libraries philosophy under linux

libraries philosophy under linux

Post by gbs.. » Fri, 02 Jun 2000 04:00:00



Hi,
   I use RedHat 6.2 (but in this subject others are the same) and I
am obliged to use programs born specifically for this ditribution.
I am not only talking of source-distributed software, but also of
.rpm files.
Sometime ago I started creating a "library" of softwares I like and I
put everything in a cdrom.
Now, with my new distro, I cannot use anything of that wares!
Some cannot be installed (because of libraries incompatibility or for
too much a need of a large number of OLD libraries), some can be
installed but they core-dump and don't run.
Now I would like to hear how linuxians behave in such situations;
what I mean is:if I like a program and I change distribution, I have
always to get an updated version of the same program to continue using
it after changing/upgrading distro?What about if the program has been
discontinued and only older versions exists?!
This is a difficult problem for me.

Another point of view is this: I notice that all my linux uses about 450
Mb.OK.But it's not ok that about 300 Mb are ONLY libraries (I don't even
know the functionality of all of them!) and only the rest are good
old linux/unix tools!
In my new RH ditribution I am OBLIGED to install big packages such as
python, gawk, or similar because they are used FOR SYSTEM MAINTENANCE!!
It's absurd that such big packages are the only way to administrate a
system, and I refuse to believe that no smaller utilities exist.
It's not a problem about small Hard Disk (in fact my HD is about 3 Gb),
is't about a problem of principle.
I don't like windows because c:\windows\system is always about 100-200
Mb and the windows folder itself is seldom under about 250 Mb.
This way, linux (especially perhaps RH) will be more and more like
windows, and I don't like this.

To be more synthetic, these are my questions:
o  How can I use (old) programs with a new distribution without
installing tons of unuseful libraries and without getting the last
version of the program itself ?
o  I want to reduce the HD space used by my ditribution.Is this
possible?Which is the best strategy?
o  It is useful to create cdroms full of your favourite programs or it's
a waste of bytes because of aging?

Thanks.Hi,
   I use RedHat 6.2 (but in this subject others are the same) and I
am obliged to use programs born specifically for this ditribution.
I am not only talking of source-distributed software, but also of
.rpm files.
Sometime ago I started creating a "library" of softwares I like and I
put everything in a cdrom.
Now, with my new distro, I cannot use anything of that wares!
Some cannot be installed (because of libraries incompatibility or for
too much a need of a large number of OLD libraries), some can be
installed but they core-dump and don't run.
Now I would like to hear how linuxians behave in such situations;
what I mean is:if I like a program and I change distribution, I have
always to get an updated version of the same program to continue using
it after changing/upgrading distro?What about if the program has been
discontinued and only older versions exists?!
This is a difficult problem for me.

Another point of view is this: I notice that all my linux uses about 450
Mb.OK.But it's not ok that about 300 Mb are ONLY libraries (I don't even
know the functionality of all of them!) and only the rest are good
old linux/unix tools!
In my new RH ditribution I am OBLIGED to install big packages such as
python, gawk, or similar because they are used FOR SYSTEM MAINTENANCE!!
It's absurd that such big packages are the only way to administrate a
system, and I refuse to believe that no smaller utilities exist.
It's not a problem about small Hard Disk (in fact my HD is about 3 Gb),
is't about a problem of principle.
I don't like windows because c:\windows\system is always about 100-200
Mb and the windows folder itself is seldom under about 250 Mb.
This way, linux (especially perhaps RH) will be more and more like
windows, and I don't like this.

To be more synthetic, these are my questions:
o  How can I use (old) programs with a new distribution without
installing tons of unuseful libraries and without getting the last
version of the program itself ?
o  I want to reduce the HD space used by my ditribution.Is this
possible?Which is the best strategy?
o  It is useful to create cdroms full of your favourite programs or it's
a waste of bytes because of aging?

Thanks.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

 
 
 

libraries philosophy under linux

Post by Paul Kimo » Fri, 02 Jun 2000 04:00:00



>   I use RedHat 6.2 (but in this subject others are the same) and I
> am obliged to use programs born specifically for this ditribution.
> I am not only talking of source-distributed software, but also of
> .rpm files.
> Sometime ago I started creating a "library" of softwares I like and I
> put everything in a cdrom.
> Now, with my new distro, I cannot use anything of that wares!
> Some cannot be installed (because of libraries incompatibility or for
> too much a need of a large number of OLD libraries), some can be
> installed but they core-dump and don't run.
> Now I would like to hear how linuxians behave in such situations;
> what I mean is:if I like a program and I change distribution, I have
> always to get an updated version of the same program to continue using
> it after changing/upgrading distro? What about if the program has been
> discontinued and only older versions exists?!

Install the appropriate package containing the old libraries.  In Debian,
these can be found at http://www.debian.org/Packages/frozen/oldlibs/.  

Quote:> Another point of view is this: I notice that all my linux uses about 450
> Mb.OK.But it's not ok that about 300 Mb are ONLY libraries (I don't even
> know the functionality of all of them!) and only the rest are good
> old linux/unix tools!
> In my new RH ditribution I am OBLIGED to install big packages such as
> python, gawk, or similar because they are used FOR SYSTEM MAINTENANCE!!
> It's absurd that such big packages are the only way to administrate a
> system, and I refuse to believe that no smaller utilities exist.
> It's not a problem about small Hard Disk (in fact my HD is about 3 Gb),
> it's about a problem of principle.

The bash executable is ~450 kB.  The gawk installation is ~700 kB.  The
Debian (potato) stripped-down minimal perl installation is ~1.3 MB, and
the base python installation (Debian potato) is ~2.5 MB.  It's not _so_
bad, considering the considerable programming flexibility that these
languages afford, is it?

--


 
 
 

libraries philosophy under linux

Post by Dances With Cro » Fri, 02 Jun 2000 04:00:00


[duplicate post snipped]


Quote:>Hi,
>   I use RedHat 6.2 (but in this subject others are the same) and I
>am obliged to use programs born specifically for this ditribution.

Huh?  No distro should tie you down like that, not even Redhat.  rpm
--force --nodeps can be your friend.  Compile from source if at all
possible; this can improve performance and pinpoint missing libraries
better than rpm can.

Quote:>Sometime ago I started creating a "library" of softwares I like and I
>put everything in a cdrom.
>Now, with my new distro, I cannot use anything of that wares!
>Some cannot be installed (because of libraries incompatibility or for
>too much a need of a large number of OLD libraries), some can be
>installed but they core-dump and don't run.

Don't keep Unix binaries around; they'll suffer software rot just like you
describe.  Source tarballs, however, have a much longer shelf life.

Quote:>In my new RH ditribution I am OBLIGED to install big packages such as
>python, gawk, or similar because they are used FOR SYSTEM MAINTENANCE!!
>It's absurd that such big packages are the only way to administrate a
>system, and I refuse to believe that no smaller utilities exist.
>It's not a problem about small Hard Disk (in fact my HD is about 3 Gb),
>is't about a problem of principle.

Slackware can be pared down to a very minimal configuration, taking up
only 80-100M for a fully functional (if sparse) system.  I think you can
even fit X in there.

Quote:>I don't like windows because c:\windows\system is always about 100-200
>Mb and the windows folder itself is seldom under about 250 Mb.
>This way, linux (especially perhaps RH) will be more and more like
>windows, and I don't like this.

"Feature creep" affects everything.  128K used to be an enormous amount of
memory and now it's zilch.  Not much can be done, short of scavenging a
286 from the dumpster and running Minix or DOS 3.x on it.

Quote:>o  How can I use (old) programs with a new distribution without
>installing tons of unuseful libraries and without getting the last
>version of the program itself ?

Keep source around, recompile.

Quote:>o  I want to reduce the HD space used by my ditribution.Is this
>possible?Which is the best strategy?

Use strip(1) on every binary you can, gzip all the man pages, think about
strip(1)ing libraries, or bite the bullet and buy a larger hard disk since
they're going for about $10/gigabyte or less these days.

Quote:>o  It is useful to create cdroms full of your favourite programs or it's
>a waste of bytes because of aging?

It may be useful to create CD-ROMs full of source tarballs.  CD-ROMs full
of binary executables have time-limited value unless said executables are
statically linked, which is bad.

--
Matt G / Dances With Crows              \###| You have me mixed up with more
There is no Darkness in Eternity         \##| creative ways of being stupid?
But only Light too dim for us to see      \#| Beer is a vegetable.  WinNT
(Unless, of course, you're working with NT)\| is the study of cool. --MegaHAL

 
 
 

libraries philosophy under linux

Post by Christopher Brow » Sat, 03 Jun 2000 04:00:00



would say:

Quote:>To be more synthetic, these are my questions:
>o  How can I use (old) programs with a new distribution without
>installing tons of unuseful libraries and without getting the last
>version of the program itself ?

Recompile the programs using the source RPMs.

That will mean that they use the libraries you've got, thus
eliminating any need to worry about looking for old libraries.
--

Rules of the Evil Overlord #48. "I will treat any beast which I
control through magic or technology with respect and kindness. Thus if
the control is ever broken, it will not immediately come after me for
revenge." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>

 
 
 

libraries philosophy under linux

Post by gbs.. » Sat, 03 Jun 2000 04:00:00


I would like to thank anyone who posted me an answer.
I will now adopt the strategy of using preferably only tarballs of
sources.
Nevertheless I will continue to think that 450 Mb are a lot (I think I
will be considered for this choice a dinosaur :( .
RedHat is too big.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

 
 
 

libraries philosophy under linux

Post by Peter T. Breue » Sat, 03 Jun 2000 04:00:00


: I would like to thank anyone who posted me an answer.
: I will now adopt the strategy of using preferably only tarballs of
: sources.
: Nevertheless I will continue to think that 450 Mb are a lot (I think I
: will be considered for this choice a dinosaur :( .
: RedHat is too big.

No you're quite right. One can comfortably squeeze what is _needed_
inside about 120MB if you know what you're about (indeed, 30MB for
a functioning X based system is quite feasible, but it won't have
development tools on board).

Redhat comes with lots of stuff and no way to say no to it.  SuSE and
Debian have much more available still (debian potato is 2GB of
compressed archives plus bits and pieces from slink), but you can pick
and choose so that a minimum install runs about 40-100MB.

Peter

 
 
 

libraries philosophy under linux

Post by jack » Sat, 03 Jun 2000 04:00:00




> : I would like to thank anyone who posted me an answer.
> : I will now adopt the strategy of using preferably only tarballs of
> : sources.
> : Nevertheless I will continue to think that 450 Mb are a lot (I think I
> : will be considered for this choice a dinosaur :( .
> : RedHat is too big.

> No you're quite right. One can comfortably squeeze what is _needed_
> inside about 120MB if you know what you're about (indeed, 30MB for
> a functioning X based system is quite feasible, but it won't have
> development tools on board).

> Redhat comes with lots of stuff and no way to say no to it.  SuSE and
> Debian have much more available still (debian potato is 2GB of
> compressed archives plus bits and pieces from slink), but you can pick
> and choose so that a minimum install runs about 40-100MB.

...and Slackware is even more customizable. I can nicely squeeze
everything I could possibly need for a development system, (no X of
course :) in just under 80M, during a custom install. Now there's a nice
installer that lets you have what you want and nothing else.

MST

 
 
 

libraries philosophy under linux

Post by gbs.. » Sun, 04 Jun 2000 04:00:00






> > : I would like to thank anyone who posted me an answer.
> > : I will now adopt the strategy of using preferably only tarballs of
> > : sources.
> > : Nevertheless I will continue to think that 450 Mb are a lot (I
think I
> > : will be considered for this choice a dinosaur :( .
> > : RedHat is too big.

> > No you're quite right. One can comfortably squeeze what is _needed_
> > inside about 120MB if you know what you're about (indeed, 30MB for
> > a functioning X based system is quite feasible, but it won't have
> > development tools on board).

> > Redhat comes with lots of stuff and no way to say no to it.  SuSE
and
> > Debian have much more available still (debian potato is 2GB of
> > compressed archives plus bits and pieces from slink), but you can
pick
> > and choose so that a minimum install runs about 40-100MB.

> ...and Slackware is even more customizable. I can nicely squeeze
> everything I could possibly need for a development system, (no X of
> course :) in just under 80M, during a custom install. Now there's a
nice
> installer that lets you have what you want and nothing else.

> MST

I think you two are quite right, but I have installed linux on my system
about 4 times (because I ugraded 4 distributions) and needless to say
now I am tired.So, I will try to transform internally my actual RH 6.2
to a "general" linux system with many things but not too much crap.
Obviously it will probably be an impossible task, but always less
annoying and time-consuming than anything else.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

 
 
 

1. GPL, FSF, RMS and philosophy (was: Re: The Linux C library

I don't think RMS or any other FSF member is against commercial
software or making a profit.  I do think they are against software
hoarding through software patents and claims of ownership on look and
feel, however.  Where would the unix community be if the guy who
invented the commandline interface decided to enforce his
look-and-feel patent ;)

Considering your opinions this is a rather big stretch of the
imagination don't you think? ;^)

Why bother with any licence if you're going to put it in the public
domain?  If however you want to make certain the current and all
future versions are freely available use the GPL or LGPL.  That is
what they are for.

I wouldn't want to use Perl's artistic licence since it is associated
with Larry Wall.  He must a have warped ideology -- just look at the
abomination of a language he created ;)

2. headless server

3. Shared Library Philosophy

4. ANSIfy include/linux/a.out.h and include/linux/nls.h

5. William "Vs" Linux true philosophy

6. dns problems (or name lookups)

7. Philosophy (Linux's greatest strength?)

8. *REALLY* formatting a USB flash drive

9. NB: What's the philosophy of each linux directory?

10. 5 business advantages of Linux kernel philosophy?

11. Non-HTML "William 'Vs'Linux true Philosophy"

12. libraries libraries libraries

13. HELP!!! Fortran library or Linux library error!