Binary incompatibility of Linux distributions

[Odd]

Steven Susbauer wrote:
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 10:33:43 -0500, Odd <iodine at runbox.no> wrote:
> 
>> Amedee Van Gasse (Ubuntu) wrote:
>>> 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  

End-users mostly aren't capable of that, and they shouldnt
need to be. If you want Linux to become more than a geek-only
OS, you need to realize this. Installing apps should be as easy,
or easier, than on Windows.

> 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 ;) )

This too is over the head of most end-users. The sooner we take
that into account, the better it will be for Linux adoption.

-- 
Odd