On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:48:59 GMT, 7 wrote:
> asstroturfer Erik Funkenbusch wrote on behalf of micoshaft corporation:
>
>> On 25 Oct 2006 09:18:30 -0700, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> Free Agent: How to Compile Free Software Apps
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>| Let me start with a controversial statement: Installing
>>>| new software is almost always easier on Linux than on
>>>| Windows or the Mac OS.
>>>|
>>>| I can already envision the angry e-mail. It'll come from
>>>| the folks who write each month, certain that if they use
>>>| enough capital letters and exclamation points, they'll
>>>| convince me that LINUX SUCKS!!!
>>>|
>>>| But I'll say it again: Installing new software is, in
>>>| most cases, easier under Linux than under other
>>>| operating systems. I've touched on the simple reason
>>>| why many times in this column. On most Linux systems,
>>>| an app called the package manager takes care of
>>>| software installation and removal.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,127601-c,linux/article.html
>>>
>>> If/when the trolls sink into this argument, point them to this article.
>>
>> Yes, let's look at this article:
>>
>> "It all sounds great, and for the most part, it is. But Linux's way of
>> doing things has one shortcoming. [...] Rhythmbox version 0.9.3.1 had been
>> the default app on this machine [...] Though it wasn't a bad tool, the
>> latest version, 0.9.6, came out recently with new features I desired. I
>> wanted it."
>>
>> "Herein lay the problem: My package manager knew of only version 0.9.3.1,
>> which had been tested and specially crafted (by a so-called package
>> maintainer with the Ubuntu project) to rock on Ubuntu 6.06. In other
>> words, 0.9.3.1 is the only version of Rhythmbox that Ubuntu 6.06
>> officially supports, so it's the only version I could grab via the package
>> manager with point-and-click ease."
>>
>> "In the Windows world, if I want a newer version of an app I already have,
>> I usually just download the new version's SETUP.EXE file and run it.
>
> Rubbish!!!!
> If you tried to install a new version of anything from micoshaft,
> it is almost impossible.
> Lets say you got an internet account and want to upgrade
> to a different supplier. It is guaranteed your system is borked in seconds
> as soon as you install that new software.
>
>
>> But
>> the Linux world has no counterpart to SETUP.EXE.
>
> THANK GOODNESS!!!!
>
> Synaptic is such a good life safer.
>
>
>> If I wanted Rhythmbox
>> 0.9.6 on my Dapper Drake machine, I had two choices. The first was to wait
>> for Ubuntu's next release. [...]"
>
> Well, that is the same as saying if you want less buggy IE7, you have to
> wait ummm... on micoshaft corporation until next release [...]"!!!!!
> BWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!
>
>
>> "The second option was to do an end-run past the package manager and
>> perform all the dirty work myself,
>
> So now you decided to get it from the source.
> Sounds like you are pissy little fool that shouldn't
> be allowed near a computer from what you just above!!!
>
> So, ok, let hear the rest of it....
>
>> compiling my own copy of Rhythmbox
>> 0.9.6. This is a far more complicated task than running a SETUP.EXE.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!
> Totally Dumb!
> You can't compile from source if you wanted to use SETUP.EXE you
> stupid fsck!!
>
>
>> Compiling apps can drive a Linux newbie to madness, and it's this madness
>> that spawns letters in my inbox like "NO SETUP.EXE? LINUX SUCKS. PEOPLE
>> DON'T HAVE TIME FOR THIS GARBAGE."
>
>
> Don't think so dumbo.
> You are not qualified to be allowed to go anywhere near a computer.
> Trying to compile closed source to make your own setup.exe. What a dumbo!
In case you didn't notice, dumbass, I was quoting the article.
|
|
