On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 02:02:59PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@madism.org> [2009.08.06.1104 +0200]: > > You're comparing apples and oranges here, for HTML is a standard, > > and theoretically, following the standard is enough (and even that > > is probably -- and sadly -- a fallacy). > > LSB is growing to be just that, but it won't stand a chance if > people/distros don't work with it. > > > When it comes to the LSB, it doesn't say what happens when you're > > using very specific bits of the Linux kernel or the GNU libc, and > > when you're doing networking stuff for example, well, that matters > > a lot. That's why LSB doesn't work for many vendors because of > > the very different toolchains. > > I am failing to accept that vendors need to use those very specific > things in their software. just like I doubt that people need IE-HTML > to make their sites render properly. I think laziness^W business > thinking is more likely an option. Probably because you don't write this kind of software then. I'm working for telco stuff, we have very specific needs towards the high availability interfaces (epoll and similar) linux provides, and its SCTP stack. This only has caused us major issues in the past. Then you add the fact that binary compatibility is a joke (openssl has not the same soname on RH and Debian e.g.). And on top of that you add binutils so crappy that our software misbuilds on those platforms. Sorry but no, you cannot make abstraction of that, on this, _you_ are not living in the reality. FWIW I would dream for my work that I could count on decently similar kernels, toolchains and libcs on all distros. Only that would be cause for joy and happiness here. -- Intersec <http://www.intersec.com> Pierre Habouzit <pierre.habouzit@intersec.com> Tél : +33 (0)1 5570 3346 Mob : +33 (0)6 1636 8131 Fax : +33 (0)1 5570 3332 37 Rue Pierre Lhomme 92400 Courbevoie
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature