Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'fink is better' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
fink is better
Authored by: urcindalo on Oct 23, '02 12:30:41PM

First of all, "sudo apt-get install imagemagick" is easy enough for me. You don't even need to compile anything. However, for this option to be usable in 10.2, we must wait a little bit so that the precompiled binaries for Jaguar become available. If you still use 10.1.5, try the command above and enjoy!
Secondly, fink manages it in every possible way: you can update it, delete it, etc...
Thirdly, fink doesn't mess up with system directorie like /usr/local

Personally, I don't install any non-fink unix program.
Greetings from Spain.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Fink is not necessarily better
Authored by: tonyarnold on Oct 23, '02 09:26:19PM

err...yes, Fink is a wonderful tool, but /usr/local isn't a "system" directory per-se. It's a defined standard that 3rd-party software is installed in /usr/local, it's just some vendors/developers got the sh*ts with how much other software was getting in the way of their wonderful software.

Some unixen place their 3rd party software in /opt, some in /usr/local, the Fink team decided that /sw was the go for their needs. Was this the right thing? If the apt-get/dpkg tool/packaging system was built into OSX then, no - it wouldn't have been. However, fink uses apt-get/dpkg to great advantage, and doesn't need other packages getting installed into it's directory tree without it's knowledge - /sw is a good idea in this case.

Just don't preclude that if something gets installed in /usr/local that it's a bad thing. On a default install, there shouldn't be anything but a directory structure under /usr/local, so removing everything in /usr/local is not a bad thing on just about any unix system...



[ Reply to This | # ]