don't go blaming Red Hat's idiocy, and the idiocy
> of those who follow them, on a binary incompatability problem that by and
> large does not exist.
So basically what you're trying to say is that this problem would be
effectively solved if Linux had a better de facto standard package
manager? In other words, with a better de facto standard package
manager, one package would work on virtually any Linux distro for a
given CPU type? Wow. This distro-specific package management has so
far been my number one frustration with Linux, since unless you're
using a very well-known, popular distro, you can't always find
everything you would want packaged for your specific distro, and using
tar.gz package management=dependency hell.
.
- References:
- Linux Vs. FreeBSD
- From: Daveman750
- Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD
- From: Ed Heagle
- Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD
- From: Daveman750
- Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD
- From: Mark South
- Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD
- From: Daveman750
- Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD
- From: George Ellison
- Linux Vs. FreeBSD
- Prev by Date: Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD
- Next by Date: Re: ISA SoundBlaster card with newer distributions?
- Previous by thread: Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD
- Next by thread: Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|