Ryo Furue wrote:
> 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.
Which is FUD. How is it all these other software projects are able not
only to support Linux but Free/Open/NetBSD, Solaris, etc, etc, etc? They use
the tools available to them.
In the case of Linux they choose the libraries, supporting tools needed
for their program and then program to that. After they're done they, or
someone else, makes a package (deb preferred for reasons stated by Paul) and
*the packaing system handles the rest*. You may think this is insane but this
is exactly what Windows programs have been doing since Wni95 was released!
The difference is there is no standard "package manager" on Windows. It's
often called Wise or NullSoft's Installer or a few dozen other names. But
rest assured those are (compared to deb) a primative form of package management.
If they really wanted to ensure their software worked properly they could
simply do a static compile and package that.
The above two methods are nothing new to some commercial vendors. Opera
Software being the prime example. Take a gander at this page:
http://www.opera.com/download/index.dml?platform=linux
3 debs, 5 RPMs, 5 TGZs. All that and Mac, OS/2, Solaris, FreeBSD, QNX
and, oh, Windows versions too.
Wonder what they know that Intel doesn't?
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature