From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3e1162e60602140757x7dfcef8fr4d5a944f0dfe2eca@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 07:57:18 -0800 From: David Leimbach To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: patch/list applied/ape-dumb-autohell-fixes In-Reply-To: <43F0EAB8.3050504@lanl.gov> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_20656_13289230.1139932638073" References: <868f968d7388278f2eb848e4906f0775@cat-v.org> <43F0E341.6020107@orthanc.ca> <43F0EAB8.3050504@lanl.gov> Topicbox-Message-UUID: ff374906-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 ------=_Part_20656_13289230.1139932638073 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 2/13/06, Ronald G Minnich wrote: > > Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > >> GNU/Linux is what all Unixes try to emulate as closely as possible > >> this days; > > > > > > > > Excuse me? > > hmm. What uriel may be saying is that a lot of open source software, > allegedly portable, is really only "portable" to different Linux > distros. I have seen this more and more in recent years. Just take any > of a dozen chunks of "portable" code and try to build it on mac osx, for > example. All too often, if tails. This seems very true... For better or worse, I've got KDE commit bits from = a long time ago [well for me anyway]. I have always tried to use FreeBSD as my main development platform but it never seems to pan out well for me. Th= e code has gotten better in that a lot of modules either don't rely on a piec= e of seemingly "linux-only" software [like cdparanoia, I don't think that's a requirement for CD ripping anymore, that or they ported it to FreeBSD as some point]. The problem compounds itself when big projects shoot for reusing other smaller project's code. Code that probably only works on Linux and due to hardwired ioctl calls or something can't be easily ported to other OSes. It is also the case that some non-Linux OSes have felt pressure to add > Linux-like features ... Like new ioctl calls, or linux compatibility layers. ron > ------=_Part_20656_13289230.1139932638073 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline

On 2/13/06, Ronald G Minnich <rminn= ich@lanl.gov> wrote:
Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
>> GNU/Linux is what all Unixes try to emu= late as closely as possible
>> this days;
>
>
><= br>> Excuse me?

hmm. What uriel may be saying is that a lot of op= en source software,
allegedly portable, is really only "portable" to different Li= nux
distros. I have seen this more and more in recent years. Just take a= ny
of a dozen chunks of "portable" code and try to build it on= mac osx, for
example. All too often, if tails.

This seems very = true... For better or worse, I've got KDE commit bits from a long time ago = [well for me anyway].  I have always tried to use FreeBSD as my main d= evelopment platform but it never seems to pan out well for me.  The co= de has gotten better in that a lot of modules either don't rely on a piece = of seemingly "linux-only" software [like cdparanoia, I don't thin= k that's a requirement for CD ripping anymore, that or they ported it to Fr= eeBSD as some point]. =20

The problem compounds itself when big projects shoot for reusing ot= her smaller project's code.  Code that probably only works on Linux an= d due to hardwired ioctl calls or something can't be easily ported to other= OSes.

 

It is also the case that some non-Linux OSes have felt pressure to a= dd
Linux-like features ...

Like new ioctl calls, or linux= compatibility layers.
 

ron

------=_Part_20656_13289230.1139932638073--