Dumb question?

[John Ramsay_2]

Here's a dumb question:
Since there are many different flavors of unix but not an infinite amount, Why do programs have default paths while there are no default paths in unix? Why bother with any kind of path in an install configuration when there is no chance it will work? Wouldn't it be easier for the developer to state what will be required (I don't mean a generic dependancy statement because that won't help since there is no default path), and give ways to enter the correct values? I know it "sorta" does that now but unfortunately "sorta" won't compile or make or make install. How about someone saying i.e. HP-UX 11.00 WILL use /usr/lib....for ALL xxxx libraries...that way when someone developes an app they know where these libs will be.
I did a straight up HP-UX 11.00 install and have yet to compile something without trial and error and wasted hours while most of the time it never works. So all the work someone did on XXXX program, I can never use it. Am I the first person who has thought about this or is it an unwritten rule that unix users remain secretive about their systems and only those who "know" unix is allowed in the club. If that's the case why bother with an HP forum?

[Ralph Haefner]

Settle down dude! :-)

It can be frustrating getting started with Unix, but it is worth it. A few days of using it and you'll be compiling your apps with no troubles.

The one tip I can give you with your specific problem is to use the find command. If you have a library named "foo.lib" that you need to find, you can go to the root directory then do this:

find . -name foo.lib -print

This will print out on your screen the full path to all files on your system named foo.lib. Hopefully you will be able to identify the correct path you need from that.

Hang in there and good luck.

[John Ramsay_2]

I can Identify and edit the configure file...My question is why should I have too?
Where is system.dat in MS Windows? c:\windows\system...
ALWAYS!!!
Do you mean Uncle Bill figured out how to standardize while Torvalds,HP,Solaris...never have???So sad.

[A. Clay Stephenson]

Okay, let's take your example of always putting libraries in /usr/lib. Now, suppose that I am developing a new "improved" libc.sl. Okay, I install it in the standard location but , oops, I made a teeny little booboo and now tons of standard utilities which use this library are now broken and I can't even fix it because none of the tools I need will now work all because everything loads from one "standard" directory.

There are standards but they vary with the OS. It's so easy to change SHLIB_PATHS and LDLOAD_PATH's or chatr a file that it's not worth worrying about.

Your problems seem to stem from using Gnu software; it's well worth the price but it does assume some level of expertise in building executables. You are further driven from the "true path" for HP-UX by relying upom the Gnu development system (gcc, gas, flex, bison, gmake) rather than the more standard HP-UX utilities. I find that the Porting Centre's binary versions install almost flawlessly but thre sources make the silly assumption that you know what you are doing and also realize the /etc/PATH and /etc/MANPATH will need updating.

Maybe one day, UNIX will be as good as Microsoft. One the other hand, UNIX solved little minor problems like semaphores, multi-user conflicts, and terminal/keyboard/display independence decades before Microsoft did.

[John Ramsay_2]

Unix Blows MS away. I just needed the info of why this scheme was going on. Since there are so many failures with compiling and make...I couldn't understand why this was so difficult. Your explanation make sense. I guess I will keep on trial and error until I learn how to tell the apps where the neede components. It would seem since this HAS to be a problem new users experience someone would write a primer addressing this.
Thanks for letting me vent...It's just a characture flaw.

[James A. Donovan]

Someone has...

http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/prognu/
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/unixnut3/

[Jov]

Hi John,

I understand your frustration. The problem is with the Unix vendors wanting to define their own standards and none ever finally agreed to anything. That said, there are some unspoken standards most vendors use and other official standards adopted.

Also you can not compare Unix to MS since Windows (and MS OSes) are all managed by one company where various Unix flavours (including Linux, BSD, etc..) are from multiply vendors (all battling to push their version in the market).

The good in all this is that in time you will learn more intimately about your Unix systems and this issue will be in past. By then you'll think why don't MS take various Unix approaches in doing things? ;)

As a lecturer of mine once said, "Unix is a none forgiving system", and to add the reward far outweigh the initial investment of time and patience.


Cheers

Jov

[MarkSyder]

Uncle Bill managed to standardize?

I bought my children a PC game, installed it, and selected Sound, thinking it would give me an option of sound on or off. Instead, it gave me a list of sound cards and asked me to select which one was fitted in our PC. The first page consisted solely of cards beginning with A or B. My children play that game without sound and I devote my home computing time to a RISC OS computer (which almost certainly means nothing to you, as you're based in the USA where RISC OS has never taken a hold).

Stick with unix, it's more user-friendly than Windoze.

Mark Syder (like the drink but spelt different)

[Michael Schulte zur Sur]

Hi,

At first glance it looks like an advantage to have all files in c:\windows\system(32). The disadvantage of it is, you got all(well, more or less) files in c:\windows\system(32). Try to uninstall a programme. The uninstall programme asks: "Should I delete file xxx, or not???". So overtime this directory get cluttered.

greetings,

Michael