Before I answer your question, I should say that you probably don’t NEED to install VLC like that. Fedora comes with a package tool that should install VLC and other common programs much more easily than using this tarball method, you only normally need this for very new or somewhat uncommon software. It’s been a while since I’ve used Fedora, but as I recall it uses “yum” to fetch packages, so try

sudo yum check-update
sudo yum install vlc

and that should do it.

As for your actualy question, it’s telling you it doesn’t have a C compiler, which is GCC. The easiest way to instal that is also with yum.

Before I answer your question, I should say that you probably don’t NEED to install VLC like that. Fedora comes with a package tool that should install VLC and other common programs much more easily than using this tarball method, you only normally need this for very new or somewhat uncommon software. It’s been a while since I’ve used Fedora, but as I recall it uses “yum” to fetch packages, so try

sudo yum check-update
sudo yum install vlc

and that should do it.

As for your actualy question, it’s telling you it doesn’t have a C compiler, which is GCC. The easiest way to instal that is also with yum.

./configure
checking build system type… x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
checking host system type… x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
checking for a BSD-compatible install… /usr/bin/install -c
checking whether build environment is sane… yes
checking for a thread-safe mkdir -p… /bin/mkdir -p
checking for gawk… gawk
checking whether make sets $(MAKE)… yes
checking how to create a ustar tar archive… gnutar
checking whether to enable maintainer-specific portions of Makefiles… yes
checking for style of include used by make… GNU
checking for gcc… no
checking for cc… no
checking for cl.exe… no
configure: error: in `/home/vikas/vlc’:
configure: error: no acceptable C compiler found in $PATH
See `config.log’ for more details.

./configure
checking build system type… x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
checking host system type… x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
checking for a BSD-compatible install… /usr/bin/install -c
checking whether build environment is sane… yes
checking for a thread-safe mkdir -p… /bin/mkdir -p
checking for gawk… gawk
checking whether make sets $(MAKE)… yes
checking how to create a ustar tar archive… gnutar
checking whether to enable maintainer-specific portions of Makefiles… yes
checking for style of include used by make… GNU
checking for gcc… no
checking for cc… no
checking for cl.exe… no
configure: error: in `/home/vikas/vlc’:
configure: error: no acceptable C compiler found in $PATH
See `config.log’ for more details.

./configure
checking build system type… x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
checking host system type… x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
checking for a BSD-compatible install… /usr/bin/install -c
checking whether build environment is sane… yes
checking for a thread-safe mkdir -p… /bin/mkdir -p
checking for gawk… gawk
checking whether make sets $(MAKE)… yes
checking how to create a ustar tar archive… gnutar
checking whether to enable maintainer-specific portions of Makefiles… yes
checking for style of include used by make… GNU
checking for gcc… no
checking for cc… no
checking for cl.exe… no
configure: error: in `/home/vikas/vlc’:
configure: error: no acceptable C compiler found in $PATH
See `config.log’ for more details.

even in windows, i see, many users still have not tried all the features available there. Linux is like buying a fabric and getting it stiched to your needs and windows is like ready made dress.

i enjoyed reading both replies and others queries too. it helps.

once again thank u all.

even in windows, i see, many users still have not tried all the features available there. Linux is like buying a fabric and getting it stiched to your needs and windows is like ready made dress.

i enjoyed reading both replies and others queries too. it helps.

once again thank u all.

You said that you are trying to dual-boot Windows and Linux, which can be a tricky process. Instead of dual-booting, while you are learning about Linux, I would try Ubuntu Linux and use the Wubi installer, which let’s you install Ubuntu almost like it is an application in Windows, but then you get the option to boot directly into Ubuntu when you start up the computer. It is really easy and nice, and it makes installation a snap. No grub, no partitions, no formatting, no command lines, no master boot records, etc.

I believe that Linux Mint (which is an Ubuntu-based distribution) has something similar to Wubi, and Linux Mint is even easier for novices than Ubuntu .

If you decide you want to make Linux your primary OS, you can always set up a separate partition later.

You said that you are trying to dual-boot Windows and Linux, which can be a tricky process. Instead of dual-booting, while you are learning about Linux, I would try Ubuntu Linux and use the Wubi installer, which let’s you install Ubuntu almost like it is an application in Windows, but then you get the option to boot directly into Ubuntu when you start up the computer. It is really easy and nice, and it makes installation a snap. No grub, no partitions, no formatting, no command lines, no master boot records, etc.

I believe that Linux Mint (which is an Ubuntu-based distribution) has something similar to Wubi, and Linux Mint is even easier for novices than Ubuntu .

If you decide you want to make Linux your primary OS, you can always set up a separate partition later.

Regarding the tarballs, specifically – The developers certainly could (in most circumstances) make their software into an easily installable package (deb, rpm, etc). Often they choose not to, for two reasons:

1) One set of source code can be compiled on any *nix machine without modification. You don’t need a dozen types of packages for every version of your program

2) Distributing the source gives the power to the user. They can make any changes they like and have full control over the install process.

So there are perfectly good reasons, based on the developers’ choices, to take the “mumbo jumbo” route. The main point here is that Linux is not SUPPOSED to be a Windows replacement – that’s not what it’s for. It certainly CAN be, and there are many valid reasons to choose Windows, but Linux’s flexibility is its strength, by design. I HIGHLY recommend reading the link posted above.

Regarding the tarballs, specifically – The developers certainly could (in most circumstances) make their software into an easily installable package (deb, rpm, etc). Often they choose not to, for two reasons:

1) One set of source code can be compiled on any *nix machine without modification. You don’t need a dozen types of packages for every version of your program

2) Distributing the source gives the power to the user. They can make any changes they like and have full control over the install process.

So there are perfectly good reasons, based on the developers’ choices, to take the “mumbo jumbo” route. The main point here is that Linux is not SUPPOSED to be a Windows replacement – that’s not what it’s for. It certainly CAN be, and there are many valid reasons to choose Windows, but Linux’s flexibility is its strength, by design. I HIGHLY recommend reading the link posted above.