Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD

> BSD and Linux are each highly compatible within their flavours, and
> between each other to a surprising degree. Binary compatibility is only
> important if you think that distribution of binaries is the correct way to
> move software around. Why is that so obviously the case to you?
> --

Simple: Being able to see the source code is only an important
personal, as opposed to collective, freedom, for the small minority of
people who are actually programmers. On the other hand, compiling
source code is annoyingly slow and relatively difficult when it cones
to things such as build environments. It's nice to know that with free
software, anyone can see the source code and is free to hack it, but
given that I only have minimal programming skills, it really is of no
use for me _personally_ to be able to see the source code, along with
about 99% of other users. For us, binaries are just plain easier.

Elaborating on the whole binary compatibility thing, if you try to
install something intended for one distro on another, different GCC
versions, library versions, etc. make it virtually impossible, as I
understand it. Debian vs. Fedora is actually a bad example, because
they use different package managers. A better example would be Fedora
vs. Suse. You usually can't install a Fedora package on Suse or vice
versa. Correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but I can't imagine why
else they would package things separately for each of these distros.
This is an extreme pain in the you-know-what for users who don't want
to compile source themselves and are using anything but the most
popular, well-known distros.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD
    ... > source code is annoyingly slow and relatively difficult when it cones ... > Elaborating on the whole binary compatibility thing, ... > install something intended for one distro on another, ... You usually can't install a Fedora package on Suse or vice ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD
    ... > source code is annoyingly slow and relatively difficult when it cones ... > Elaborating on the whole binary compatibility thing, ... A better example would be Fedora ... You usually can't install a Fedora package on Suse or vice ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD
    ... > source code is annoyingly slow and relatively difficult when it cones ... A better example would be Fedora ... You usually can't install a Fedora package on Suse or vice ... > else they would package things separately for each of these distros. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: cobbling a ComboBox
    ... suggest you have a look at the library source code (of Swing, ... package scratch; ... boolean shouldValidate = false; ... the String ought to be "scratch.CustomMetalComboBoxUI". ...
    (comp.lang.java.gui)
  • Re: Redhat and OpenSSL Manner
    ... It's equivalent to 0.9.7a as originally distributed by OpenSSL project, with security and bug fixes added to it by Red Hat. ... enhancements and new features might be backported from newer versions too if they are not introducing any compatibility problems (for example this is often done for kernel package in RHEL to support new hardware). ... If you look into the SRPM packages, you'll see that they contain original unchanged source code wich is the same version as the package version, and also bunch of patches that get applied to that source code prior to compilation. ...
    (RedHat)