Binary incompatibility of Linux distributions

[Jerry Houston]

On Thursday 21 May 2009 06:13:25 am Derek Broughton wrote:
> Jerry Houston wrote:
> > Actually, most applications for Windows don't _need_ to be compiled from
> > sources.  They're distributed (even open source freeware) as Microsoft
> > Installer databases (.MSI files) that are installed on nearly any Windows
> > system without any such problems.
>
> Silly statement.  Of course "most" applications for Ubuntu don't need to be
> compiled from source either.  However, MSI installers need to be self-
> contained.  Too bad if they happen to have an external dependency

Total BS.  I build MSI installers frequently (I created two new ones at work 
today), and they include any dependencies that are required.  It's part of the 
architecture.

On the other hand, I have yet to get RealVNC installed on my Ubuntu machines 
here at home, because although I can un-gzip a binary package to my machine, I 
can't provide the c6-something-so3.something "common library" that it 
requires.  If it were a required DLL for a Windows system, it would be 
included in the MSI.

Like I said, I'm a Linux enthusiast.  But I'm also a Windows professional, and 
have been for more than 20 years.  I call BS when I see it.