Re: RedHat need not apply
Sean wrote:
>
> I don't think this would be that much of a problem, in fact I would
> think the trend would tend to go the other way. A software company,
> such as Corel, who has a massive software package, a-la WordPerfect,
> isn't going to be quick to change the libraries that it is based upon.
> At least that's what I would suspect. If I had a large piece of
> software, changing something as major as the underlying libraries would
> be pretty low on the totem pole, and would probably not occur until the
> new libraries were extremely mainstream.
libc6 isn't mainstream?
>
> For instance, when I installed Debian, I was sure to include the libc5
> libraries just because I had forgotten to install them once before, and
> was pretty surprised at the host of stuff that wouldn't work without
> them. The "Official" version of netscape being one.
The 'unofficial' version at least is available, unlike with WP.
WP is the only software that needs libc5 on my system.
>
> As far as the kernel goes, I wouldn't think that it would be much of an
> issue for Office-style software, a-la WordPerfect. Besides, my
> experience with Debian is that it is very similar to Slackware in that
> if you want to compile and install software that is not yet available in
> a stable-debianized form, that it will still work pretty well. I'm
> running the 2.2.5-ac6 kernel, and have had no problems with it, or any
> of the other >2.0 kernels that I've been running ever since I first
> installed Debian a year or more ago.
>
> I'm also running gtk-1.2.1, and gimp-1.0.4, and have most of the
> gnome-1.0.5 stuff installed. All of this was compiled from source, and
> lives in some variant of /usr/local. As these things become available
> in a debianized package, I usually take them out of /usr/local , and
> "officially" install them with the .deb package.
>
> This is one of the things I've always really liked about Debian, in
> general. It allows me to run a stable Linux box, with incredible upgrade
> abilities, while also allowing me to run some cutting edge stuff via
> compiled source. Of the other dists I've messed with, RedHat gave the
> the former without the latter, and Slackware the latter without the
> former. And SuSE, well . . . I utterly despised Yast.
>
> Anyway, I guess all I really wanted to say was that I don't think the
> fact the Debian doesn't 'live on the edge' of development will be a real
> issue for either Corel or their Linux-software.
>
> </babble>
I agree with the last paragraph.
>
> Sean
>
> Kenneth Scharf wrote:
> >
> > One problem that I see is that Debian usually lags behind the other
> > distributions in getting the latest and greatest into a release.
> > Debian was the second to get a glibc2 out (only beaten by RedHat) and
> > will probably be the last to release a distro with a 2.2 kernel as
> > default (the alpha slink release was the first with glibc2.1, but the
> > i386 version will lag behind the others). While it is good that Debian
> > takes its time to 'get it right' having a commerical product based on
> > Debian could put some pressure on the distro for 'more timely releases'
> > or worse, a commerical release of an 'unstable' branch might occurr to
> > 'keep up with the Jones'.
> >
--
Ed C.
Reply to: