Re: Ugly Huge BSD Monster
Denis Troshin wrote this message on Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 16:58 +0700: Sorry for all the responses that don't directly answer your question, but you did ask it in a rather tactless way by saying it's a mess w/o understanding the reasoning behind it. Almost every package I install requires a few other packages. This 'idea of using dependent packages' turns FreeBSD (and other unix-systems) to an ugly monster. This is because the packages are ment to be a one size fits all system. If you want to eliminate some of the dependancies, then you are free to build the port yourself. There is plenty of documentation in the handbook about how the port system works. For example, I don't need Perl or Python but a few packages I install require them. This is for the people that do want the perl and/or python extensions that the package provides. The packages are targeted at the widest audience. If you don't need them, then build the port yourself. Does exist a programming under unix without these dependencies? P.S. Under Windows it is possible to write not bad applications which depend just on libraries (KERNEL32, USER32, GDI32). And these libs exist on every base system!!! Just like libc, libcrypto, libcurses, libssl, etc. It's just that some of the GNU libraries change too often, and are not used by the base system. As someone else pointed out, you have to have vbrunXXX.dll installed and of the proper version. Many windows installs tell you how/where to download said app. Though windows doesn't let you just run a single command like: pkg_add -r python and automaticly get the program installed. The real problem is the ports software. You need to complain to the authors of the ports for writing the code in this manner. We choose to make the software easier to install so new people don't have to learn as much about configuring and installing software. If you don't like the ports system, we don't for you to use it. You can just go out and build and install all the software by hand. Is it possible in unix? Before I thought that unix programs very compact, but they are huge! They are, it's just some aren't writen to be small. I hope this help you understand. -- John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579 All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ugly Huge BSD Monster
First off, let me say that FreeBSD is one of the cleanest systems out there as the developers try to remove bigger packages from the base system instead of adding more bloat every release. One example would be the removal of perl from the base distribution in 5.x. As for perl and the other scripting languages, the actual scripts are often very small because developers don't need to reinvent the wheel everytime but instead make use of the huge repository of existing classes and libraries. On Windows for example most software packages include their own dependencies. I have seen applications installing their own scripting environments, even their own Java VMs - apart from a dozen of dlls... If you want to develop graphical applications, let me recommend you to take a look at the GNUstep project (http://www.gnustep.org). It provides a complete and clean API but is very small in comparison to the likes of KDE/Qt or GNOME. Greetings, Martin Denis Troshin wrote: Almost every package I install requires a few other packages. This 'idea of using dependent packages' turns FreeBSD (and other unix-systems) to an ugly monster. For example, I don't need Perl or Python but a few packages I install require them. Does exist a programming under unix without these dependencies? P.S. Under Windows it is possible to write not bad applications which depend just on libraries (KERNEL32, USER32, GDI32). And these libs exist on every base system!!! Is it possible in unix? Before I thought that unix programs very compact, but they are huge! ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ugly Huge BSD Monster
On 16:58 Mon 01 Sep , Denis Troshin wrote: P.S. Under Windows it is possible to write not bad applications which depend just on libraries (KERNEL32, USER32, GDI32). And these libs exist on every base system!!! Is it possible in unix? Before I thought that unix programs very compact, but they are huge! If you want compact unix programs, don't use X apps or apps written in scripting languages like Perl and Python. FreeBSD by itself doesn't offer the monstrous APIs that Windows offers; it just offers an implementation of the standard C library (libc). As a result, stock FreeBSD is a very barebones environment. -- Matthew Graybosch http://www.starbreaker.net The best way to lose an argument is to throw the first punch. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ugly Huge BSD Monster
In the last episode (Sep 01), Denis Troshin said: Almost every package I install requires a few other packages. This 'idea of using dependent packages' turns FreeBSD (and other unix-systems) to an ugly monster. For example, I don't need Perl or Python but a few packages I install require them. Does exist a programming under unix without these dependencies? P.S. Under Windows it is possible to write not bad applications which depend just on libraries (KERNEL32, USER32, GDI32). And these libs exist on every base system!!! Windows has the same problems. Are you seriously saying you've never had to download a vbrun*.dll to get a Windows program that required Visual Basic to run? Or maybe had to download one of the many patches that afflict the MS Java implementation? Is it possible in unix? Of course. Most programs in the ports tree are standalone. 95% of the programs in the base system are standalone. Before I thought that unix programs very compact, but they are huge! Some are huge, some are small. There are a lot of Windows programs that are huge too (MS Word, for example). -- Dan Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ugly Huge BSD Monster
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Denis Troshin wrote: Almost every package I install requires a few other packages. This 'idea of using dependent packages' turns FreeBSD (and other unix-systems) to an ugly monster. At least the dependencies are taken care of for you automatically in FreeBSD, unlike some systems which require you to download and install each depedency manually. For example, I don't need Perl or Python but a few packages I install require them. Does exist a programming under unix without these dependencies? P.S. Under Windows it is possible to write not bad applications which depend just on libraries (KERNEL32, USER32, GDI32). And these libs exist on every base system!!! I have to deal with creating internal distribution packages for all kinds of Windows software just about every day, and the dependencies for Windows software can be much worse, especially for Microsoft's own software which seems to be among the worst. Microsoft Office XP alone depends on (when installed on a base Windows 98SE installation), no less than Microsoft Installer 2.x (MSI), Internet Explorer 6, MDAC, and several other non-Office bits and pieces that don't come to mind right now. Granted, they are included in the Office XP installer and it will install all of this by itself if you don't have any of them installed, but they are indeed separate depedencies. I break as many depedencies as I possibly can out of a particular piece of software into separate distribution packages with their own dependency chains. The FreeBSD ports/packages system just happens to already do this to a high degree, because it is a good idea. -- Chris Dillon - cdillon(at)wolves.k12.mo.us FreeBSD: The fastest and most stable server OS on the planet - Available for IA32, IA64, PC98, Alpha, and UltraSPARC architectures - x86-64, PowerPC, ARM, MIPS, and S/390 under development - http://www.freebsd.org No trees were harmed in the composition of this message, although some electrons were mildly inconvenienced. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ugly Huge BSD Monster
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Denis Troshin wrote: Almost every package I install requires a few other packages. This 'idea of using dependent packages' turns FreeBSD (and other unix-systems) to an ugly monster. For example, I don't need Perl or Python but a few packages I install require them. Does exist a programming under unix without these dependencies? P.S. Under Windows it is possible to write not bad applications which depend just on libraries (KERNEL32, USER32, GDI32). And these libs exist on every base system!!! Is it possible in unix? Before I thought that unix programs very compact, but they are huge! You've already got a boatload of responses, but I figured I'd throw in mine: it depends on the application. If applications require a scripting language, by virtue of what they do or how they are written, well, you get a scripting language in the dependencies. To get a Windows-like environment on FreeBSD, you need to layer the X server and then a toolkit/windowing environment on top -- my personal leaning right now is to stick QT/KDE on top. Once you have those pieces in place, you have a lot of what you need to write general-purpose applications interacting with users, the network, multimedia, etc. If you look at some of the key UNIX software packages, however, you'll see that they tend not to have a lot of dependencies -- Apache, Postgres, MySQL, etc. These applications avoid dependencies through less reliance on scripting, GUI elements, etc. One of the upsides, and downsides, of the open source world is a strong dependence on scripting, and the resulting diversification of scripting languages and rapid prototyping tools. This occurs in the Windows world also, though -- if you rely on Java, you need the JVM. If you have TCL applications, you need the TCL environment as well. Many web sites running on Windows use Perl for CGI just as they do in UNIX, in which case you need Perl... One of the nice things about this package-oriented approach is that the dependencies are generally very explicit: you want to write a gui app, so you need the gui pieces. Your application requires a back-end database, so a database dependency is introduced. In Windows, you have a larger base but less ability to decompose as a result. I'm also a bit alarmed when I install a new application and pick up two new scripting languages along the way -- I tend to avoid installing applications that pull in scripting as a dependency. However, sometimes that's unavoidable. In Windows, I think you'll find applications depend on more in the way of libraries than you think, though... Upgrades to system dlls when you build and install applications are not infrequent -- application vendors tend to quietly bundle all the dependent runtime components and quietly install them Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects [EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Associates Laboratories ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ugly Huge BSD Monster
Denis Troshin wrote: Almost every package I install requires a few other packages. This 'idea of using dependent packages' turns FreeBSD (and other unix-systems) to an ugly monster. You're right. The authors of the offending software packages should not do that. It's going to be incredibly hard to get the FSF to quit using libibery, getline, gdb, etc., though. For example, I don't need Perl or Python but a few packages I install require them. Don't install those packages? Provide patches that remove the dependencies, if they are trivial? Rewrite the software from scratch, if the dependencirs turn out to be non-trivial? Does exist a programming under unix without these dependencies? Sure. Anything you are willing to write that doesn't do that. P.S. Under Windows it is possible to write not bad applications which depend just on libraries (KERNEL32, USER32, GDI32). And these libs exist on every base system!!! I beg to differ. InstallShield has a tendency to install the NT version of CTL3D.DLL over top of the Windows 95/98 version, breaking things utterly (as one example). Also, CRTL32.DLL no longer ships with the base system, but it is required for a lot of runtime executable code. It was left out of the base system in order to force people to distribute it, and that was done to impose license restrictions on where the resulting code can be run (i.e. it's free to redistribute with your applications, so long as you only run them on a Microsoft OS -- see the VisualDevStudio license next time you get a chance). Is it possible in unix? Before I thought that unix programs very compact, but they are huge! You're using the wrong programs. I'm going to guess you are installing Gnome or KDE or something like that that has a huge dependency list because it wants to have a huge feature list. -- Terry ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
