What Is Linux? - Redhat

This is a discussion on What Is Linux? - Redhat ; Linux is a free operating system that was created by Linus Torvalds when he was a student at the University of Helsinki in 1991. Torvalds started Linux by writing a kernel - the heart of the operating system - partly ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: What Is Linux?

  1. What Is Linux?

    Linux is a free operating system that was created by Linus Torvalds
    when he was a student at the University of Helsinki in 1991. Torvalds
    started Linux by writing a kernel - the heart of the operating system
    - partly from scratch and partly by using publicly available
    software. Torvalds then released the system to his friends and to a
    community of "hackers" on the Internet and asked them to work with it
    and enhance it. It took off.

    Today, there are hundreds of software developers around the world
    contributing software to the Linux effort. Because the source code for
    the software is freely available, anyone can work on it, change it, or
    enhance it. On top of the Linux kernel effort, the creators of Linux
    also drew on a great deal of system software and applications that are
    now bundled with Linux from the GNU software effort (GNU stands for
    "GNU is Not UNIX"), which is directed by the Free Software Foundation
    (FSF). There is a vast amount of software that can be used with Linux,
    all of which includes features that can compete with or surpass those
    of any other operating system in the world.

    If you have heard Linux described as a free version of UNIX, there is
    good reason for it. Although much of the code for Linux started from
    scratch, the blueprint for what the code would do was created to
    follow POSIX standards. POSIX (Portable Operating System Interface for
    UNIX) is a computer industry operating system standard that every
    major version of UNIX complied with. In other words, if your operating
    system was POSIX-compliant, it was UNIX.

    --- Thank You ---

    Source: http://www.fx-vista.com

  2. Re: What Is Linux?

    Andrew.Robinson.group.com@gmail.com writes:
    > [...]


    Nice intro, Andrew - thank you. Even though I've been using linux and
    unix in various forms for 20 years, I learned something (about posix).
    --
    % Randy Yates % "I met someone who looks alot like you,
    %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % she does the things you do,
    %%% 919-577-9882 % but she is an IBM."
    %%%% % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO
    http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

  3. Re: What Is Linux?

    Andrew.Robinson.group.com@gmail.com wrote:
    > Linux is a free operating system that was created by Linus Torvalds
    > when he was a student at the University of Helsinki in 1991. Torvalds
    > started Linux by writing a kernel - the heart of the operating system
    > - partly from scratch and partly by using publicly available
    > software. Torvalds then released the system to his friends and to a
    > community of "hackers" on the Internet and asked them to work with it
    > and enhance it. It took off.


    Andrew, it's nice to see you writing, and I'm happy to be here as well. But I'm going to have to take you to task on some of your statements, because they're misleading.

    Give credit where credit is due: Linus built and installed that key component, that "carburetor" of the kernel without which the full operating system was not possible. I tested some of the HURD work, the attempts by the GNU crowd to complete an open source operating system, and the kernel was all that was missing. But give credit where credit was due: the other components were already in place. You should have stated that *FIRST*, because leaving it to the second paragraph gives the wrong order and the wrong emphasis.

    Don't get me wrong: Linus is a genius, and his ability to organize the developers to complete the work with him makes him a living saint. But in my professional opinion, the kernel is 30% of the work of a full OS, tops.

    > Today, there are hundreds of software developers around the world
    > contributing software to the Linux effort. Because the source code for
    > the software is freely available, anyone can work on it, change it, or
    > enhance it. On top of the Linux kernel effort, the creators of Linux
    > also drew on a great deal of system software and applications that are
    > now bundled with Linux from the GNU software effort (GNU stands for
    > "GNU is Not UNIX"), which is directed by the Free Software Foundation
    > (FSF). There is a vast amount of software that can be used with Linux,
    > all of which includes features that can compete with or surpass those
    > of any other operating system in the world.


    Many of these components are frankly *not* focused on Linux. OpenSSH comes from the old ssh.com code, and has been taken over by the OpenBSD crowd. GCC is a cross-platform tool developed and managed by the FSF. Xorg is a distinct effort, again multi-platform. Apache comes from the Mozilla group.

    Linux is not the focus of these development efforts! It is a big partner in many of them, and makes a magnificent hotbed of development and testing and publication of the tools. But for many, many tools, you have the cart before the horse.

    And no, some features are still not up to closed source product quality. MS Exchange clients are still fairly poor, due to calendar integration, and dealing with MS Office generated files is still awkward and always will be due to deliberate Microsoft policy. The development environments and configuration tools need serious user interface work. (I refer you to Eric Raymond's famous rant on "The Luxury of Ignorance" for a very good analysis.) Oracle, as much as I loathe their installers, is still the best on extremely large scale database performance.

    But the open source tools are workable, get repaired faster, tend to be more secure, and allow you software to evolve in a way the commercial stuff doesn't. And you don't fall off the support bandwagon or have the company shut down and leave you unable to keep your tools working. This is a huge, huge, huge issue for critical applications.

    > If you have heard Linux described as a free version of UNIX, there is
    > good reason for it. Although much of the code for Linux started from
    > scratch, the blueprint for what the code would do was created to
    > follow POSIX standards. POSIX (Portable Operating System Interface for
    > UNIX) is a computer industry operating system standard that every
    > major version of UNIX complied with. In other words, if your operating
    > system was POSIX-compliant, it was UNIX.
    >
    > --- Thank You ---
    >
    > Source: http://www.fx-vista.com


    Unfortunately, no, and this kind of error can get you into deep legal trouble. UNIX is also a trademark. Claiming that it's a free UNIX is like my claiming that, just because they both use potatoes, french fries are the same as mashed potatoes. Big, big differences exist at every level.

    I'm sorry if it seems like I'm raining on your parade: I've been working with UNIX sincd its ancestor Multics, and my first professional UNIX work was with BSD 4.1, and my first Linux work was with the *original* RedHat 4.1, not RHEL 4.1. So as someone who's watched their evolution and even participated in it throughout my professional career, I'd like to make sure you don't accidentally re-write history.

    I was fortunate enough to see a bunch of it happening: I got to know Richard Stallman from a weekly MIT student dinner trip he attended regularly, and contributed modestly to various open source tools early (mostly by porting them to BSD 4.2, SunOS, and later Linux.) Linus has become a well-deserved hero of open source, but I hate to see Richard's name left out, because he frankly deserves mention.

  4. Re: What Is Linux?

    On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 16:35:13 +0000, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:

    > Andrew, it's nice to see you writing, and I'm happy to be here as well. But I'm going to have to take you to task on some of your statements, because they're misleading.
    >
    > Give credit where credit is due: Linus built and installed that key component, that "carburetor" of the kernel without which the full operating system was not possible. I tested some of the HURD work, the attempts by the GNU crowd to complete an open source operating system, and the kernel was all that was missing. But give credit where credit was due: the other components were already in place. You should have stated that *FIRST*, because leaving it to the second paragraph gives the wrong order and the wrong emphasis.
    >
    > Don't get me wrong: Linus is a genius, and his ability to organize the developers to complete the work with him makes him a living saint. But in my professional opinion, the kernel is 30% of the work of a full OS, tops.


    And you should turn on word wrap in your new client.


    --

    Regards
    Robert

    Smile... it increases your face value!
    Linux User #296285
    http://counter.li.org


  5. Re: What Is Linux?

    Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    > Andrew.Robinson.group.com@gmail.com wrote:
    >> Linux is a free operating system that was created by Linus Torvalds
    >> when he was a student at the University of Helsinki in 1991. Torvalds
    >> started Linux by writing a kernel - the heart of the operating system
    >> - partly from scratch and partly by using publicly available
    >> software. Torvalds then released the system to his friends and to a
    >> community of "hackers" on the Internet and asked them to work with it
    >> and enhance it. It took off.

    >
    > Andrew, it's nice to see you writing, and I'm happy to be here as well.
    > But I'm going to have to take you to task on some of your statements,
    > because they're misleading.
    >
    > Give credit where credit is due: Linus built and installed that key
    > component, that "carburetor" of the kernel without which the full
    > operating system was not possible. I tested some of the HURD work, the
    > attempts by the GNU crowd to complete an open source operating system,
    > and the kernel was all that was missing. But give credit where credit
    > was due: the other components were already in place. You should have
    > stated that *FIRST*, because leaving it to the second paragraph gives
    > the wrong order and the wrong emphasis.
    >
    > Don't get me wrong: Linus is a genius, and his ability to organize the
    > developers to complete the work with him makes him a living saint. But
    > in my professional opinion, the kernel is 30% of the work of a full OS,
    > tops.
    >
    >> Today, there are hundreds of software developers around the world
    >> contributing software to the Linux effort. Because the source code for
    >> the software is freely available, anyone can work on it, change it, or
    >> enhance it. On top of the Linux kernel effort, the creators of Linux
    >> also drew on a great deal of system software and applications that are
    >> now bundled with Linux from the GNU software effort (GNU stands for
    >> "GNU is Not UNIX"), which is directed by the Free Software Foundation
    >> (FSF). There is a vast amount of software that can be used with Linux,
    >> all of which includes features that can compete with or surpass those
    >> of any other operating system in the world.

