@Manni_reloaded said:
Typically if you need something, it's available for whatever version of Windows you have and installing is as simple as double-clicking an EXE.
Yeah, after you find and download the EXE. And then you're not done once you double click it. From there anything can happen. In Linux, typically, you click INSTALL in the software manager and that's really, actually it.
@Manni_reloaded said:
[In Windows] If I want to know what programs I've installed, there's a helpful little icon that I can double-click to see that.
Not necessarily. It depends on the program. Does the Windows version of the GTK+ dev library show up in there? On Linux, typically, you have the same thing but it actually includes everything.
@Manni_reloaded said:
If anyone isn't sure where to find it, there's something kinda obvious about a feature called the "Control Panel".
Linux typically has a control panel thing too where you can find the same stuff.
@Manni_reloaded said:
I don't need to know command lines or filter through results and know the exact version names and numbers, [...]
You don't need to know command lines, it's just easier to send someone a command to run than guide them though a zillion forms and buttons. It's the same on Windows when I have to have someone run "regsvr32 /u /s engcom32.dll" or whatever. The Linux GUI package managers could use better search functionality, but it isn't that hard as it is. And on Windows I have no such option at all. To use a dev library on Windows I have to just Google all these files and figure out where to put them by hand. You can just do the same thing on Linux if you really want to. The OP didn't try that for some reason, and then got all flustered about exactly which package version to install, when I don't think it even mattered.
@Manni_reloaded said:
or to somehow know that I should have gotten the package with "-dev" tacked onto the end.
Is there some other naming convention that would make it super obvious? What do you suggest exactly? What is the equivalent on Windows that is so much easier?
@Manni_reloaded said:
If I install an IDE, I'd expect there to be some basic libraries included, or a message indicating where to get them.
Agreed. Like said before though, the IDEs are trying to do everything. They can't possibly come with every library for every language, though. This is why you, as a dev, need to go read up on what you need and where to get it, if you aren't using the defaults that your choice IDE is set up for. I assume Eclipse works better with Java out of the box, but I wouldn't know.
After 38 seconds of research I found that "Anjuta" is apparently an IDE focused on C/C++. So I got that and clicked "New GTK+ Project" and it told me to go get the GTK3 package with the "-dev" or "-devel" suffix. It also has an "Install missing plugins" button but it's "not implemented yet." Damn! Almost 10/10.
@Manni_reloaded said:
Is there some document or website that
makes it obvious I should have installed build_essential?
Yes. Lots.
@Manni_reloaded said:
People that love digging under the hood with partitioning and command line interfaces and rebuilding the kernel will have a deep love of Linux because of the control and granularity it provides.
I don't. I use Linux for the opposite reason. I click install and I'm done. I don't have to call India or anything.
@Manni_reloaded said:
Except that Windows and Macs already let me do those same things with ease.
What "same things"? I use Mac & Win & Linux to do different things. The things I can do on all 3, for me at least, are usually by far easiest on Linux. I'm sure it's different for everybody, though. I'm sure as hell not using Linux because I'm picky about settings and like to do things the hard way.
Apparently no other IDE comes close to Visual Studio. But I've had enough problems with VS itself, so I haven't subjected myself to any other ones. Crappy IDE's seem to be a real problem, but most of these other "perceptions" are just wrong.