Re: Is Linux Unix?

[Erik Steffl <steffl@bigfoot.com>]

Ryo Furue 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.
>
> I'm using the Intel Fortran Compiler (IFC).  Its version 7 runs on Debian
> without any problem whatsoever, although Intel doesn't support Debian.  But,
> last year Intel released a total rewrite of the compiler, version 8, with
> which my Fortran programs don't work at all (*).  Since Debian isn't supported,

  about particular software (nptl thread library) not being available 
for woody: why not install it yourself? just because it's not available 
as debian package does not mean you cannot install it. I can imagine 
that this might not be possible in all cases but in general this 
approach solves lot of portability problems (from one linux 
distro/version to another linux or even unix distro/version).

> even if I paid (which I don't), Intel wouldn't fix my problem.  (If paying
> would fix it, I would pay.)  This is a big headache.  Uniformity is sometimes
> good.
>
> 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.)
>
> Unfortunately, uniformity and community efforts don't come together.

  I don't understand it. if you (they) think that it is acceptable to 
buy computer with windows just to make sure that the client has OS that 
software company supports why wouldn't it be acceptable to buy computer 
with redhat linux? if you are willing to have a dedicated machine then
you can have a dedicated machine that plays nicely with other linux 
machines...

  depending on the circumstances (not all solutions are 
possible/desirable in all situations):

  - statically link everything

  - provide your own shared libs (do not install in system dirs!)

  - have an experienced sysadmin set up the machine

  - develop portable software, do not depend on random quirks of 
kernels/libs

  uniformity and community don't come together??? compare linux distros 
to unix versions!

	erik