lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jan]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [OFFTOPIC] Gnumenclature was Re: IBM, was never Re: Linux Kernel
In <199901030911.BAA21014@bitmover.com> Larry McVoy (lm@bitmover.com) wrote:
> : On Sat, 2 Jan 1999, Larry McVoy wrote:
: >> His point, I think, was that i386-redhat-linux is quite a bit more
: >> accurate and useful than i386-gnu-linux. Ditto for i386-suse-linux
: >> and i386-debian-linux.

> Greg Mildenhall <greg@networx.net.au>:
> : Is it? The same package ought to work on all of them, and if it doesn't,
> : you _should_ (you won't always) be able to tell from the .deb or .rpm
> : extension, not from the name of the package.
> : The main reason for this? They all use glibc2.

> It would appear to me that you haven't spent any time trying to deploy
> a package on the various Linux systems. Suse doesn't use glibc yet,
> but they are RPM based.

SUSE 6.0 is glibc based AFAIK.

> Furthermore, their init layout is different than RedHat's layout (and
> that's just where the problems start).

That's why there are LSB :-) Still far from completeness though :-((

: >> But to take {redhat,suse,slackware,debian} and call them all gnu is
: >> (a) incorrect,
> : It is? Which one of these does not use GNU-owned software for most of it's
> : basic userspace components? GNU certainly does not have a monopoly on
> : such, but it certainly is responsible for more than any of the
> : distributions. It seems the best approximation to correctness.

> Don't be silly. Approximation != correct. To call it GNU is not correct
> unless it is 100% GNU. And it isn't even close. Go do a wc on the X11
> tree some day. You don't see Gettys in here arguing that it should be
> called X11-Linux, now do you?

I'm have completely empty X11 three on few servers here. I am does not have
even resque floppy without libc (be it libc[45] (still GNU Libc based), glibc2
or statically linked libc in one big program on resque floppy...)

: >> (b) somewhat annoying,
> : To you. To others it's annoying the other way. Such is life.

> Yes, but I try and ship software that runs on all platforms. Unless you
> are trying to do the same thing, your opinion isn't as important as
> mine because you are just voicing a silly opinion for no technical or
> business reason.

I am not port bunch of software every day but I know for sure from peoples who
do this that if you are familiar with systems then port from one glibc based
system to other glibc based system usually trivial while port prom glibc based
system to libc5 based system is just slightly less trivial then port from
HP UX to Solaris.

> : GNU own a very small proportion of the code we run, on the whole, but what
> : they do own comprises a great many of the most fundamental and universal
> : components of a system.

> Such as? The only substantial chunk is gcc and that isn't part of the
> operating system.

Such as Libc. I'm NEVER seen ANY Linux distribution without some form of libc.
ALL libc's for Linux are derived from GNU Libc (1 or 2)... For Linux developers
libc is somewhat even more important then kernel. To have minimal system you
need kernel and some shell (bash, ash, zsh, tcsh -- there are many). To compile
shell you need at least gcc (not part of system -- just a tool) and libc (part
of system in one form or other -- or as part of statically linked executable or
as real shared library). One essentional part is from Linus and other is from
GNU project. Without X11 you still have working system. Without ANY of shell
you have working system -- you need /bin/sh but it's could be bash, ash or
whatever (usually bash from GNU project is used of course). Login programs are
not needed if you have single-user system. /sbin/init is needed but again
there are few. Libc, derived from GNU Libc (be it libc4, libc5 or glibc2) is
inevitable in Linux world...

> : When you are considering a "platform" for porting purposes or similar,
> : what matters most (after the CPU) is the standard library. If you port to
> : glibc, you can create a single i386 binary that can run on Linux, FreeBSD
> : and Hurd, but _won't_ run on libc5-based Linux.

> Yeah, right. Have you actually tried this for any real application?
> Sure, it's true for simple stuff but it is far from true for anything
> real.

Yes, there ARE differences between glibc-based Hurd and glibc-based Linux
(thus GNU/Linux, not just GNU :-), but glibc-based Linux is close to
glibc-based Hurd then to libc5-based Linux (from application developer
viewpoint that is).




-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:49    [W:0.118 / U:0.300 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site