John W. Linville skrev:
>Iggy Drougge wrote:
>>
>> John W. Linville skrev:
>>
>> >Iggy Drougge wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Gordon C. Zaft skrev:
>> >>
>> >> > Linux != x86.
>> >>
>> >> Effectively, Linux is as i386-centred as Win NT. Nominally, it might not
>> >> be.
>>
>> >That is a VERY unenlightened (and incorrect) opinion. There are a
><snip>
>
>> Oh, but can you go out and buy yourself an m68k/MIPS/PPC meainstream distro
>> in the bookshop, or can you buy any software for non-i386 platforms?
>> Usually not. Yes, you can run "ls" and "more", as wellas "ifconfig", but
>> beyond that? What about Netscape?
>Are there any "mainstream" m68k or MIPS systems still around that would
>deserve a mainstream distibution?
I don't know - who cares?
>PPC is covered by (at least) Yellow Dog (www.yellowdoglinux.com). Sparc
>and Alpha (while it survives) are supported by a number of
>distributions, including Red Hat. According to the Yellow Dog website,
>Borders is stocking their distribution at some of its stores.
And then there's the software question.
>I'm not sure about Netscape, but I'm sure Mozilla is available for these
>distributions. Koffice, OpenOffice, etc are probably available as
>binaries for these distributions. Besides, now you are talking about
>which applications vendors support what platforms. Believe it or not,
>Unix admins used to survive by (horror of horrors) downloading source
>and compiling for their own systems.
The problem is that not all software is open-source, and this means that while
Linux support for card X or program Y may be available, it's only for platform
Z. Just like with NT.
>Your original complaint was that "Linux is as i386-centred as Win NT",
>which would seem to apply to the OS rather than the applications
>vendors. Or are you changing the rules, now that you've been called on
>your bluster?
Why does it always turn out like this when someting is debated with UNIX
people? It's always "but that's just your default .rc file" or "but that's no
part of the OS" or "but GNU is not UNIX" or "but that's not the same version
of emacs". An OS without programs is useless. UNIX systems are generally
bundled with a lot of useful programs like ls and ifconfig, but beyond that?
Back on track...
What bluster? When I said that Linux was as multiplatform as NT, I thought
that was a very obvious comparison. Both are i386-centred (you must agree that
Linux is i386-centred), i386-originated (obviously) OSes which have since been
ported to other platforms. Which means that you may run Winmine or SOL.EXE on
MIPS or PPC machines, but not download loads and loads of binaries from
TUCOWS. Which is much the same as for non-i386 Linuxes.
>> Embedded systems are a moot point, since they're in an entirely different
>> field and reduces Linux to a kernel as opposed to the desktop/server OS
>> which is what most people know Linux as.
>Again, this smells like rule changing. Claiming that "Linux is as
>i386-centred as Win NT" and then refusing to consider Linux running on
>anything other than an i386 is like declaring allegations to be facts by
>refusing to hear any contradictary evidence.
Windows NT runs on Alphas too, and who cares?
Your embedded argument smells like nitpicking. We can both bring up a zillion
instances of Linux and NT on other platforms, but individual cases are beside
the point.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
When cherry tree blooms, people go and walk there, eat dumpling, bring sake
and talk each other such things as "A superb view!" and "Full of spring here",
and they become very happily and cheerful. But this is a lie. People gather
below cherry trees and get drunk, vomit, fight, which are happening since the
old days of Edo period. From long time ago.
THE FULL OF CHERRY BOOLMS, CHAPTER 1
Received on Sun Aug 26 2001 - 19:42:41 BST