Re: Is Linux Unix?
Paul,
Thanks for your comments.
| > 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, 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.
|
| However, as explained above, uniformity does not exist. Quick, tell me
| which RPM I need, as a Debian user, to easily and cleanly install the
| software like the packager intended: Mandrake, Red Hat, Fedora, SuSE...
At least, Intel supports RedHat 9.0 (or whatever version Intel
mentions. I don't remember correctly.). As long as you use that
version of RH, Intel will support you. (If you replace the kernel,
libc, or other "critial" part of the OS, your support is void,
of course.) And "most" people use RedHat anyway. (In my workplace,
all the Linux users except me use RH, it seems.) That's kind of
uniformity, isn't it? Not as uniform as Windows XP, though.
| > I also heard from a programmer that her company develops software
| > only for Windows because it's so uniform and ubiguitous.
|
| I usually feel sorry for people like that. They miss the fact that unix
| is everywhere, has been everywhere for decades, and will probably be
| around long after the commercial software fad fades back into relative
| obscurity.
I suspect you miss my point. Perhaps, I wan't clear enough. Although
Unix is everywhere, it's not trivial to write a significant piece
of sotware which runs on all the major Unixes out there. The example
I gave in my last message about the Intel compilear is a piece of
evidence which supports my opinion.
| > Unfortunately, uniformity and community efforts don't come together.
|
| Riiiiight. That's why all the open browsers are standards compliant,
| and IE is not. Why pretty much every network service out there has
| a free, standards compliant implimentation, yet Microsoft still
| insists on breaking the uniformity and charging infinitely more for
| it.
I don't like what MS does, either. But, that doesn't obscure the
fact from me that Windows XP is more uniform than Linuxes. The Intel
compiler which runs on RedHat doesn't run on Debian, whereas Acrobat
reader which runs on a Windows XP machine will run on another.
That's not a fair comparison. I know that. My point is orthogonal
to standard compliance. IE ignores the standard, but it runs on
evey Windows XP, which outnumbers Debian machines.
By the way, the Intel compiler doesn't run on Debian because our
thread library doesn't comply with the POSIX standard. At least so
I heard. Standard compliance on this level is a faraway goal.
If there were a single, comprehensible standard of Unix, and every
brand of Linux/Unix follows it, source programs of open source
software wouldn't need those ugly "#ifdef _SOLARIS_9_" etc.
That's why commercial software vendors say something like
"Supported OSs: Solaris 9 and 10; Aix such-and-such; . . .".
That's understandable. They have to test their program
extensively before its release and they have to get ready to
receive questions and complaints from the customers. That incurs
a LOT of resources (money and manpower), I guess.
Some open source software like GNU emacs runs on most Unixes.
I bet a LOT of resources went into it.
By the way, I know apt is much better than rpm. I'm not saying RH
is technically "better" than Debian. I'm not saying Windows XP is
better than Linux. I'm trying to explain why commercial vendors
are reluctant to develop software to run on all Linuxes, or on all
Unixes, for that matter.
Cheers,
Ryo
Reply to: