Binary incompatibility of Linux distributions

[Rashkae]

Odd wrote:
> Rashkae wrote:
>> Odd wrote:
>>
>>> It's easier, but as you say, it makes makes windows unstable and insecure.
>>> I agree with what you're saying for the most part. I just wish for a better
>>> interface for Synaptic, and a better way to install software not in repos.
>>> Personally I have no problems compiling software or using other means,
>>> but I do know how most people find it. They don't understand, and they
>>> don't want to. So for these people, who are a huge majority of computer
>>> usres, there should be better ways.
>> You're asking for an easier way to install software that hasn't been
>> packaged for the OS of the user, but that's a double standard.  For
>> illustration purposes, please install an SVN branch of Mplayer on
>> windows that hasn't been prepackaged for Windows, then come back and
>> tell much how we have to make installation of software in Linux easier.
> 
> I think your reaching here.
> No ordinary user would ever install an SVN branch of Mplayer.
> They would install the latest stable binary.
> 

There is no such thing in this case (why I chose the example), but
that's exactly my point.  If the software developer, or even a third
party, makes a binary for a system, be it Ubuntu, Red Hat, Windows or
Mac, then installing between them is relatively a snap, and you can
debate the merits between them until your blue in the face.  However,
what I've seen here is complaints that installing software in Linux
where there is no packaged binary is too hard and therefore Linux needs
an easier way to install software.  I call rubbish on that train of
thought.  The difference here is that Linux actually makes installing
from source so easy, relatively speaking, it becomes a visible option to
the masses, whereas in Windows word, that kind of procedure would be way
too daunting to even be considered among non-developers.