[clug-talk] Tar file

bogi khangyi at shaw.ca
Wed Nov 17 18:41:04 PST 2004


I will agree here. Linux should be the platform the major apps should go for, 
and not a particular distro. Distros are designed to come and go, they change 
all the time, and that is ok. The problem is with the concept. As a major app 
vendor, you should build your software to be generic enough to be able to run 
on a relatively wide base of distros, you may achieve this either by creating 
a specific binary compiled against a particular distro, and make that 
available when the new distro is available, or you make parts of your 
application re-compileable, so the end user can compile and install in 
whatever system they wish. Yes it is more work, but oss is living thing, you 
cant take a snapshot and stick with it for ions. It will limit the usability 
of your application, and the choice of those who want to use it.
$0.02
Cheers
Szemir

On November 17, 2004 18:12, Kevin Anderson wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 November 2004 16:53, Jesse Kline wrote:
> > When Red Hat split their product line, they basically said that Fedora
> > was more of a testing distro. for people who want the latest software.
> > If you're a company running this on a server, you want something that is
> > rock solid, has a long release cycle, and is easy to upgrade. As far as
> > I'm concerned that's what Debian is, and it's free. Their stable
> > distribution is known for being stable, which is what you should be
> > looking for on a server IMHO. It has a long release cycle so you don't
> > have to worry about upgrading your OS every 6 months in order to
> > maintain patches. As well, it is easy to upgrade using apt. Just like
> > rh, if you want the latest and greatest to play around with you can
> > install testing or unstable. I think this is the heritage that they're
> > proud of.
>
> As they should be.  Too bad Oracle, Peoplesoft, etc don't agree.  Again and
> again, Linux is the word used where Red Hat is the what they really mean.
> Which makes it unsuitable for a corporate install.  Every time I've
> purchased a big app, RH was requested as the OS.  Red Hat isn't Linux, but
> nobody seems to know that except in the technical realm.
>
> Maybe I hate RH because it's just thrown at me so often.  Linux should
> allow choice, but it doesn't.  If you want support on an application, you
> need to be running a particular OS under it.  Regardless of the suitability
> of another identical OS.  Whitebox is a great example.  Try to get support
> for Oracle on an install built on whitebox even...
>
> Kev.
>
> _______________________________________________
> clug-talk mailing list
> clug-talk at clug.ca
> http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca
> Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php)
> **Please remove these lines when replying




More information about the clug-talk mailing list