Re: Is Linux Unix?
on Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 12:59:18AM -0700, Ryo Furue (furufuru@ccsr.u-tokyo.ac.jp) wrote:
> "Steven Jones" <Steven.Jones@vuw.ac.nz> wrote in message news:<2keyS-1CX-9@gated-at.bofh.it>...
> > Working in a MS, Solaris, Linux, Tru64 shop, I find that for the vast
> > majority of our servers the usability of Linux is as good as Unix if not
> > better. While Unix might have high end bits Linux lacks for 95% of the
> > world's servers that small missing % I suspect is not an issue.
>
> This is not a Linux-vs-Unix issue, but I've recently been experiencing
> a downside of Linux. I think one of the biggest problems for developers
> of commercial software for Linux is that there's no such thing as "the"
> Linux OS. There are simply too many combinations of the kernel version,
> libc version, pthreads version, etc. to support all. The consequence is
> usually the vendor supports only the RedHat Linux.
FUD.
http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com/search?query=LSB.
Even if this means that you've "only" got a RedHat package, tools such
as alien (package format converter) will almost always get you a working
DEB (I've never had problems, though I use this for only a limited set
of packages).
I'd say you're revealing the inadequacy and inflexibility of closed,
proprietary development models more than you are any inherent failing of
Linux.
Though yes, at the end of the day, if you _need_ (and make sure that's
really, truly *need*) software application X for your business, then by
all means, find the platform it runs on.
[Intel blah blah blah]
Centrino.
Oh, and Randal Schwartz.
Go AMD!
> I also heard from a programmer that her company develops software only
> for Windows because it's so uniform and ubiguitous. Her company,
> being small, wouldn't be able to support Linux. If a costomer doesn't
> have a Windows machine, the company makes the costomer buy one. (The
> sofwares so expensive that the cost of a lowly Windows machine is
> nothing.)
Developing to WINE would be a win over Microsoft's ever-morphing APIs,
and you'd buy a feasibe (if non-ideal) Linux port at the same time.
As for cost of a Windows machine. Sure, they're relatively cheap.
Hell, the time I put into straightening two of 'em out last weekend
would have paid to replace them, and that's at a modest hourly rate.
Wherein lies the real problem. Oh yeah: one instance was installing
Microsoft's own Service Pack, following which the system blue-screened
immediately on reboot. Standard, logged, safe, and last known good
modes as well. I'll pick Debian unstable over that any day.
> Unfortunately, uniformity and community efforts don't come together.
Actually, there's a much _stronger_ tendency toward standardization
within open architectures than closed ones. No one organization
controls the whole domain. So the players within it must work together.
Not an iron rule, but *far* more likely than in proprietary space.
http://twiki.iwethey.org/Main/FreeSoftwarePrimer
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <karsten@linuxmafia.com> http://linuxmafia.com/~karsten
Ceterum censeo, Caldera delenda est.
Reply to: