User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

CentOS and Red Hat

CentOS and Red Hat

Posted Apr 22, 2014 15:57 UTC (Tue) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)
In reply to: CentOS and Red Hat by hughesjr
Parent article: CentOS and Red Hat

It sounds like there are people who think "full binary compatibility" means bit for bit identical, thus totally misunderstanding the word "compatibility." If so, it was a good idea for CentOS to stop using the term.

For anyone who is unclear on compatibility: it comes from latin meaning "ability to lie together" and refers to things that can coexist and work together.

We're already taking license with the term when we say two things with the same role are compatible with each other (for example, a classic Dell PC-clone computer being compatible with an IBM PC). In that case what it means is the two things are compatible with the same things.


(Log in to post comments)

CentOS and Red Hat

Posted Apr 22, 2014 16:20 UTC (Tue) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]

Well, it depends where you draw the line :) . Typical developers draw it at the linker-level (functions, data structures, call behavior, etc.), but there's a deeper one where you also ensure "compatibility" (I'd call it "binary identical" which reproducible build setups strive to attain) with those doing `sha1sum /usr/bin/ls` and expecting certain values for it. One user of the latter is SecureBoot which can (IIRC) have known-good hashes of binaries whitelisted (rather than public key signatures).


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds