Re: Is a binary with this libraries portable
- From: llothar <llothar@xxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:16:23 -0800 (PST)
On 28 Feb., 15:28, Bernhard Agthe <dark2s...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
we had the "portable Application" Discussion a few days back. This
concept is a completely Windows one, as the problems to overcome are
Windows ones.
On any Unix variant (which Linux is) you are not even
guaranteed that the user will use the same Operating System. Your
application may be run on Ubuntu Linux as well as FreeBSD Unix or
Solaris - and then on any CPU type these OS run on: 32-bit, 64-bit,
Intel-Compatible, SPARC, PowerPC, whatever.
ABI is not a windows concept. The commercial Unix variants were
pretty
good about keeping backward compatibility. Unfortunately only Solaris
is of significance here. HP-UX and AIX are pure niche systems.
Also i looked at NetBSD and OpenBSD. Some fundamental software
libraries are not working correct on this systems. So i consider them
also
as freak systems, with OpenBSD in a very very special freak niche. No
need
to support this guys. Also despite all the code reviews for OpenBSD i
find
more and more comparision reports that are all not encouraging to say
that this two BSD's will ever make any sense for the mass market.
What is left is Linux in all its mutations (remember the good funny MS
ads
with mutated pinguins) on i386/amd64, FreeBSD on i386/amd64 and
Solaris
on i386 and Sparc. I would even count Linux on PPC as anything else
then
freak systems. I mean for real world usable Desktop applications (used
at work
not in the geeks private room - i'm also collecting Unix systems but
this does
not mean that i expect any commerical offer for this combinations). On
PPC
you either have to run MacOSX or the system is just too old (the
handfull
of affordable IBM PPC systems on EBay).
Just to clarify. There might be hunderts of usefull combinations
for Servers and Embedded systems. But this is different from my target
market.
So "portable" in the Unix world refers to a source package which is as
platform-independent as you can make it. If you don't want to distribute
your source you can try for Java but then Java can be disassembled easily.
No the LSB is a good step in this direction and i hope that people see
that we
need binary compatibility across the major non geek Desktop
distributions. It's
a pitty to see how less LSB conformance is out there right now
but i don't give up my hope. The topic is just to important.
And as i said, there are only 6 serious combinations left. This should
be handable.
Sorry, after some really bad experience in the windows world last year,
I'm rather fed up with that topic...
Well today was only my compilation day, the rest of the week will go
into the other
problem: package systems. This looks to be the next serious problem.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Is a binary with this libraries portable
- From: Rainer Weikusat
- Re: Is a binary with this libraries portable
- From: shimp
- Re: Is a binary with this libraries portable
- References:
- Is a binary with this libraries portable
- From: llothar
- Re: Is a binary with this libraries portable
- From: John Reiser
- Re: Is a binary with this libraries portable
- From: llothar
- Re: Is a binary with this libraries portable
- From: Bernhard Agthe
- Is a binary with this libraries portable
- Prev by Date: Re: Regarding global variables memory allocation and gtime funtion
- Next by Date: Re: Is a binary with this libraries portable
- Previous by thread: Re: Is a binary with this libraries portable
- Next by thread: Re: Is a binary with this libraries portable
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|