Dave Gutteridge <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Why should an application built for Linux not work on a
> distribution of Linux?
If it is a binary, it could be many things. It could be lack
of a specific library, library version, GCC version, file
system layout (although FHS/LSB addresses much of this),
etc...
> As an aside, before attempting to install CentOS, my first
> choice was Ubutu. But their installer kept hanging
> somewhere in the middle of the installation process, so I
> decided that was out. So Ubuntu did not impress me as an
> option.
Not to add to this meta-discussion, but forming an opinion of
a distribution based on its installer is really narrowminded.
Most people get Windows and other OSes pre-installed, so
Linux reviews should focus on a pre-installed Linux
distribution.
> In any case, I searched around for which build would be
> most appropriate for me, and nowhere did I come across
> information that clearly said to me "You really can't or
> shouldn't run this kind of software on this
> build". Different distributions came with different
> philosophies,
Ironically, and despite the majority of common opinions, I
believe most "packages" distros to be very, very similar.
Anything with a Debian or Fedora-base is developed very
similarly, and even SuSE is increasingly moving to a
Fedora-like approach (and much of the release model has been
the same with Red Hat for awhile now). Installers and
package management is only where they slightly differ, and
even those concepts are quite overlapping these days.
> prices,
??? Linux is free.
Now if you mean services and SLAs, yes, that's different.
> and advantages. But if any one of them could not
> run a Linux application, then isn't that build broken?
Application Binary Interface (ABI) compatibility is why I
carefully monitor each new Fedora Core release, just like I
did Red Hat Linux prior.
--
Bryan J. Smith | Sent from Yahoo Mail
mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx | (please excuse any
http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ | missing headers)
