Linux - NewbieThis Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question?
If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
Sorry I dont understand, coming from a windows background, why we need so many versions of libraries? I am a newbie so be gentle lol! Point is, many dlls in windows are backward-compatible with even ancient programs, so that you dont have to install a specific version? Just wondering why its so different in Linux.
Distribution: RH 6.2, Gen2, Knoppix,arch, bodhi, studio, suse, mint
it's not. it's just that as soon as some software uses some of the new features of a library, you can't use an older one. i used to often take binaries from different distributions, and as long as the libraries were new enough in where i was moving the files too, it would work. i don't think if it as a problem, but since there are so many distributions, with different people working on each different set of library files, the distributions just have to take the libraries where they are and in the condition they are in. if there were just one linux distrubution, there would really only be the library versions floating around that were in official versions of that distribution, not from every beta of every distribution like it is. occasionally an old library is abandoned for a new format. then you lose backward compatibility.
I see. Its just a pain to instal anything for me, first having to install older libraries. I guess I'm just used to good old MS maintaining things to retain compatibility, which to be fair they do quite well.
Im not really sure thats MS are making a good job of maintaining compatibility, granted with linux there are more libary versions and sometimes it can be a pain. However anyone who has programmed visual basic can vouch for the lack of compatibility between different dlls in windows - and to be fair microsoft are only one company, its easier for them to coordinate compatibility but they still manage to mess it up (unless its a marketing strategy).
Lack of compatibility is just a sign of technological evolution and IMHO MS aren't dealing with it any better than the linux community.