    >
    > Many of these components are frankly *not* focused on Linux. OpenSSH
    > comes from the old ssh.com code, and has been taken over by the OpenBSD
    > crowd. GCC is a cross-platform tool developed and managed by the FSF.
    > Xorg is a distinct effort, again multi-platform. Apache comes from the
    > Mozilla group.
    >
    > Linux is not the focus of these development efforts! It is a big partner
    > in many of them, and makes a magnificent hotbed of development and
    > testing and publication of the tools. But for many, many tools, you have
    > the cart before the horse.
    >
    > And no, some features are still not up to closed source product quality.
    > MS Exchange clients are still fairly poor, due to calendar integration,
    > and dealing with MS Office generated files is still awkward and always
    > will be due to deliberate Microsoft policy. The development environments
    > and configuration tools need serious user interface work. (I refer you
    > to Eric Raymond's famous rant on "The Luxury of Ignorance" for a very
    > good analysis.) Oracle, as much as I loathe their installers, is still
    > the best on extremely large scale database performance.
    >
    > But the open source tools are workable, get repaired faster, tend to be
    > more secure, and allow you software to evolve in a way the commercial
    > stuff doesn't. And you don't fall off the support bandwagon or have the
    > company shut down and leave you unable to keep your tools working. This
    > is a huge, huge, huge issue for critical applications.
    >
    >> If you have heard Linux described as a free version of UNIX, there is
    >> good reason for it. Although much of the code for Linux started from
    >> scratch, the blueprint for what the code would do was created to
    >> follow POSIX standards. POSIX (Portable Operating System Interface for
    >> UNIX) is a computer industry operating system standard that every
    >> major version of UNIX complied with. In other words, if your operating
    >> system was POSIX-compliant, it was UNIX.
    >>
    >> --- Thank You ---
    >>
    >> Source: http://www.fx-vista.com

    >
    > Unfortunately, no, and this kind of error can get you into deep legal
    > trouble. UNIX is also a trademark. Claiming that it's a free UNIX is
    > like my claiming that, just because they both use potatoes, french fries
    > are the same as mashed potatoes. Big, big differences exist at every level.
    >
    > I'm sorry if it seems like I'm raining on your parade: I've been working
    > with UNIX sincd its ancestor Multics, and my first professional UNIX
    > work was with BSD 4.1, and my first Linux work was with the *original*
    > RedHat 4.1, not RHEL 4.1. So as someone who's watched their evolution
    > and even participated in it throughout my professional career, I'd like
    > to make sure you don't accidentally re-write history.
    >
    > I was fortunate enough to see a bunch of it happening: I got to know
    > Richard Stallman from a weekly MIT student dinner trip he attended
    > regularly, and contributed modestly to various open source tools early
    > (mostly by porting them to BSD 4.2, SunOS, and later Linux.) Linus has
    > become a well-deserved hero of open source, but I hate to see Richard's
    > name left out, because he frankly deserves mention.


    and Stallman would be bitching at you for referring to it as "Linux" and
    not "GNU/Linux". Sorry to rain on your parade!

    JR.

    --

    Bill will have to take Linux from my cold, dead flippers.

    -Tux.

  6. Re: What Is Linux?

    On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 00:27:11 -0500, Randy Yates wrote:

    > And It Would Be Very Nice(TM) to be able to simply type
    >
    > yum update fedora
    >
    > when we want to upgrade distro versions. Boom - no reformatting the hard
    > drive, restoring backed up user directories, reconfiguring applications,
    > etc., etc. Just upgrade and you're done.


    After 10 painful days of converting from FC6 to F8, all I can say is
    "ahem". But I think the Gentoo people would laugh at me ?

    Tony



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  7. Re: What Is Linux?

    Nico Kadel-Garcia writes:
    > [...]
    > But the open source tools are workable, get repaired faster, tend to
    > be more secure, and allow you software to evolve in a way the
    > commercial stuff doesn't. And you don't fall off the support bandwagon
    > or have the company shut down and leave you unable to keep your tools
    > working. This is a huge, huge, huge issue for critical applications.


    Nico,

    Maybe you don't consider fedora itself "open-source tools," but I am
    having issues with your support statement with respect to fedora proper.

    I've been with fedora since fc3 (I'm currently on fc6) and what I'm
    noticing is a troubling "upgrade from a dead distro version" mentality.
    For an os that comes out with a new distro version every 6 months, this
    isn't an option for me. It simply takes too much of my time to install
    the OS and reconfigure all the various third-part components (e.g.,
    getting the right version of firefox, the flash player, postgresql,
    pgadmin3, etc.).

    I think the current rpm structure that ties everything to a distro
    version is hamstringing the project. Why can't we have a package
    architecture that is based solely on the application/tool dependencies
    and not the distro version? Yes, there are dependencies, but they
    could be handled by rpm, no?

    And It Would Be Very Nice(TM) to be able to simply type

    yum update fedora

    when we want to upgrade distro versions. Boom - no reformatting the hard
    drive, restoring backed up user directories, reconfiguring applications,
    etc., etc. Just upgrade and you're done.
    --
    % Randy Yates % "I met someone who looks alot like you,
    %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % she does the things you do,
    %%% 919-577-9882 % but she is an IBM."
    %%%% % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO
    http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

  8. Re: What Is Linux?


    "Nico Kadel-Garcia" wrote in message
    news:477FB1C1.70709@gmail.com...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aufL76bXLAg



  9. Re: What Is Linux?

    On 2008-01-06, Randy Yates wrote:

    > Maybe you don't consider fedora itself "open-source tools," but I am
    > having issues with your support statement with respect to fedora proper.
    >
    > I've been with fedora since fc3 (I'm currently on fc6) and what I'm
    > noticing is a troubling "upgrade from a dead distro version" mentality.
    > For an os that comes out with a new distro version every 6 months, this
    > isn't an option for me.


    To be fair, Fedora is pretty clearly described as a moving target.
    Perhaps a distribution based on a more static model (e.g. whitebox
    linux or CentOS), might be more appropriate for your needs?

    > It simply takes too much of my time to install
    > the OS and reconfigure all the various third-part components (e.g.,
    > getting the right version of firefox, the flash player, postgresql,
    > pgadmin3, etc.).
    >
    > I think the current rpm structure that ties everything to a distro
    > version is hamstringing the project. Why can't we have a package
    > architecture that is based solely on the application/tool dependencies
    > and not the distro version? Yes, there are dependencies, but they
    > could be handled by rpm, no?


    I used Fedora Core 1 until a couple weeks ago. It hasn't been officially
    supported in quite a while, but I was able to keep it going by building
    my own rpms from source rpms or tarballs. Except for things tied to a
    specfic (more modern) desktop environment, this worked pretty well.

    > And It Would Be Very Nice(TM) to be able to simply type
    >
    > yum update fedora


    That would be nice.

    --

    John (john@os2.dhs.org)

  10. Re: What Is Linux?

    John Thompson writes:

    >> And It Would Be Very Nice(TM) to be able to simply type
    >> yum update fedora

    > That would be nice.


    I've updated one machine from F7 to F8 with yum, and plan to do that from
    now on. Instructions are here:

    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/YumUpgradeFaq

    It's not a single line, works all the time process (but neither does the
    normal upgrade with the CDs/DVD), but after I cleaned up some old crud rpms
    it works flawlessly.

    -- HASM



  11. Re: What Is Linux?

    John Thompson writes:
    > [...]
    > I used Fedora Core 1 until a couple weeks ago. It hasn't been officially
    > supported in quite a while, but I was able to keep it going by building
    > my own rpms from source rpms or tarballs. Except for things tied to a
    > specfic (more modern) desktop environment, this worked pretty well.


    Window managers (e.g., compiz) and desktop environments (e.g., gnome)
    are the very types of things I'm referring to. Why must these be tied to
    a distro? Simply build the required dependencies into the RPMs and let
    the installer decide what needs to be updated. For example, if the
    latest version of gnome requires an updated dbus version, why not
    put that hook into the rpm?

    I am probably over-simplifying something, but I'm not seeing where.
    --
    % Randy Yates % "Ticket to the moon, flight leaves here today
    %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % from Satellite 2"
    %%% 919-577-9882 % 'Ticket To The Moon'
    %%%% % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra
    http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

  12. Re: What Is Linux?

    On 2008-01-07, Randy Yates wrote:

    > John Thompson writes:
    >> [...]
    >> I used Fedora Core 1 until a couple weeks ago. It hasn't been officially
    >> supported in quite a while, but I was able to keep it going by building
    >> my own rpms from source rpms or tarballs. Except for things tied to a
    >> specfic (more modern) desktop environment, this worked pretty well.


    > Window managers (e.g., compiz) and desktop environments (e.g., gnome)
    > are the very types of things I'm referring to. Why must these be tied to
    > a distro? Simply build the required dependencies into the RPMs and let
    > the installer decide what needs to be updated. For example, if the
    > latest version of gnome requires an updated dbus version, why not
    > put that hook into the rpm?



    I'm not a software developer by any stretch of the imagination (only one
    official computer class in my life: a semester of Fortran back in 1972),
    and so I can only comment on my experience, which is that significant
    changes in e.g. gnome or KDE require substantial changes in underlying
    software like gtk, glib, qt, etc, that in turn end up affecting other
    programs that rely on these packages. And don't get me started on
    changes to glibc and its ilk. It gets to be a very tangled mess very
    quickly.

    --

    John (john@os2.dhs.org)

  13. Re: What Is Linux?

    John Thompson writes:

    > On 2008-01-07, Randy Yates wrote:
    >
    >> John Thompson writes:
    >>> [...]
    >>> I used Fedora Core 1 until a couple weeks ago. It hasn't been officially
    >>> supported in quite a while, but I was able to keep it going by building
    >>> my own rpms from source rpms or tarballs. Except for things tied to a
    >>> specfic (more modern) desktop environment, this worked pretty well.

    >
    >> Window managers (e.g., compiz) and desktop environments (e.g., gnome)
    >> are the very types of things I'm referring to. Why must these be tied to
    >> a distro? Simply build the required dependencies into the RPMs and let
    >> the installer decide what needs to be updated. For example, if the
    >> latest version of gnome requires an updated dbus version, why not
    >> put that hook into the rpm?

    >
    >
    > I'm not a software developer by any stretch of the imagination (only one
    > official computer class in my life: a semester of Fortran back in 1972),
    > and so I can only comment on my experience, which is that significant
    > changes in e.g. gnome or KDE require substantial changes in underlying
    > software like gtk, glib, qt, etc, that in turn end up affecting other
    > programs that rely on these packages. And don't get me started on
    > changes to glibc and its ilk. It gets to be a very tangled mess very
    > quickly.


    Am I hearing you correctly? Are you saying, e.g., there are some
    versions of gtk that are not backward compatible? That would definitely
    place a big wrench in the paradigm I suggested.
    --
    % Randy Yates % "She's sweet on Wagner-I think she'd die for Beethoven.
    %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % She love the way Puccini lays down a tune, and
    %%% 919-577-9882 % Verdi's always creepin' from her room."
    %%%% % "Rockaria", *A New World Record*, ELO
    http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

  14. Re: What Is Linux?

    On 2008-01-08, Randy Yates wrote:

    > Am I hearing you correctly? Are you saying, e.g., there are some
    > versions of gtk that are not backward compatible? That would definitely
    > place a big wrench in the paradigm I suggested.


    If a program was written explicitly expecting to find, say, a gtk2.6
    widget set, and you only have gtk2.0 installed, it will complain if/when
    it tries to find a missing widget. The same goes for KDE and qt widgets.

    Sometimes the author will allow you to configure using an earlier
    version, e.g. "./configure --with-gtk2.0" or something, but you can't
    count on all source code to do this.

    You can build the newer gtk (or qt, or whatever) on your old system, but
    that's where you start hitting similar issues with other packages like
    glib or gdk and such. So then you go to build the newer versions of
    those packages, run into the same problem again with something else,
    continuing recursively until you throw in the towel.

    --

    John (john@os2.dhs.org)

  15. Re: What Is Linux?

    John Thompson writes:

    > On 2008-01-08, Randy Yates wrote:
    >
    >> Am I hearing you correctly? Are you saying, e.g., there are some
    >> versions of gtk that are not backward compatible? That would definitely
    >> place a big wrench in the paradigm I suggested.

    >
    > If a program was written explicitly expecting to find, say, a gtk2.6
    > widget set, and you only have gtk2.0 installed, it will complain if/when
    > it tries to find a missing widget. The same goes for KDE and qt
    > widgets.


    And that is precisely the case I've covered already - embed the
    dependency into the RPM for the program, so it will upgrade gtk, if
    required, to 2.6.

