Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
Pencil, Pencil, and Pencil
Dividing the Linux desktop
LWN.net Weekly Edition for June 13, 2013
A report from pgCon 2013
Little things that matter in language design
I presume it's just what the developers are using...
Posted Oct 21, 2008 18:16 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
I don't think testing with bunch of distributions was their goal (that's
what the community is good for) and 6.06 is LTS, so... makes sense.
Android source available
Posted Oct 21, 2008 18:27 UTC (Tue) by kragil (guest, #34373)
Posted Oct 21, 2008 19:22 UTC (Tue) by bcbarnes (guest, #51878)
I mean come on. If Google, a zillionaire open source supporting company, can only release their
premier platform OS for one linux distro, what hope is there for widespread adoption and
Our entire lab uses Fedora and CentOS. I'd wager most of the HPC community uses a RHEL based
distro (if they use Linux). I guess the Comp Sci people prefer Debian/Ubuntu. What's the point of
open source if a company like Google can't even make cross-linux-platform releases?
Posted Oct 21, 2008 19:24 UTC (Tue) by bcbarnes (guest, #51878)
Posted Oct 21, 2008 20:02 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
Posted Oct 21, 2008 19:34 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
When IBM (company with much longer involvemen in Linux) makes Fedora 7-only SDK there are no problems,
but when Google supports single distribution it's weird??? Come on, it's
not that unusual: it's pretty common for platform kits to be pretty rigid.
You need Windows 2000 SP4 only (don't try Windows XP or Vista) and
package must be installed on D:\ or "bad thing will happen" - that's
typical instruction I've seen.
as soon as someone contributes patches ...
Posted Oct 21, 2008 20:56 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
Posted Oct 21, 2008 23:40 UTC (Tue) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402)
Who said there were no problems?
Posted Oct 21, 2008 20:40 UTC (Tue) by floop (subscriber, #5889)
Posted Oct 21, 2008 20:49 UTC (Tue) by thoffman (subscriber, #3063)
This is hardly a consumer product. We're talking about a developer SDK here. Now, if Google released some consumer level Linux software, (e.g. Picasa) that only worked on one distro, I could see a little more cause for complaining, but this is for developers.
If a developer can't either:
(1) set up a VM or dual boot or new machine with Ubuntu to work with Android, or,
(2) Cooperate with the community to fix whatever little issues are required to make the Android SDK work on their distro of choice
then... how useful a developer are they anyway?
Posted Oct 22, 2008 15:27 UTC (Wed) by davidw (subscriber, #947)
Posted Oct 22, 2008 15:24 UTC (Wed) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767)
BTW, is your lab, and a significant portion of the HPC community planning on building mobile phone OSes? On existing equipment? If you, and they were going to, would you, and they be capable of installing Ubuntu?
Or are Linux installation procedures so fragmented, as well, that expertise in installing CentOS does not transfer to installing other Linux distros?
Posted Oct 23, 2008 2:15 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
It used to be that Linux distributions differed quite a bit for very significant reasons. Some provided configuration tools and interfaces that were proprietary in a attempt to do the 'value added' approach to getting licensing costs from linux. Some people dissagreed about how you should approach package management systems and so on and so forth.
Nowadays everybody uses pretty much the same stuff. The major differences are going to be Redhat configuration tools vs Debian's package management system. Other then that people are switching to upstart, they are using network-manager for desktops, dbus, packagekit, policykit. Pretty soon they should be using about the same initramfs environments and so and so forth. Much more the same then different.
IMO one of the major goals for distributions is to eliminate the differences in the so-called 'Linux plumbing' and end up using, more or less, identical systems on the low-level. Then use the same core as a basis to then branch out and do their own thing. Update packages, experiment, etc etc.. but always each time they do a release they re-base off the same core system that they share.
This, I think, will end up going to make application developer's (open source and otherwise) lives a lot easier, as well as system integraters and people that need to document how the system works for normal folks.
As far as Ubuntu-hate goes. It's pointless and misdirected.
Not limited to Ubuntu
Posted Oct 21, 2008 22:49 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
Posted Oct 22, 2008 10:09 UTC (Wed) by kripkenstein (subscriber, #43281)
1. At least one significant distro is supported completely, i.e., it works there (this is then a base to start from), and
2. Google cooperates with other distros in getting it to work with them as well, if/when those distros are serious about doing so, and
3. No code/build scripts/etc. are made in a way that would make them hard to run on other distros.
We already have (1), and I hope that (2) and (3) as well. If so, then I find no fault here.
Now, if this *wasn't* open source, then I would have very different criteria. In particular, I would expect at least the major distros to be supported by the vendor. (Of course I prefer if it's open source, but I'm just contrasting. For open source, I expect less from the vendor because we the community can and should do part of the work.)
Posted Oct 23, 2008 5:32 UTC (Thu) by yanfali (subscriber, #2949)
Failing to build on $RECENT_DISTRO would be a bug
Posted Oct 23, 2008 10:39 UTC (Thu) by alex (subscriber, #1355)
If there are any dependencies on the build host's installed libraries I would expect that to be a bug.
Posted Nov 5, 2008 12:21 UTC (Wed) by Amit009 (guest, #55016)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds