Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [redhat] How do I compile and run progrms, where R the executables?

Expand Messages
  • Thomas J. Hruska
    ... What flame war? I was stating a fact and one that most sensible people agree with. The only sort of person who will disagree with me would be the Richard
    Message 1 of 14 , Jul 18, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Godwin Stewart wrote:
      > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
      > Hash: SHA1
      >
      > On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:57:34 -0400, "Thomas J. Hruska"
      > <shinelight@...> wrote:
      >
      >> And, Ed, I have to ask a rhetorical question: How is going to
      >> "/mnt/cdrom/path/to/file" easier and more intuitive than popping in a
      >> CD? It isn't. And Linux isn't intuitive to begin with
      >
      > I'll butt in here before this becomes a flame war.

      What flame war? I was stating a fact and one that most sensible people
      agree with. The only sort of person who will disagree with me would be
      the Richard Stallman type of person.

      (Oh, and I met Richard Stallman _in person_ and had a one-on-one
      conversation with him once a couple years ago. He is relatively
      insane...depending on who you ask.)


      > It's true that you have to sit back and put things in perspective
      > sometimes. For someone who's been spoon-fed "computing" by Windows for
      > many years I can well understand GNU/Linux not being intuitive. OTOH,
      > it *is* intuitive for *me* now. Putting a CD in the drive and having to
      > mount it manually seems perfectly natural to me, while shoving one in
      > the drive and watch all hell break loose as it's automounted and some
      > program autoexecuted gives me the creeps. What if someone comes along
      > with a CD of dubious origin?

      Your example is flawed. Someone who has physical access to a Linux box
      can just start up single user mode on a Live CD and cause plenty of
      damage. CD of dubious origin or otherwise. A CD could be bootable for
      all you know and someone could leave it in the drive and reboot - is
      your boot order CD or hard drive first?

      Ultimately, it really doesn't matter if a CD is automatically executed
      or not and 99.999999% of all CD media is perfectly fine to "mount"
      irregardless of OS. All your complaint is over is about control. Most
      people don't care and if they do, they can, shock of all shocks, turn
      the feature OFF. I have it off myself, but that's because I am curious
      to know what is on a CD (and I'm a power user).


      > As you gain experience with Linux, you also gain experience in computer
      > security. The autorun facility on removeable media is a *breach* of
      > that security.

      BTW, just for the record, I never said anything about autorun. However,
      it would be nice if Linux had a similar feature. There could be a
      dialog that pops up that says "A CD has been inserted that has an
      installer. Do you want to install the software "Software Name Here"?
      Yes/No". That way you get the ease of autorun without your fears of
      autorun.


      People who have only used Windows are, on the whole
      > (there are exceptions), blissfully unaware of what system security is
      > because of the warm, fuzzy, "let me take care of everything" feeling
      > given off by applications.

      And yet Ubuntu is #1 on distrowatch.com.

      Is the Linux community going to ban Ubuntu for "creating warm fuzzies"
      as you put it? Fedora/RedHat USED to hold the #1 position because it
      was the closest thing to "warm fuzzies" and was effectively "shunned"
      because of not just the IPO but also because of the undercurrent feeling
      that it was getting too easy to use (no one dared say that though). The
      two events coincided about the same time so "the shunning" was blamed on
      the IPO.


      > So, in short, let's remember that an action may not seem intuitive to
      > one group of people even if it is second nature to others.
      >
      > Ed: We all used to be newbies at one point in time.
      >
      > Thomas: Typing in a fully-qualified pathname to an executable *is*
      > intuitive to some people, as is the whole Unix philosophy, even if it
      > isn't (yet) to you.

      I'm a programmer. And I started programming back when DOS was in its
      infancy and I still use the command line on a frequent basis and I've
      used Linux enough from the command-line to be able to formulate my own
      observations. Only to a power user are the phrases "mount",
      "automount", "autorun", "autoexecute", "fully-qualified pathname",
      "executable", and "Unix philosophy" even barely comprehensible let alone
      intuitive. No, you have to be a true geek to truly comprehend the terms
      and only from the perspective of a geek is it intuitive. The fact that
      we can carry on this conversation at all makes us both geeks.

      Geeks are not qualified to say if something is intuitive. Usability
      experts, however, are. However, I don't have to be a usability expert
      to realize that Linux developers are incredibly dense when it comes to
      designing an OS for _users_. What's funny is that IBM is sponsoring a
      lot of Linux development and they have yet to make any of their own
      products usable (the blind leading the blind). Essentially, no one is
      doing anything to make Linux usable and thus intuitive, so it is nothing
      short of a miracle that Ubuntu is as good as it is (i.e. someone on the
      uber-geek dev team clearly knows how to NOT make a lousy product).

      Linux is NOT intuitive. Period. The closest thing to what I'd consider
      intuitive is the Ubuntu distro...and even then I still have a number of
      things on my "wish list" that need to be met before I start recommending
      it to people as a usable OS.

      So is this flame war material? I think not. It probably raises the
      hair on some people: "Linux is not intuitive? Who does this guy think
      he is?" I'm merely pointing out that even though I've used Linux off
      and on over the years waiting for it to get good enough to use it, it
      isn't intuitive. I know enough to admin a Linux distro. and make
      significant changes - and I've broken enough X installs to make me
      dangerous around your computer (I somehow ALWAYS manage to break X in
      such a way no one can figure out what went wrong).

      --
      Thomas Hruska
      Shining Light Productions

      Home of BMP2AVI, Nuclear Vision, ProtoNova, and Win32 OpenSSL.
      http://www.slproweb.com/

      Ask me about discounts on any Shining Light Productions product!
    • ed
      On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:18:48 -0400 ... Gnome on Ubuntu does do automount and you have inserted a blank cd, what would you like to do helper apps. Personally
      Message 2 of 14 , Jul 19, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:18:48 -0400
        "Thomas J. Hruska" <shinelight@...> wrote:

        > > As you gain experience with Linux, you also gain experience in
        > > computer security. The autorun facility on removeable media is a
        > > *breach* of that security.
        >
        > BTW, just for the record, I never said anything about autorun.
        > However, it would be nice if Linux had a similar feature. There
        > could be a dialog that pops up that says "A CD has been inserted that
        > has an installer. Do you want to install the software "Software Name
        > Here"? Yes/No". That way you get the ease of autorun without your
        > fears of autorun.

        Gnome on Ubuntu does do automount and 'you have inserted a blank cd,
        what would you like to do' helper apps.

        Personally they're not a great help, but I suppose there must be
        someone out there that wants them.

        What sort of auto run were you thinking of? Wouldn't it require
        a ./configure, make, and then a sudo prompt to make install? ;)

        --
        Regards,
        Ed.
      • Thomas J. Hruska
        ... Ubuntu has the Add/Remove Programs facility that automatically apt-get install s programs behind the scenes. Perhaps a similar facility for CDs - you
        Message 3 of 14 , Jul 19, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          ed wrote:
          > On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:18:48 -0400
          > "Thomas J. Hruska" <shinelight@...> wrote:
          >
          >>> As you gain experience with Linux, you also gain experience in
          >>> computer security. The autorun facility on removeable media is a
          >>> *breach* of that security.
          >> BTW, just for the record, I never said anything about autorun.
          >> However, it would be nice if Linux had a similar feature. There
          >> could be a dialog that pops up that says "A CD has been inserted that
          >> has an installer. Do you want to install the software "Software Name
          >> Here"? Yes/No". That way you get the ease of autorun without your
          >> fears of autorun.
          >
          > Gnome on Ubuntu does do automount and 'you have inserted a blank cd,
          > what would you like to do' helper apps.
          >
          > Personally they're not a great help, but I suppose there must be
          > someone out there that wants them.
          >
          > What sort of auto run were you thinking of? Wouldn't it require
          > a ./configure, make, and then a sudo prompt to make install? ;)

          Ubuntu has the "Add/Remove Programs" facility that automatically apt-get
          install's programs behind the scenes. Perhaps a similar facility for
          CDs - you insert it into the drive, Ubuntu sees an apt-get compatible
          product on the disc and offers to install that on the user's drive.
          Then it automatically checks for updates using the standard mechanisms.
          This, of course, means Ubuntu has to open up an "easy-to-use"
          interface for businesses to register product updates on their website
          but be able to control and monitor deployment from their own servers.
          Businesses will also want the ability to "deploy" upgrade incentives
          (e.g. "buy the upgrade today and save $5 off the normal price!")

          --
          Thomas Hruska
          Shining Light Productions

          Home of BMP2AVI, Nuclear Vision, ProtoNova, and Win32 OpenSSL.
          http://www.slproweb.com/

          Ask me about discounts on any Shining Light Productions product!
        • ed
          On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:46:19 -0400 ... Hum I think I stumbled onto your openssl page today by accident, I knew shininglight rang a bell somewhere. Anyway, the
          Message 4 of 14 , Jul 20, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:46:19 -0400
            "Thomas J. Hruska" <shinelight@...> wrote:

            > > What sort of auto run were you thinking of? Wouldn't it require
            > > a ./configure, make, and then a sudo prompt to make install? ;)
            >
            > Ubuntu has the "Add/Remove Programs" facility that automatically apt-
            > get install's programs behind the scenes. Perhaps a similar facility
            > for CDs - you insert it into the drive, Ubuntu sees an apt-get
            > compatible product on the disc and offers to install that on the
            > user's drive. Then it automatically checks for updates using the
            > standard mechanisms. This, of course, means Ubuntu has to open up an
            > "easy-to-use" interface for businesses to register product updates on
            > their website but be able to control and monitor deployment from
            > their own servers. Businesses will also want the ability to "deploy"
            > upgrade incentives (e.g. "buy the upgrade today and save $5 off the
            > normal price!")

            Hum I think I stumbled onto your openssl page today by accident, I knew
            shininglight rang a bell somewhere.

            Anyway, the cd would have to contain the deb packages for all the
            various architectures and of course for all flavours of the various
            distros etc etc.

            Perhaps an improvement to the build scripts concept, would perhaps be
            better? The qmail source code compiles without a configure script.

            Or perhaps if the application was fully written in perl or python it
            would be a lot less hassle to run things.

            --
            Regards, Ed :: http://www.bsdwarez.net
            just another python hacker
            Linux gives us the power we need to crush those who oppose us.
          • Thomas J. Hruska
            ... Win32 OpenSSL is an extremely popular binary distribution (several hundred thousand downloads every year) of OpenSSL and I m the primary maintainer of the
            Message 5 of 14 , Jul 20, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              ed wrote:
              > On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:46:19 -0400
              > "Thomas J. Hruska" <shinelight@...> wrote:
              >
              >>> What sort of auto run were you thinking of? Wouldn't it require
              >>> a ./configure, make, and then a sudo prompt to make install? ;)
              >> Ubuntu has the "Add/Remove Programs" facility that automatically apt-
              >> get install's programs behind the scenes. Perhaps a similar facility
              >> for CDs - you insert it into the drive, Ubuntu sees an apt-get
              >> compatible product on the disc and offers to install that on the
              >> user's drive. Then it automatically checks for updates using the
              >> standard mechanisms. This, of course, means Ubuntu has to open up an
              >> "easy-to-use" interface for businesses to register product updates on
              >> their website but be able to control and monitor deployment from
              >> their own servers. Businesses will also want the ability to "deploy"
              >> upgrade incentives (e.g. "buy the upgrade today and save $5 off the
              >> normal price!")
              >
              > Hum I think I stumbled onto your openssl page today by accident, I knew
              > shininglight rang a bell somewhere.

              Win32 OpenSSL is an extremely popular binary distribution (several
              hundred thousand downloads every year) of OpenSSL and I'm the primary
              maintainer of the project. Donations, unfortunately, are rare and don't
              even cover bandwidth costs.


              > Anyway, the cd would have to contain the deb packages for all the
              > various architectures and of course for all flavours of the various
              > distros etc etc.
              >
              > Perhaps an improvement to the build scripts concept, would perhaps be
              > better? The qmail source code compiles without a configure script.
              >
              > Or perhaps if the application was fully written in perl or python it
              > would be a lot less hassle to run things.

              Didn't think of that. How about a combination approach? Enhance the
              deb package architecture so that it can accept binaries as it currently
              does AND have the ability to compile packages automatically (e.g. an
              internal scripting system that builds a custom package for the system).
              This approach would allow deb-based distros. to optimize binaries for
              the architecture being run on for performance (e.g. 686 instead of
              generic x86). Since deb packages automatically have built in dependency
              resolution, forcing build-essential to be on the system as a dependency
              should be a piece of cake.

              --
              Thomas Hruska
              Shining Light Productions

              Home of BMP2AVI, Nuclear Vision, ProtoNova, and Win32 OpenSSL.
              http://www.slproweb.com/

              Ask me about discounts on any Shining Light Productions product!
            • ed
              On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:41:35 -0400 ... You should put some google ads on there, they don t cost you bandwidth. I ve made $8 so far, if this keeps up I could
              Message 6 of 14 , Jul 20, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:41:35 -0400
                "Thomas J. Hruska" <shinelight@...> wrote:

                > Win32 OpenSSL is an extremely popular binary distribution (several
                > hundred thousand downloads every year) of OpenSSL and I'm the primary
                > maintainer of the project. Donations, unfortunately, are rare and
                > don't even cover bandwidth costs.

                You should put some google ads on there, they don't cost you bandwidth.
                I've made $8 so far, if this keeps up I could probably cover the
                hosting cost of one of my domains at www.sh3lls.net ($12/year). I've
                nothing to do with them, before anyone accuses me of using this group
                for advertising.

                I'm sure your site will get more ad hits than mine, as yours has
                something useful on it. It's a shame about bandwidth costs, if you have
                a dedicated box somewhere in a datacenter it might be worth getting
                some peering agreements, it might save your upstream a little.

                > Didn't think of that. How about a combination approach? Enhance the
                > deb package architecture so that it can accept binaries as it
                > currently does AND have the ability to compile packages automatically
                > (e.g. an internal scripting system that builds a custom package for
                > the system). This approach would allow deb-based distros. to optimize
                > binaries for the architecture being run on for performance (e.g. 686
                > instead of generic x86). Since deb packages automatically have built
                > in dependency resolution, forcing build-essential to be on the system
                > as a dependency should be a piece of cake.

                Well, this would cripple the whole 'binary distributions are better
                than source distributions' that everyone shouts the minute someone
                mentions gentoo (when's genthree comming :)? ).

                It does exist already, but just not in a very user-friendly way:

                ed@workstation:~/temp/vim$ apt-get source vim-gnome
                Reading Package Lists... Done
                Building Dependency Tree... Done
                Need to get 5888kB of source archives.

                All the dependencies have to be matched again though. Sadly, it's the
                build process which gets matches them and not the packages. This
                matching is all that needs to be enhanced. Then the auto insert could
                just read a 'autorun.inf' file that has dpkg-buildpackage, then dpkg -i
                package...

                --
                Regards, Ed ::
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IfHm6R5le0
                just another perl hacker
                Linux gives us the power we need to crush those who oppose us.
              • Elrond Pegg
                Well, I just cant work my way around! I dont know how to load software in Linux. On PC you have .exe files and you just double click on them and your re away.
                Message 7 of 14 , Jul 21, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Well, I just cant work my way around! I dont know how to load software in Linux. On PC you have .exe files and you just double click on them and your're away. But I dont think Linux has anything like that. Do you ahve to compile programs and if so, how and which of the files in the root directories do you run from the shell to get a program running?

                  .





                  ---------------------------------
                  The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider.

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • zavandi
                  ... Maybe this article will answer some of your questions: http://en.jakilinux.org/first-steps/installing-software/
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jul 22, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 7/21/06, Elrond Pegg <elrondpegg@...> wrote:
                    > Well, I just cant work my way around! I dont know how to load software in Linux. On PC you have .exe files and you just double click on them and your're away. But I dont think Linux has anything like that. Do you ahve to compile programs and if so, how and which of the files in the root directories do you run from the shell to get a program running?
                    >

                    Maybe this article will answer some of your questions:

                    http://en.jakilinux.org/first-steps/installing-software/
                  • Cameron Simpson
                    ... Ok, under windows ( on PC is a little off you know; most linux machines run on PCs) you usually find a setup.exe type of executable with new windows
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jul 22, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On 21Jul2006 16:05, Elrond Pegg <elrondpegg@...> wrote:
                      | Well, I just cant work my way around! I dont know how to load
                      | software in Linux. On PC you have .exe files and you just double click on
                      | them and your're away. But I dont think Linux has anything like that. Do
                      | you ahve to compile programs and if so, how and which of the files in
                      | the root directories do you run from the shell to get a program running?

                      Ok, under windows ("on PC" is a little off you know; most linux machines
                      run on PCs) you usually find a "setup.exe" type of executable with new
                      windows software. It is just a program like any other, and rigged to
                      do the install, placing the new applications files and executables
                      suitably.

                      Applications under Linux usually come in two forms: a source archive,
                      typically named "something.tar.gz", and a precompiled package in a
                      vendor-specific format: a .deb file for Debian type distros, .rpm for
                      RedHat distros and so forth. You can think of them like a ZIP file with
                      the executables and so forth inside. All of these are binary packages;
                      there is a matching vendor supplied program to unpackage and apply these.

                      With a source archive you unpack it, compile and install it.
                      Instructions will be inside the archive.

                      With a binary package you use the installed program. For example, with an RPM
                      file you would run: "rpm -ivh foo.rpm".

                      Anyway, the relevant executables should end up in the standard places.
                      Your shell knows where to find these. The variable $PATH lists the places
                      to look, so typing:

                      echo $PATH

                      at your shell prompt will list the search path for executables.

                      Does this start to answer your questions?
                      --
                      Cameron Simpson <cs@...> DoD#743
                      http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/

                      Uh, this is only temporary...unless it works. - Red Green
                    • Thomas J. Hruska
                      ... Okay, I spent the better portion of today installing FC5 so I could intelligently answer this e-mail (you wouldn t believe what I had to go through to
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jul 22, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Elrond Pegg wrote:
                        > Well, I just cant work my way around! I dont know how to load software in Linux. On PC you have .exe files and you just double click on them and your're away. But I dont think Linux has anything like that. Do you ahve to compile programs and if so, how and which of the files in the root directories do you run from the shell to get a program running?

                        Okay, I spent the better portion of today installing FC5 so I could
                        intelligently answer this e-mail (you wouldn't believe what I had to go
                        through to avoid burning the ISO to DVD). The latest Fedora looks a LOT
                        like Ubuntu but I still think Ubuntu has the nicer interface for new users.

                        Elrond, you can find new software to install under
                        "Applications->Add/Remove Programs". However, I'm somewhat disappointed
                        in the selection available - everything is grouped into "big categories"
                        instead of single apps.

                        If you KNOW the package you want to install, you _CAN_ use the GUI, but
                        the command-line is still considerably faster. RedHat uses 'yum' to
                        perform system updates and you can easily install new software by going:

                        yum install AppName

                        From a terminal (Applications->Accessories->Terminal). However, I'd
                        first do:

                        yum update

                        To update Fedora's components (this can take a while). And you can set
                        up automatic updates with:

                        chkconfig yum on

                        If you don't know the package you want to install, you can search for it:

                        yum search AppName

                        'yum' requires root access. Root access under RedHat is most easily
                        done via 'su'.

                        $ su
                        Enter password: [type your password]
                        #

                        ($ = normal user, # = root)

                        Ubuntu uses 'sudo' - IMO, a more secure method of handling root privileges.

                        --
                        Thomas Hruska
                        Shining Light Productions

                        Home of BMP2AVI, Nuclear Vision, ProtoNova, and Win32 OpenSSL.
                        http://www.slproweb.com/

                        Ask me about discounts on any Shining Light Productions product!
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.