Dave Gutteridge <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Yes, but I'm not sure that analogy really represents the
> situation I'm speaking of with Linux. Items designed in
> the past may not work with current technologies. That's
> not a hard concept to grasp, the same way I don't expect
> my CD player to play casette tapes.
Whoa! Now you're telling me you don't know the first thing
about Windows.
Windows 95, 98 and ME were actually an 8-track with a
cassette and crippled CD attached. They still use the
Windows version 3/4 mode that is known as 386Enhanced. That
means the MS-DOS 7 kernel was constantly shunting the CPU
between Real86 (the 8-track) and a hacked Protected386
(cassette/CD) modes.
Windows NT 3/4, 5.0 (2000) and 5.1 (XP/2003) were/are all
Protected386 kernels and APIs like a CD with a cassette
attached. In fact, Windows NT 3.1, 3.50, 3.51, 4.0 and 5.0
(2000) are _great_examples_ of Microsoft _not_ maintaining
compatibility with the Windows 3.x, 4.x (95/98/Me) versions
of the same period. It was like Microsoft literally had
_competiting_ cassette standards (kinda like Beta = NT, VHS =
DOS).
I.e., do you know the a _majority_ of Microsoft own
applications did _not_ run correctly on those Windows NT
versions? That's before even looking at 3rd party
appplications.
> I'm not talking about diffeences in release times.
I'm not either. Windows NT 3.1 and 3.50 _predate_ MS-DOS 7.0
/ Windows 4.0 (Windows 95). Windows NT 4.0 "Cairo" was
_total_vaporware_ when it came out in 1997 -- nothing as
promised.
> I'm not surprised, nor bothered, that perhaps some software
> written for Linux kernel 2.4 doesn't work on 2.6.
Pretty much _all_ software that runs on Linux 2.0+ runs on
2.2, 2.4 and 2.6. The _problem_ is at the compiler/library
level -- GCC and GLibC to start. Then add in specific
library versions. GCC was especially nasty before GCC
2.96/3, when Cygnus (now Red Hat) finally got rid of most of
the non-ANSI C++ compliance.
The good news is that you often have the source code so you
can rebuild. Basically anything written for GCC 3 / GLibC 2
ports very well. That's circa 1997 (GLibC 2) and 2000 (GCC
3) on-ward, as long as you have the required, additional
libraries.
> But assuming two different distros have the 2.6 kernel,
> then why shouldn't they both be capable of running the
> same software?
Why does Microsoft Visual Studio break code between versions?
Why can't I run a vertical application that runs MS Access 97
when I have installed MS Access 2000?
Why can't two versions of MS Office co-exist?
Windows is actually _worse_ in this regard.
> I must admit that partly I'm questioning this because I'm a
> little annoyed. The first Linux distro I tried was Fedora,
> and only afterwards was it clearly explained that it's a
> sort of "permanent beta", where stability was not
> guarunteed.
It's was never guaranteed with Red Hat Linux either.
> I'm sorry, but I read the Fedora web site carefully, and
> it does not explain clearly what it is.
That's because you are expecting a "product." Fedora is a
"project." There are some legal reasons for that.
> I thought it was a reasonable candidate for consumer use.
Some of us use it to, gasp, build America's military might.
;->
> But then someone recomended CentOS, because it's more
> stable.
I liken to the term "more mature."
> No one said "... but it's really designed more for being a
> server.". Nothing was said along those lines.
It's not designed for just a server. RHEL is not. But if
you want to run the latest apps, that's not what it's
designed for.
> Now, after spending weeks getting things like Japanese
> support, my Palm Pilot to work, Gnome configured, and many
> other trials and errors, *now*, when I want to get a DVD
> writing program, people are saying "Oh, well, really CentOS
> is not really all that good for those kinds of purposes".
> Where was this advice before?
*IGNORE* them. They are distro pissing on the CentOS list.
This list is for CentOS, and related compatibility (e.g.,
I'll occassionally post equivalent Fedora RPMs which map well
to a CentOS release, like FC3 to CentOS4).
> In fact, I'm looking at the CentOS web site now, and in
> it's "Goals" section it says, among other things:
> * easy maintenance
> * friendly environment for users and package maintainers
> Noticibly lacking is anything saying "a server oriented
> OS", or "not really intended to run consumer level
> software". Where was I supposed to come to understand that
> CentOS was not only a "stable enterprise class
> OS" but also limited in exactly how many applications it
> would be able to accomodate?
Did you _ever_ run Windows NT? ;-> Especially back from
1993 on-ward, _before_ Windows 2000 -- let alone even Windows
XP.
Don't assume anything. You're making too many assumptions
based on only _limited_ Windows exposure. Windows NT ~
CentOS (not really a good analogy/equivalent, but I'll make
it).
Microsoft has traded consumer compatibility for stability in
the past. Red Hat has done the same with RHL/FC v. RHEL.
Microsoft no longer does so because they _hacked_ Windows NT
and _killed_ everything good about it (long story).
> So I'm sorry if I'm sounding like a whiner at this point,
> but if I have to change to another distro and again go
> through all the growing pains of learning how to use it as
> well I think I might run back to Windows world.
Your view of the Windows world is rather limited.
> I mean, I've come to really like Linux for a lot of
> reasons, but I'm getting a little tired of the "this Linux
> for that, that Linux for this" confusion
Again, *IGNORE* them.
> that only hardened Linux gurus can sort out.
There is a learning curve. We can't help you with that.
There is a general learning curve between UNIX and Windows.
Heck, there is a learning curve between consumer and
enterprise Windows too.
And remember, not everyone does DVD-Video under Linux. It's
sort of "unlicensed" under Linux.
--
Bryan J. Smith | Sent from Yahoo Mail
mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx | (please excuse any
http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ | missing headers)
