Re: Is Linux Unix?

[furufuru@ccsr.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Ryo Furue)]

"Karsten M. Self" <karsten@linuxmafia.com> wrote in message news:<2lcvc-2kA-43@gated-at.bofh.it>...
[...]

I'm not sure whether I understand every point you make (I read your message
twice but there are still points I don't understand), but I think I understand
your main point:  A binary distribution may not work on all Linuxes, but source
distribution works because writing a portable code is not hard.  That may
be so.

You said that I was moving the goalpost.  I think you said so because I didn't
make a clear distinction between a source distribution and a binary one.  OK,
that was my fault.  But, if writing a portable code is not hard, why commercial
vendors write a portable code, compile it for all Unixes/Linuxes, and distribute
the binaries?  Taking my example, why doesn't Intel compile their code not only
for RedHat, but also for other distributions?  I understand that they don't
want to give away their source code, but at least they can distribute binaries
for different Linuxes.  

I *guess* that doing so would incur some cost which the vendor doesn't want
to pay.  If Debian had as large a share as RedHat, they would see the cost
worth.

By the way, I'm not much interested in a debate on whether
closed-source is a good idea or not.  At least, not for this thread.

I didn't quote your words because I did't think I can answer you point by point.
Please let me know if I missed something important.

Cheers,
Ryo