Linked by cloud on Sat 27th Oct 2012 01:05 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 540235
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: lie-nux at it again.
by WereCatf on Sat 27th Oct 2012 13:08
in reply to "RE[8]: lie-nux at it again."
1. does package manager never say "this or that .so file is not present".
You not having set LD_LIBRARY_PATH environment variable properly does. Read http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Program-Library-HOWTO/shared-libraries.html
Basically, the LD_LIBRARY_PATH environment variable must include the path to the location where the libraries are. This is a security feature. You, on the other hand, seem to expect the system to just automatically use whatever files that happen to be in the same directory as the executable, something that is fine in small, embedded systems, but Linux is meant for multi-user systems and on those it's a bad idea to do that.
If you do not have the libraries installed at all, well, that's your own issue. Package managers exist exactly for the reason that people don't have to hunt for the dependencies themselves. If you insist on not using a package manager then you must manually hunt all the dependencies and install them.
3. cannot a modern linux system be used at all without package manager. ??
Yes, it can. You just have to install all the dependencies by hand. See e.g. LSB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Standard_Base
It's not worth it, though. Why do you even want to not have a package manager? Is there some good, specific reason for that, or is it just that you do not understand how package managers and shared libraries work under Linux?
will you agree to contribute to a clock-less multi-core microprocessor and control program development if you are sure about your abilities. i will tell you the site to vist and see the documents.
No, thank you. I have no need or interest in such.
RE[10]: lie-nux at it again.
by sameer on Sat 27th Oct 2012 13:16
in reply to "RE[9]: lie-nux at it again."
RE[9]: lie-nux at it again.
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sat 27th Oct 2012 17:04
in reply to "RE[8]: lie-nux at it again."
Do you understand how much of a troll you are acting like? WereCalf is being very nice in putting up with your nonsensical non sequiturs. It really sounds as if you are projecting some other hurt you have in your life into this pseudo-technical argument ( no offense to werecalf who is being very nice and technical). But seriously, relax. Play some crazy violent video games, have a beer and chill.
RE[10]: lie-nux at it again.
by Athlander on Sat 27th Oct 2012 17:42
in reply to "RE[9]: lie-nux at it again."




Member since:
2012-10-27
-----------> "package manager".
1. does package manager never say "this or that .so file is not present".
2. microkernel does not remove shared libs, but it does not make the libs to become a headache for the downloader.
3. cannot a "linux fan-boy system" be used at all without package manager. ??
-----------> "and that says enough about your level of technical abilities."
will you agree to contribute to a clock-less multi-core microprocessor and control program development if you are sure about your abilities. i will tell you the site to vist and see the documents.
Edited 2012-10-27 12:58 UTC