I will agree here. Linux should be the platform the major apps should go for, and not a particular distro. Distros are designed to come and go, they change all the time, and that is ok. The problem is with the concept. As a major app vendor, you should build your software to be generic enough to be able to run on a relatively wide base of distros, you may achieve this either by creating a specific binary compiled against a particular distro, and make that available when the new distro is available, or you make parts of your application re-compileable, so the end user can compile and install in whatever system they wish. Yes it is more work, but oss is living thing, you cant take a snapshot and stick with it for ions. It will limit the usability of your application, and the choice of those who want to use it. $0.02 Cheers Szemir
On November 17, 2004 18:12, Kevin Anderson wrote: > On Wednesday 17 November 2004 16:53, Jesse Kline wrote: > > When Red Hat split their product line, they basically said that Fedora > > was more of a testing distro. for people who want the latest software. > > If you're a company running this on a server, you want something that is > > rock solid, has a long release cycle, and is easy to upgrade. As far as > > I'm concerned that's what Debian is, and it's free. Their stable > > distribution is known for being stable, which is what you should be > > looking for on a server IMHO. It has a long release cycle so you don't > > have to worry about upgrading your OS every 6 months in order to > > maintain patches. As well, it is easy to upgrade using apt. Just like > > rh, if you want the latest and greatest to play around with you can > > install testing or unstable. I think this is the heritage that they're > > proud of. > > As they should be. Too bad Oracle, Peoplesoft, etc don't agree. Again and > again, Linux is the word used where Red Hat is the what they really mean. > Which makes it unsuitable for a corporate install. Every time I've > purchased a big app, RH was requested as the OS. Red Hat isn't Linux, but > nobody seems to know that except in the technical realm. > > Maybe I hate RH because it's just thrown at me so often. Linux should > allow choice, but it doesn't. If you want support on an application, you > need to be running a particular OS under it. Regardless of the suitability > of another identical OS. Whitebox is a great example. Try to get support > for Oracle on an install built on whitebox even... > > Kev. > > _______________________________________________ > clug-talk mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca > Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) > **Please remove these lines when replying _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
