Serious problems with C makefiles in Ubuntu

Hello all,

This is another question about C. First of all, please bear in mind that I am used to Windows and MATLAB, so C is giving me considerable trouble even in things most of you will find trivial.

I am using Ubuntu 8.10. I am trying to install correctly this library. The download link is here. I have followed all the steps mentioned here. When I type on the terminal the step 5:

Code:

make all

I get lots of messages, and the last are errors. Please see the file "terminal.txt" attached below, which contains the last 20 or so lines of output from the terminal (there are loads of lines above these).

What are these errors? I can understand that the program had problems finding a few files, but why? They seem to be in their correct folders (I just unzipped and untar-ed the provided file)...

Any help is badly needed, I've been battling with this for far too long. Thanks in advance guys.


EDIT EDIT EDIT EDIT

I just tried going to the /.../acc directory and executing "hscript.csh" directly. I get the following message:

Code:

bad interpreter

EDIT EDIT EDIT EDIT AGAIN

I downloaded and installed the CSH shell. Apparently, everything is going well now.

Starting rant:
Just one comment: although it is only the opinion of a totally newbie on Linux, if Ubuntu is the most user-friendly distribution around, then Linux still has A LOT to go to appeal to the mainstream consumer market. I consider myself above-average when it comes to Windows and general computer usage, although I am no expert.
End of rant

But it is getting better, compared to my previous experience (Red Hat something).

 

One of the reasons I do not like Ubuntu is that many of the powerful tools that make Linux great are either removed (even if easily installable) or hidden. It's as if they managed to put Linux behind a thick glass.

IIRC (please correct me if I'm wrong) Ubuntu does not come with the GNU toolchain built in. It has to be manually installed (one click, but the fact that it is not there from the start is tale-telling IMBO).

 

Is that really a problem?

@HerrKaputt:
Did you install the build-essential metapackage

 

It is not a practical problem, but I see that as a sign of user disempowerment (provided that word exists ) and a "betrayal" of Linux's 'let's see what can I do under the hood' philosophy.

 

About my rant: sorry about it, I was ticked off because things weren't going well.

No, I didn't. What does it do?

 

To a certain extent. But you don't get a set of wrenches when you buy your car, either. If you want to do it, it's relatively trivial to get things set up (apt-get install build-essential). And it's actually a pretty big security risk, having a compiler available on a machine. No reason to open users up to more risk than they need, especially when probably 90% of people who use Linux any more will never run the C/C++ compiler. If you had to jump through more hoops to get development running, I'd agree, but if you're a developer, you should be able to get things working for yourself, especially since it's not that hard. And if you're not a developer, you don't need the tons of dev libraries and such on the machine cluttering it up needlessly.

 

You need that package if you want to compile anything yourself on ubuntu...

Code:

sudo aptitude install build-essential automake

Forgot what automake does but I had to get it when compile a GTK engine so I included it in the command.

 

Having sudo use the same password as the user account and making it able to do essentially anything isn't?
Giving x the ability to do so much isn't?

There are plenty of securityn holes in ubuntu as is, I don't feel like having a compiler would add much.

 

The things Ubuntu gains from these very things, even in security at times makes them worth it. What happens if I forget my root password? am I just screwed and have to reinstall, but that's only one example.

 

But Linux's nature is that of a car with blueprints, wrenches and a set of spare parts. The drift it took with *buntu, IMBO, is that of a polished luxury car you should keep locked for fear of thieves.
Again, nobody is forcing *buntu on anyone, and I'm glad there is a distribution that is spreading Linux with such success. But Ubuntu is getting too similar to Windows in the way it treats its users: "you can't touch this, it's too dangerous for numbskulls like you".
(I am greatly exaggerating here, I reckon that, but I fear that to get a share of the Windows market - i.e. a market loaded with people who cannot program their VCR - one has to sacrifice flexibility for simplicity).

Yes, it's easy. But as I said before, it's quite tale-telling of the direction Ubuntu has taken. The whole point in having an Open Source system is being able to read and modify source code. In that sense, by making the toolchain something ancillary, Ubuntu is betraying (IMO) the Linux philosophy.

That's the point. What will come next? DRM?
(Yes, I am still extremely exaggerating, I know ).

Agreed. In fact I consider Ubuntu an expression of the freedom allowed by the GNU/Linux OS. I even have an Ubuntu distro on my laptop (but I use Kanotix).

 

Just because you say it doesn't make it true. If you want a distro of Linux like that, go use Slackware or Gentoo. Ubuntu is aimed at someone who mostly wants to just use a computer. The nature of Linux is not tinkering, but choice.

You can't read and modify the source code on Ubuntu? Since when? The thing is, not everyone who uses Linux is a programmer. The vast majority of people who use Linux are not programmers. Forcing people to be programmers to use Linux is actually more of a betrayal of the Linux philosophy than not including a compiler. Think of it this way... you buy a car, and it comes with studded snow tires on it. You never drive in snow, it makes the vehicle less safe, but it's sold with studded tires because a small number of people who buy them need it. You'd say that's silly, and it is, but it's the same as putting a compiler on system where it will never get used, and if you really want one, it's trivial to do it yourself. They're not preventing anything. They're not even making a disincentive for it. They're just not doing it by default. If you don't like the default, don't use it. THAT is the point of Linux.

 

And, as I said before, what I do not like of Ubuntu is that it makes the basic tools somehow ancillary.

I did not write that. I wrote that "by making the toolchain something ancillary, Ubuntu is betraying (IMO) the Linux philosophy". Ubuntu developers are taking the power away from the user because their OS is mostly aimed at people who is generally not able to manage that power.
Again, I have nothing against Ubuntu: I like the variety of flavors Linux comes by, all I am saying is that they are getting (IMO) similar to Windows ("Source code? Why would you want to tinker with the source code?").

Sorry, this is not an adequate analogy. Snow tires are a specialized tool with a specialized scope. A compiler is more like a set of wrenches that applies to every part of your car. In fact, it is the basic tool that helped build your car.

That's what I see as a 'betrayal' (I want to stress that I know the term is grossly exaggerated): instead of stimulating people to look under the hood, they are supporting their ignorance and laziness by considering the most important tool for extending and modifying their system, something not important enough to be there by default.

That's correct. But it's the philosophy behind the "not there by default", that I do not like. For this and for other reasons, Ubuntu to me is like Linux under a thick glass screen. That's why I use Kanotix