Why are file sizes of installers/setups of applications for Linux/UNIX usually larger than those for Windows?
I’ve observed that file sizes of installers/setups of programs for Linux and UNIX are generally larger than their ports for Microsoft Windows. Examples of these include Mozilla Firefox, Thunderbird, Sunbird, JRE, OpenOffice.org, etc.
One example can be seen here:-
http://download.openoffice.org/680/
Why is this so? Does it have something to do with the architecture of Linux/UNIX? Do smaller file sizes of Windows counterparts imply a better API or better compilers?
Tagged with: architecture • counterparts • Linux • Microsoft • microsoft windows • openoffice • ports • sunbird • thunderbird • unix • windows examples
Filed under: Linux Applications
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
One of the things a Windows installer has to do for the clueless Windows users is put a .dll inside Windows folder. What this .dll will do is serve as an information desk to modules that need to find code resources. So, you have a very small file of compiled C++ so the Windows user cannot change the pathnames of the software. The rest of a Windows software will know where to locate folders with code to make a program. That is what install.exe does. It’s all byte code.
On Linux, the software has to use the C/C++ or QT or python libraries to make the software. Usually you get the source code (not the binary) and a script will configure the pathnames to the libraries that the Linux user has already. Linux can run so many more devices on older hardware than Windows can. Microsoft would have to rewrite a lot of .dll code. (Which is what .net is all about. .net is like java however, .net is a 10-gig library).
.net holds a promise of using the same library for many different hardware be it a web server, a database, a desktop computer, etc. The marketplace will decide on .net.
Linux means FREE as in Free Beer and Free as in Freedom of thought. And, that includes the free code library of free choice.
I think you are mistaken about UNIXES
See there is no single standard executable installer for Linux
But there is two type of installing method which is standard
Programs for Linux exist in 2 form
Installer and Compile from Source
The fundamental installer is compiling from source
This is where the installer takes the form of a folder containing a make file and directives /source code
When you install by this method the make file parses through GCC to produce a object code the final program
The source is definitely smaller than ANY Windows Installer
Using this method you can add optimization for the compiler for your particular machine eg INTEL/AMD to produce a faster binary this is where Windows Loses out
Disadvantage is the time taken to compile can be very long in a for large programs like Openoffice.org
Eg of UNIX OS that uses this method (GENTOO and FreeBSD)
The others are prepackage means it is already compiled and is compressed into a package to be installed
This maybe larger than Windows Installer because the required binaries are included inside while Windows reuses API (shared)
However since it is precompiled it takes less time to get it into your system but it does not include performance optimzations unless it is precompiled with optimization for a specific architecture.
UNIX OS that uses this system include Fedora (RPM) and Debian (dpkg)
A lot of things effect an executable size – both on Windows and Linux.
The most drastic difference can be caused by whether external libraries are statically linked (included in the application) or dynamically linked (referenced elsewhere on the disk).
Also, each compiler has its own set of optimizations and different options to customize the way it compiles. Some optimizations favor faster execution speed for larger file sizes (by duplicating code instead of jumping around in the executable) – other optimizations occur to reduce the size of the executable, but can come at the expense of a little (or a lot of ) speed.