why are linux progs so small in file size?

[sandboy6184]

Compared to a windows program which sometimes is liek 50 mb.... I see an equivalent program in linux with a small file size. I think someone told me before that linux comes with libraries that the program uses, unlike a windows program it comes with a ton of files that arent already included on the OS.

[questionasker]

it (linux) just slimmer all the way around.

[Icarus]

Window programs has a bad habit of including everything and the kitchen sink. Including embedding icon files into the executables

When you run into an unresolved dependency in Linux, this is what keeps individual programs small. They reference libraries elsewhere on the system, not within the program.

[sandboy6184]

Originally posted by mahdi
When you run into an unresolved dependency in Linux, this is what keeps individual programs small. They reference libraries elsewhere on the system, not within the program.

gosh thats so annoying, why not just include all the files in the one setup file or whatever? I remember installing some stuff and I had so many failed dependancies, it all got better when I started using freebsd and ports.

[j79zlr]

I barely ever run into dependency problems :confused: and usually the error is cant find sahred file xxx.so so you just install it. I do agree that BSD's port collection is nice though.

Windows started with this idea, dll's, but now every program includes their own instead of using shared dll's for numerous programs, quite dumb if you ask me.

[Icarus]

Originally posted by j79zlr
Windows started with this idea, dll's, but now every program includes their own instead of using shared dll's for numerous programs, quite dumb if you ask me. Now you run into the DLL Hell problem where x.dll needs to be updated for program Y, but program Z requires x.dll to be on a specific version...something has to break

Not much unlike using/updating gcc :D

[Pafnoutios]

Originally posted by j79zlr
Windows started with this idea, dll's, but now every program includes their own instead of using shared dll's for numerous programs, quite dumb if you ask me.

That is because a closed-source library is proprietary and no-one else may link to it or know how to without paying royalties. Microsoft has probably patented the interfaces to their dll's.

blach!

[EnigmaOne]

Geeze! They've probably copyrighted the letters 'DLL' to boot!

As somebody mentioned before, I don't run into this issue of failed dependencies either, but I do keep an eye the status of the shared code libraries on my filesystem.
It's really the best way of doing things.

IMHO, most folks simply run into this issue out of sheer ignorance.

[psi42]

Originally posted by sandboy6184
gosh thats so annoying, why not just include all the files in the one setup file or whatever? I remember installing some stuff and I had so many failed dependancies, it all got better when I started using freebsd and ports.

Because, as you said before, the program would be "liek 50 mb."

[Alex Cavnar, aka alc6379]

Originally posted by sandboy6184
gosh thats so annoying, why not just include all the files in the one setup file or whatever? I remember installing some stuff and I had so many failed dependancies, it all got better when I started using freebsd and ports.

FreeBSD does the same thing for you, it's just that it's automated-- ports does the dependancy checking, and then it pulls down what it needs. That's pretty much what most *nix systems do, with the exception of those that rely upon the rpm command to install packages. RPM has dependancy checking, but it does not have dependancy retrieval.

Debian does, Gentoo does. Slackware does with Swaret, Mandrake does with URPMI and RPMdrake. Heck, even Red Hat can using yum and apt-get. Personally, I like most of my programs dynamically linked and dependant upon other libs. Imagine if every program that needed glibc or the bash shell included it-- that'd be a stiking lot of CDs that you'd have to use, and that'd be a lot of wasted bandwidth downloading the same program over and over again!

[leonpmu]

Imagine if every program that needed glibc or the bash shell included it-- that'd be a stiking lot of CDs that you'd have to use, and that'd be a lot of wasted bandwidth downloading the same program over and over again! [/B]

not to mention the amount od HDD space needed [read Windows XP]!!

Hence you can fit a fully working distro (without X) on a floppy like TomsRTBT