3 ms·

I released some software as open source. I'd developed it on OpenBSD. People quite reasonably wanted to run it on Linux. Trouble is, running on Linux turned ou

I released some software as open source. I'd developed it on OpenBSD. People quite reasonably wanted to run it on Linux. Trouble is, running on Linux turned out to be more than just a port to "Linux". It ended up being a port to an annoying amount of distributions. You can't even rely on Linux being compatible with Linux. :-(

Periodic 17y ago
Maybe I'm privileged then, because I got used to downloading software written for Linux and not necessarily getting it to compile without a few tweaks for my specific setup. It taught me my way around the OS and really helped me learn how to cleanly administer a system. It really makes me appreciate a good package management system.
- frossie 17y ago
  We support 3 million lines of code on every flavour of Linux, 32 and 64 bit architectures, as well as Mac OS X and Solaris (we use the Gnu auto tools). I think the portability problem is over-stated.
  - c0t0d0s0 17y ago
    Perhaps because portability wasn't just an afterthought in your development.
    - frossie 17y ago
      Well yes and no (the codebase originated as VMS-only). The point is that going to Gnu tools helped us solve the problem, it didn't create the problem (as the OP was implying). And this is the thing - the complaint seems to come down to "ensuring portability is hard in divergent environments" and the answer is "that should not be the sysadmin's problem, that should be upstream's problem". Up to upstream whether they want to deal with the pain up front in the design, or patch it as it comes.
ajross 17y ago
Well, yeah. It's not like Sun ever released a completely incompatible OS "upgrade" based on an entirely different codebase and standard set, right? :) My point wasn't to defend linux, it was that this whole genre of platform flame is boring and useless. This stuff happens. It even happens for some really good reasons, like "improvements" and "features". It's been happening since the dawn of computing (at least), and it's even been happening in precicely this form since the Unix wars began in the mid 80's. Just deal with it. Or don't. But stop complaining, because you won't fix anything.
- c0t0d0s0 17y ago
  At least in Solaris the kernel interfaces doesn't change from minor to minor release rendering existent binary drivers useless ;) But that aside: At the end the text is not about Linux, about Solaris or AIX, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD. It's about portability. Either we have to accept that there is a lock-in to Linux for many opensource development and stop all this portability stuff. The article is about saying: Hey, use gmake if you want ... but keep into consideration, that the target system may be something else than Debian Lenny. The next thing: I would like to see a standard way to install software on Linux. 17 distinct packages for Linux, just one of Mac OS X and 2 for (Open)Solaris. A standard would be nice here ... really. And you have to take the following into consideration: Outside of the enthusiasts group something like binary compatibility guarantees something important for the admins. Improvements are good, features are good. But not at the price of breaking every bridge behind. At the end this hurts the Unix franchise, as the Microsoft franchise is simply a much larger market. We can't afford to fragmentize the Unix business by being to GNU/Linux centric. Deal with it. Solaris won't disappear, the *BSD won't disappear. But we should be able to ensure, that all can participate from open source development. And one factor is further development of the Unix standards to keep them current with the technological development, and not just cooking it's own soup.

Periodic 17y ago

Maybe I'm privileged then, because I got used to downloading software written for Linux and not necessarily getting it to compile without a few tweaks for my specific setup. It taught me my way around the OS and really helped me learn how to cleanly administer a system. It really makes me appreciate a good package management system.

frossie 17y ago
We support 3 million lines of code on every flavour of Linux, 32 and 64 bit architectures, as well as Mac OS X and Solaris (we use the Gnu auto tools). I think the portability problem is over-stated.
- c0t0d0s0 17y ago
  Perhaps because portability wasn't just an afterthought in your development.
  - frossie 17y ago
    Well yes and no (the codebase originated as VMS-only). The point is that going to Gnu tools helped us solve the problem, it didn't create the problem (as the OP was implying). And this is the thing - the complaint seems to come down to "ensuring portability is hard in divergent environments" and the answer is "that should not be the sysadmin's problem, that should be upstream's problem". Up to upstream whether they want to deal with the pain up front in the design, or patch it as it comes.

ajross 17y ago

Well, yeah. It's not like Sun ever released a completely incompatible OS "upgrade" based on an entirely different codebase and standard set, right? :) My point wasn't to defend linux, it was that this whole genre of platform flame is boring and useless. This stuff happens. It even happens for some really good reasons, like "improvements" and "features". It's been happening since the dawn of computing (at least), and it's even been happening in precicely this form since the Unix wars began in the mid 80's. Just deal with it. Or don't. But stop complaining, because you won't fix anything.

c0t0d0s0 17y ago
At least in Solaris the kernel interfaces doesn't change from minor to minor release rendering existent binary drivers useless ;) But that aside: At the end the text is not about Linux, about Solaris or AIX, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD. It's about portability. Either we have to accept that there is a lock-in to Linux for many opensource development and stop all this portability stuff. The article is about saying: Hey, use gmake if you want ... but keep into consideration, that the target system may be something else than Debian Lenny. The next thing: I would like to see a standard way to install software on Linux. 17 distinct packages for Linux, just one of Mac OS X and 2 for (Open)Solaris. A standard would be nice here ... really. And you have to take the following into consideration: Outside of the enthusiasts group something like binary compatibility guarantees something important for the admins. Improvements are good, features are good. But not at the price of breaking every bridge behind. At the end this hurts the Unix franchise, as the Microsoft franchise is simply a much larger market. We can't afford to fragmentize the Unix business by being to GNU/Linux centric. Deal with it. Solaris won't disappear, the *BSD won't disappear. But we should be able to ensure, that all can participate from open source development. And one factor is further development of the Unix standards to keep them current with the technological development, and not just cooking it's own soup.