Comments on: the ubuntu devconf http://mikehearn.wordpress.com/2006/11/20/the-ubuntu-devconf/ Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:34:25 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Joseph Garvin http://mikehearn.wordpress.com/2006/11/20/the-ubuntu-devconf/#comment-2900 Joseph Garvin Fri, 08 Dec 2006 03:26:45 +0000 http://plan99.net/~mike/blog/?p=88#comment-2900 I think that perhaps it would help if you reassured distros that they would still have reason to exist. Distros can still differ in default software, usability patches (see SuSe's patched Gnome and KDE menus), support, and technology choices (Novell AppArmor vs. Redhat SELinux). Listing these and talking to them about what it would mean to be a distro in the theoretical world where installing stuff on Linux is easy. When I brought autopackage up with Ubuntu users, they seemed to be afraid that it would mean there would no longer be an Ubuntu community. I think that's probably the fear for a lot of distros. I think that perhaps it would help if you reassured distros that they would still have reason to exist. Distros can still differ in default software, usability patches (see SuSe’s patched Gnome and KDE menus), support, and technology choices (Novell AppArmor vs. Redhat SELinux). Listing these and talking to them about what it would mean to be a distro in the theoretical world where installing stuff on Linux is easy. When I brought autopackage up with Ubuntu users, they seemed to be afraid that it would mean there would no longer be an Ubuntu community. I think that’s probably the fear for a lot of distros.

]]> By: Artem Vakhitov http://mikehearn.wordpress.com/2006/11/20/the-ubuntu-devconf/#comment-2899 Artem Vakhitov Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:45:33 +0000 http://plan99.net/~mike/blog/?p=88#comment-2899 This is really depressing. People are offered a ready solution, but refuse to accept it citing a set of vague ideological arguments mostly covering their inertia and ignorance. This is really depressing. People are offered a ready solution, but refuse to accept it citing a set of vague ideological arguments mostly covering their inertia and ignorance.

]]> By: Sami Tikka http://mikehearn.wordpress.com/2006/11/20/the-ubuntu-devconf/#comment-2898 Sami Tikka Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:37:23 +0000 http://plan99.net/~mike/blog/?p=88#comment-2898 I work for an ISV that has couple of products that run on Linux. I have followed your work with great enthusiasm. (Almost made autopackages of our software.) We support about 20 different Linux "platforms". We count every version of every distro as another platform, with its own peculiarities and problems we have to sort out. Vmware gsx servers run tests on each platform every night. We are constantly adding new platforms and are rapidly running out of hours in the day to run tests. We build on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1 and use C, Perl and Java. No C++. (Tried it, but found it too difficult to create binaries that just run everywhere.) We have a Perl extension and noticed those are very much tied to the compilation time options of the Perl runtime. So, we ship our own Perl with the product because we cannot be sure our Perl extensions will run with the Perl that is installed on the customer's system. So far we have managed to survive by making one package that installs on every version of every distro (provided they have or can get RPM support). If it should ever happen that we must build packages for each distro, I'm pretty sure our management would shut down Linux products and start thinking about making an appliance where we only need to support one version of one OS. I hope you can find the strength to keep talking about this: It should be possible to make a binary that runs on all Linux distros. I work for an ISV that has couple of products that run on Linux. I have followed your work with great enthusiasm. (Almost made autopackages of our software.)

We support about 20 different Linux “platforms”. We count every version of every distro as another platform, with its own peculiarities and problems we have to sort out. Vmware gsx servers run tests on each platform every night. We are constantly adding new platforms and are rapidly running out of hours in the day to run tests. We build on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1 and use C, Perl and Java. No C++. (Tried it, but found it too difficult to create binaries that just run everywhere.) We have a Perl extension and noticed those are very much tied to the compilation time options of the Perl runtime. So, we ship our own Perl with the product because we cannot be sure our Perl extensions will run with the Perl that is installed on the customer’s system.

So far we have managed to survive by making one package that installs on every version of every distro (provided they have or can get RPM support). If it should ever happen that we must build packages for each distro, I’m pretty sure our management would shut down Linux products and start thinking about making an appliance where we only need to support one version of one OS.

I hope you can find the strength to keep talking about this: It should be possible to make a binary that runs on all Linux distros.

]]>