Re: [PLUG] Without OS X

[LeRoy Cressy <leroy@lrcressy.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Any of you who have compiled their own kernel, used Debian will know 
that Linux will run on almost any archectecture.  All the distribution 
does is provide compiled binaries in a packaging manager.  The last time 
I used Slackware it was just tar balls.  There is even a distribution 
that is mostly source code and you have to compile your own utilities 
and applications.

With Linux there is no company that has control over the enviroment. 
The only real control is by Linus over the kernel.  Why is IBM inviting 
Linux programmers to port their applications to S390 and even providing 
them login accounts on an S390.



Chris Hedemark wrote:
> On Thursday, February 6, 2003, at 05:34 PM, William H. Magill wrote:
>
> > And as for the Linux community caring -- the "Linux community" "KNOWS" 
> > that Linux ONLY runs on an x86 box.
>
>
> Untrue.
>
> > Those of us that run "Linux" on something else, like my Alpha for 
> > example, have to put up with the fact that "real linux" comes from Red 
> > Hat, and you can't buy/or otherwise obtain a copy of Alpha Linux from 
> > them
>
>
> Actually when I was talking to my Red Hat account rep last week he was 
> suggesting I try Linux on the mainframe at work.
>
> Also, this next one doesn't come with commercial support, but Red Hat is 
> unofficially sponsoring Aurora Linux (basically Red Hat 7.3 for sparc).  
> Aurora runs really well, it is stable, and developed primarily by Red 
> Hat employees while they are on the clock (with full blessings of 
> management).
>
> Of course when I was on the phone with my Red Hat guy I suggested to him 
> that he get TPTB to get spot off of Aurora and onto RHL, heading up the 
> sparc architecture.  If RHL were stable on sparc architecture, it would 
> be a real contender for real business.
>
> > -- it only comes from Compaq. And most "Linux software" doesn't 
> > compile on Alpha without far too much effort compared to x86 systems. 
> > (Yeah, I run SuSE, so I'm even weirder. But they are not porting 
> > anymore either.)
>
>
> That's not a Linux problem, though.  That problem is with all the people 
> writing OSS strictly for Linux/x86/gcc and not testing against other 
> platforms.  You can even run into this compiling OSS on *BSD/x86.
>
> Also many developers don't take endianess into consideration, or 32 vs. 
> 64 bit integers.
>
> Chris Hedemark
> PGP/GnuPG Public Key at http://yonderway.com/chris/hedemark.gpg


_________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group        --       http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  --   http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug




- -- 
Rev. LeRoy D. Cressy   mailto:leroy@lrcressy.com   /\_/\
                       http://lrcressy.com        ( o.o )
                       Phone:  215-535-4037        > ^ <

gpg fingerprint:  62DE 6CAB CEE1 B1B3 359A  81D8 3FEF E6DA 8501 AFEA

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life:
no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Debian - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE+Q6jnP+/m2oUBr+oRAt4kAJ4m8K5jycpaicWR2btkfCvcrRX1KwCeNwbx
xIDVskQs6ju2VY3FG5JRMXk=
=KlhN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group        --       http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  --   http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug