Binary incompatibility of Linux distributions

[Steven Susbauer]

On Tue, 12 May 2009 10:33:43 -0500, Odd <iodine at runbox.no> wrote:

> Amedee Van Gasse (Ubuntu) wrote:
>> On Tue, May 12, 2009 13:43, Odd wrote:
>>> One of my pet peeves with Linux has been that software for
>>> one distro is incompatible with another. There are work-arounds of  
>>> course,
>>> but they should really not be needed.
>>
>> It seems like Mark Shuttleworth, the founder of Ubuntu, and Linus
>> Torvalds, founder of Linux, disagree with you.
>
> Sure, that's their prerogative. :)
>
>> Read Mark's arguments on
>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MarkShuttleworth#What%20about%20binary%20compatibility%20between%20distributions?
>>
>> At the bottom we read what Linus thinks:
>>
>> It is worth noting that the Linux kernel itself takes the same approach,
>> shunning "binary compatibility" in favour of a "custom monolithic  
>> kernel".
>> Each release of the kernel requires that it be compiled separately from
>> previous releases. Modules (drivers) need to be recompiled with the new
>> release, they cannot just be used in their binary form. Linus has
>> specifically stated that the monolithic kernel - based on source code,  
>> not
>> trying to maintain a binary interface for drivers across releases - is
>> better for the kernel. We believe the same is true for the distribution.
>
> I do see their point, but from an end-user's POV, it's a hassle.
>


Not a large one, and many binaries are perfectly compatible. Recompiling  
software is not really that hard, and a good way to avoid  
incompatibilities between distros is to only share the source code (if  
sharing software), or use one distro and stop jumping around (unless  
willing to deal with minor differences ;) )