[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] (none) [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] (none) [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive]
 
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]
Skåne Sjælland Linux User Group - http://www.sslug.dk Home   Subscribe   Mail Archive   Forum   Calendar   Search
MhonArc Date: [Date Prev] [Date Index] [Date Next]   Thread: [Date Prev] [Thread Index] [Date Next]   MhonArc
 

Re: [PROGRAMMERING] Hvorfor skal man kompilere så meget på Linux i fht. Windows?



On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:26:53 +0200
Lars wrote:

> Jeg sidder lige nu og bander over libtool automake autoconf aclocal (må 
> de brænde i helvede alle sammen - jeg har ALDRIG oplevet, at de passede 
> sammen indbyrdes og sammen med det kode, jeg har downloaded), 

Der burde laves en folkebevægelse til forbedring af auto-tools. Der
er visse produkter, som går udenom den. Auto-tools er vist ikke så
stringent og hjælper dig vist ikke til at kompilere på andet end Unix,
men alt det ved du vistnok - resten af tråden afslører, at dette er
et udbrud af auto-træthed.

>    og jeg kom 
> så til at tænke på hvorfor man aldrig skal omkompile ting på Windows? Er 
> der tilfældigivs nogen, der ved noget om det? Skifter de aldrig kerne på 
> XP? Skifter de aldrig compiler? Skifter de aldrig libc? Eller er de bare 
> 100% compatible?

Mads har allerede svaret jo, MS skifter kerne. 

Men det ser ud som om at tråden ikke helt skelner mellem kernens
ABI og glibc/libc interface.

Libc burde i værste fald opsuge de forskelle, der kan være i
kerner/CPU-varianter's interface.

I nogle tilfælde er der væsentlige forskelle. Gamle binaries fra
RH-5.2, Apollo, kører "fint" på alle nyere glibc men kan ikke
forstå filer/integers, som er større end 2mia.


> Jeg forstår egenligt godt hvorfor hardware folk ikke skirver 
> Linux-drivere, da det er et ræs at holde dem kørende op mod kerner, 
> compilere, libstdc'ere og andet - specielt hvis man gerne vil 
> distribuere det som binære drivere. Hvorfor kan Linux ikke gøre som 
> Windows på det her punkt?

Når man ikke bruger MSW32/XP-SP2, så kunne man ud fra din
beskrivelse tro, at MSW fungerer. Det gør det ikke altid.

Vi er mange som begyndte at bruge Linux p.g.a. manglende kvalitet
i MS-produkter. MS kaldte det i 1999 for "buggy drivers". EU
skriver herom og citerer intern MS-kommunikation, som (lovligt)
er blevet fremlagt i forbindelse med monopol-anklagerne mod MS:


        In fact, Microsoft can behave independently of its
        end-customers.  Microsoft is fully aware  of  this,  as
        is  shown  by  the following  excerpts  from  Microsoft
        s  internal communication: The Windows API is so broad,
        so deep, and so functional that most ISVs would be crazy
        not to use it.  And it is so deeply embedded in the
        source code of many Windows apps that there is a huge
        switching cost to using a different operating system
        instead.  [...]

        It is this switching cost that has given customers the
        patience to stick with Windows through all our mistakes,
        our buggy drivers, our high TCO, our lack of a sexy
        vision at times, and many other difficulties.
        [ ] Customers constantly evaluate other desktop
        platforms, [but] it would be so much work to move
        over that they hope we just improve Windows rather
        than force them to move. In  short,  without  this
        exclusive franchise called the Windows API, we would have
        been dead a long time ago. [cf.note 579]


     Note 579: Internal Microsoft memo drafted for Bill Gates by C++
     General Manager Aaron Contorer dated 21/02/97 -  see Sun's
     submission on  evidentiary material  dated 11 August  1999  at
     Tab.  2 (Case  IV/C-3/37.345 page 3704).


Externe ressourcer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in
http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/antitrust/cases/decisions/37792/en.pdf




 
> Håber der er nogen der kan oplyse mig :)

Du vidste nok det meste i forvejen:-)

-- 
donald_j_axel donax snabela get2net.dk -- http://d-axel.dk/


 
Home   Subscribe   Mail Archive   Index   Calendar   Search

 
 
Questions about the web-pages to <www_admin>. Last modified 2005-08-10, 22:44 CEST [an error occurred while processing this directive]
This page is maintained by [an error occurred while processing this directive]MHonArc [an error occurred while processing this directive] # [an error occurred while processing this directive] *