Would it be possible to get a copy of LightBurn without the external dependency on the Microsoft Visual C++ Redistributable? I may be mistaken but I think it’s possible to compile the software with the required dependencies included rather than relying on the external redistributable package.
Perhaps it’s just a personal preference but I won’t install those redistributable packages on my machine. In the mean time, I’ve dual booted linux and just installed LightBurn there.
LightBurn, like many other cross platform applications, uses the Qt framework. Specifically we utilize the pre-built libraries provided by the Qt project. While it’s technically possible to do what you are asking it would require recompiling the entire Qt framework and statically linking the MSVC libraries. Technically possible but rarely done from what I can tell. Also, using the provided libraries allows us to rely on community vetted builds instead of those we built ourselves which may or may not be as stable.
On most people’s systems the vcredist packages are already installed because of other programs and you’ll never even see the install happen. The only reason you did is because you obviously don’t have it installed already
LightBurn will work just as fine on most major linux distributions so that’s perfectly fine if you would prefer to avoid installing MSVC.
It’s also not just Qt, but PoTrace, OpenCV, and the license system, as well as the FTDI libraries, LibUSB, and any others we use as well - all of them can (and do) have their own dependencies, and static linking the runtime libs while using DLLs that don’t is dangerous.
You do understand that LibStdc on Linux is the same thing, right? Microsoft makes the OS, and they update the runtime environment provided by the compiler sometimes. Having it as a DLL means all the apps can share the code, and any libraries used don’t get copies that are isolated from the others, so it saves runtime pool memory, code size, and speed. Not sure why you’d be against it.
It’s honestly a very shallow reason. I’m just tired of the ever growing let of redistributable packages and related updates installed on my system. So not a solid reason not to install, just a history of frustration.
But thanks for the explanation and incredible software. Windows or Linux, it’s great and fun to use.
Believe it or not, that makes the overall install size smaller. If every application you install includes the fully linked copy of those libraries, the net effect is that you have dozens to hundreds of copies of those libraries, instead of just one copy of each release, used by all your software.
And that is a point I understand. Unfortunately, it seems, much more often than not, that every piece of software requires a different version. The end result being five software titles installed that require five different redistributables. Not arguing here, certainly not trying to get into a protracted discussion, just stating that the end result isn’t always as great as intended (from a Microsoft standpoint).
If I could install one redistributable to rule them all, then I’m all in. But so many different versions with their associated updates and services packs-it’s just madness.
