Elysian Shadows

I recently got a new Core 2 Duo PC with PCI graphics since my old PC is a pile of shit ( I'll have to do another particle video :D )

But its dual boot with ubuntu linux so I can port EQ and whatever future projects to it. I'm finding it a very nice system however its REALLY pissing me off for a development system.

From what I read the "file system" is secure because its read-only so the only thing that can modify it is linux

Here is a example of how thats a bad ting

I installed lua 5.1 ( cool )
I install tolua++ ( cool )
The only way around this is to add this directory as a include path in the project settings.

Am I the only one thats bothered about all this tediouseness?

if you need to create an alternate path that can be used to refer to the same dir or file, check out ln.
As for security, the filesystem is only "secure" in that sense in that no one gives a fuck enough to write a real method for accessing ext filesystems from other os's. It does have more complex permissions that makes viruses and trojans a bit more difficult to make, however.

I simply MUST ask the question, how is that example relevant? It's a small issue that can be fixed with a single ln command, and, in reality, it's MORE tedious on windows, because it doesn't have the idea of central repositories and doesn't have a global include directory, so you're REQUIRED to specify include paths.

Maybe it's just me, but the parts of this post where you complain are bullshit (though don't take this as saying linux is perfect, just that his complaints are invalid).

It probably is me being picky.

But why do you have to specify a path on windows? the reason you can simply include standard headers such as "iostream" is becuase they're in the "include" folder of the IDE's directory.

I personally find manually putting the files there is easier

Don't take that as a complaint though because I'm enjoying ubuntu a lot more than XP Home and XP Pro.

The reason you can easily include standard headers like "iostream" on linux is that there is an entire directory in the root filesystem designated for header files; /usr/include. As for your example with tolua++.h, that's an issue with the lib itself. However, you can use ln to create a link (think Windows shortcut, but a little more flexible) to the correct file with the path that tolua++.h uses. ie. if it's currently in /usr/include/lua5.1/lua.h (which I presume is what you meant in your example code): This will basically make /usr/include/lua.h a direct reference to /usr/include/lua5.1/lua.h

Ginto8 wrote:The reason you can easily include standard headers like "iostream" on linux is that there is an entire directory in the root filesystem designated for header files; /usr/include. As for your example with tolua++.h, that's an issue with the lib itself. However, you can use ln to create a link (think Windows shortcut, but a little more flexible) to the correct file with the path that tolua++.h uses. ie. if it's currently in /usr/include/lua5.1/lua.h (which I presume is what you meant in your example code):

Code: Select all

ln /usr/include/lua5.1/lua.h /usr/include/lua.h

This will basically make /usr/include/lua.h a direct reference to /usr/include/lua5.1/lua.h

Don't worry I understand. I just find it tediouse. I'm enjoying linux very much apart from the file system its a much nicer system than windows.

N64vSNES wrote: Don't worry I understand. I just find it tediouse. I'm enjoying linux very much apart from the file system its a much nicer system than windows.

Really? I almost prefer the unix-style file systems. File extensions are a pain in the ass most of the time. I also like having everything in config files instead of a registry and .dlls.

dandymcgee wrote:

N64vSNES wrote: Don't worry I understand. I just find it tediouse. I'm enjoying linux very much apart from the file system its a much nicer system than windows.

Really? I almost prefer the unix-style file systems. File extensions are a pain in the ass most of the time. I also like having everything in config files instead of a registry and .dlls.

Well I'm naturally a windows kiddy. I'm ashamed to say that this is my first time I've had linux outside of a virtual machine and I've never even seen a mac ( as in actually in front of me )

I'm sure in time I'll get used to the way linux works compared to windows.

Yeah they're different for sure. I've only ever used one of the newer Macs while in high school, and didn't get a chance to play with it much.

dandymcgee wrote:Yeah they're different for sure. I've only ever used one of the newer Macs while in high school, and didn't get a chance to play with it much.

If they weren't so pricey I'd definitely get one. They sound a lot more straightforward than windows and I'm now best friends with GCC so XCode won't both bother me. :D

I've been using linux over windows for the past few days and apart from code-blocks sucking I'm getting used to how things work and starting to prefer it over windows. Seems to run stuff better as well.

I <3 linux, but I just set up a windows desktop for gaming... But anyways, I find devving soooo much easier on linux, its gaming that becomes a problem (Starcraft 2 anyone?)
with a dual boot system you're in business

N64vSNES wrote:apart from code-blocks sucking

I'm interested in this particular snippet. CB is a fantastic IDE. Perhaps you suck at wielding it.

TheBuzzSaw wrote:

N64vSNES wrote:apart from code-blocks sucking

I'm interested in this particular snippet. CB is a fantastic IDE. Perhaps you suck at wielding it.

+1

TheBuzzSaw wrote:

N64vSNES wrote:apart from code-blocks sucking

I'm interested in this particular snippet. CB is a fantastic IDE. Perhaps you suck at wielding it.

I am pretty sure what he means is that it sucks on Ubuntu. I too have had issues getting it to run like it would on a windows box. I've tried getting it from synaptic, downloading the .deb and even rebuilding it from source. each time i would come up with different errors. The good thing though is there are numerous other tools like CB made just for *nix systems.

dandymcgee wrote:

N64vSNES wrote: Don't worry I understand. I just find it tediouse. I'm enjoying linux very much apart from the file system its a much nicer system than windows.

Really? I almost prefer the unix-style file systems. File extensions are a pain in the ass most of the time. I also like having everything in config files instead of a registry and .dlls.

I agree with those two points, but the directory structure seems alot more geared towards mainframes than desktops. I mean, why would my laptop both need to have a /usr and a /usr/local directory? Also, it seems the whole directory structure is developed around the assumption that every single program is writtin in C/++ and has header files, source files, bin files and library files. It is like, for example a Java program, doesn't really "fit" in the system.

I have used linux(ubuntu) for some time and i really like it, but the directory structure still seems wired to me.

That went wrong in translation.

I meant to say "Apart from code-blocks sucking with GCC"

You guys can't seriously like GCC?!?!