| |||||||||||||
Vanilla kernels 'flavors' (NewsForge)Vanilla kernels 'flavors' (NewsForge)Posted Sep 7, 2004 23:19 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)In reply to: Experts say software vendors will soon offer products for different Linux 'flavors' (NewsForge) by iabervon Parent article: Experts say software vendors will soon offer products for different Linux 'flavors' (NewsForge) This only reinforces the point made above: that "flavors" of Linux are all about commercial interests. When complex frameworks like KDE work perfectly on different flavors of proprietary Unix, FreeBSD and Linux, on a staggering multitude of hardware architectures, I can't see why some application might only run on Red Hat. Of course drivers are different, but how can anyone tie their program so tightly to the kernel patch-set of any distribution that they can not be made to run on another? It is clearly cheaper for a developer house to just support, say, Red Hat 9 on x86. But as the previous poster said, it looks just like collective butt-covering.
(Log in to post comments)
Vanilla kernels 'flavors' (NewsForge) Posted Sep 8, 2004 2:35 UTC (Wed) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] I think the main reason to not want to support anything but particular distros (and particular versions) is that the versions of everything (and sometimes even the version numbering schemes) is different. This makes it difficult to provide binaries that will behave as expected. Sun's JDK works admirably, but anything that uses C++ will run into the issue that it might want libstdc++.so.5 when I only have libstdc++-3-libc6.2-2-2.10.0.so and libstdc++.so.3.0.4.
|
|||||||||||||