    > You can build the newer gtk (or qt, or whatever) on your old system, but
    > that's where you start hitting similar issues with other packages like
    > glib or gdk and such. So then you go to build the newer versions of
    > those packages, run into the same problem again with something else,
    > continuing recursively until you throw in the towel.


    I don't follow your logic here.

    The assumption I make is that, e.g., a program that requires gtk2.0 will
    still work just fine with gtk2.6.
    --
    % Randy Yates % "Remember the good old 1980's, when
    %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % things were so uncomplicated?"
    %%% 919-577-9882 % 'Ticket To The Moon'
    %%%% % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra
    http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

  16. Re: What Is Linux?

    John Thompson writes:
    > [...]
    > If a program was written explicitly expecting to find, say, a gtk2.6
    > widget set, and you only have gtk2.0 installed, it will complain if/when
    > it tries to find a missing widget. The same goes for KDE and qt widgets.
    >
    > Sometimes the author will allow you to configure using an earlier
    > version, e.g. "./configure --with-gtk2.0" or something, but you can't
    > count on all source code to do this.
    >
    > You can build the newer gtk (or qt, or whatever) on your old system, but
    > that's where you start hitting similar issues with other packages like
    > glib or gdk and such. So then you go to build the newer versions of
    > those packages, run into the same problem again with something else,
    > continuing recursively until you throw in the towel.


    OK, I'm hearing you now. (The perspective of a new day, I guess.)

    There would be no "throwing in the towel" If all the dependencies
    were automated, as they are for RPM packages. The upgrade for
    xyz application might "balloon" into a 50 MB dependency list, but
    it would still be automated and theoretically should go without a
    hitch.

    I suspect the real issue is that projects like gnome and other important
    library / application providers don't take the time to create the RPM
    package. I'm not blaming them since package creation (done properly) is
    probably a royal pain in the ass, but I conjecture that's where my
    paradigm breaks down.
    --
    % Randy Yates % "So now it's getting late,
    %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % and those who hesitate
    %%% 919-577-9882 % got no one..."
    %%%% % 'Waterfall', *Face The Music*, ELO
    http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

  17. Re: What Is Linux?

    On 2008-01-09, Randy Yates wrote:
    > John Thompson writes:
    >
    >> If a program was written explicitly expecting to find, say, a gtk2.6
    >> widget set, and you only have gtk2.0 installed, it will complain if/when
    >> it tries to find a missing widget. The same goes for KDE and qt
    >> widgets.


    > And that is precisely the case I've covered already - embed the
    > dependency into the RPM for the program, so it will upgrade gtk, if
    > required, to 2.6.


    And what about other programs using the old version? What if one or
    more of them don't have updates to newer, compatible versions? Are you
    willing to break these programs for the sake of getting this one program
    to run?

    > The assumption I make is that, e.g., a program that requires gtk2.0 will
    > still work just fine with gtk2.6.


    But that's not the case. Remeber "linux" is just a kernel; everything
    else is an add-on. Unless you make a *BSD type distro/project to update
    the whole system all at once, this issue is likely to persist. And
    getting all your individual software developers to sign onto a unified
    update project is likely to be problematic.

    But you can try one of the *BSD systems -- FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD to
    see your idea working in practice.

    --

    John (john@os2.dhs.org)

  18. Re: What Is Linux?

    John Thompson writes:
    > [...]
    >> The assumption I make is that, e.g., a program that requires gtk2.0 will
    >> still work just fine with gtk2.6.

    >
    > But that's not the case. Remeber "linux" is just a kernel; everything
    > else is an add-on. Unless you make a *BSD type distro/project to update
    > the whole system all at once, this issue is likely to persist. And
    > getting all your individual software developers to sign onto a unified
    > update project is likely to be problematic.
    >
    > But you can try one of the *BSD systems -- FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD to
    > see your idea working in practice.


    You mean they utilize backwards-compatible libraries?
    --
    % Randy Yates % "The dreamer, the unwoken fool -
    %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % in dreams, no pain will kiss the brow..."
    %%% 919-577-9882 %
    %%%% % 'Eldorado Overture', *Eldorado*, ELO
    http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

  19. Re: What Is Linux?

    On 2008-01-10, Randy Yates wrote:

    > John Thompson writes:


    >> But you can try one of the *BSD systems -- FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD to
    >> see your idea working in practice.


    > You mean they utilize backwards-compatible libraries?


    No. The *BSDs are developed as a system; kernel, utilities, and user
    software all at once.

    --

    John (john@os2.dhs.org)

+ Reply to Thread