Userrights issues for running examples

Original Reporter info from Mantis: vaeli

• Reporter name: Tambet Vaeli

Description:

Hello!

I'm using Linux Mint and Cinnamon. I got similar issues for both Package Manager and manual installation.

Steps to reproduce:

Install Lazarus to more or less default installation of mentioned Linux and try to run any example. It says something like "Unable to create directory "/usr/lib/lazarus/2.0.0/components/codetools/examples/backup"." or "Unable to write to file "/usr/lib/lazarus/2.0.0/components/codetools/examples/addclass.lpi"." I think it's fairly easy to reproduce, so I'm not trying to find more of them.

I have to say I haven't really tried - I guess it could all work if I simply hack it so far that Lazarus doesn't have any issues with rights and users. I went somewhere into the middle way, and decided, that first my programs would then be without any user right support (as it has to be somewhere in the philosophy) and second, it started to feel I simply break my linux - it should have something it knows about user rights, inside. I have Programmeth a bunch of things there meanwhile, (enough to miss background transparency features for objects).

Additional information:

The very useful thing about Turbo Pascal and Borland Pascal - they got examples with them, directly runnable. This is basically what I remembered from those old days - somehow, many languages feel that you have to do a lot's of setup to get any of them to work - Turbo Pascal, Like Basic (and I lately found, Turtle) simply covered itself overly with one-click-runnable examples. Lazarus seems to follow the same school, but I really haven't got to enjoy it. The main thing about them - you didn't have to do anything for them to run ..I cannot say the inherit quality I mean by this - every language has it's examples -; but I can mention I compare it with languages, where you either have to hack everything to get a simple example around the fact that it only supports a certain school video cards, or languages, which are not really sure, which ones are their most important features and benefits to show - for Turbo Pascal, examples were definitely programs, and definitely not too far from their point.

For me, example means a lot:
- A glimpse to a standard programming style, maybe up to things, which don't have to be written.
- Something very nice a program can do when you reach it. Even one or three good examples can make it feel very different when you first start a language.
- And last but not least - it somehow suggests that creator of a program has actually considered, how it behaves in reality. I mean, if it works in my computer, it's a quality product - for some programming languages, where for example mouse or video card example simply fails, it cannot be very encouraging to me to imagine a language creator, who simply could not figure out, how to write 200 lines of mouse code in their language in such a way that it perfectly works in any computer - well, I can imagine that a programmer has to work, to make real use of some very special mouses, or completely customized computer, but switching a video mode should not be a very special thing a manual really cannot explain you clearly.

Mantis conversion info:

• Mantis ID: 37509
• Version: 2.0