Binary incompatibility of Linux distributions

[Amedee Van Gasse (Ubuntu)]

On Wed, May 20, 2009 16:55, Bryan wrote:
> I think new comes to linux have different expectations out of linux
> experience, regardless of distro,  than they do out of Windows or OS X.  In
> Linux everyone wants the latest and greatest.  They don't want
> to wait for packages to be made for their Operating System.   They don't
> want to wait for it to come out of beta, or even alpha sometimes.  They
> see some popular blog showcasing some neat new feature of an upcoming
> version of their favorite app and they race to get it, only to get
> disappointed that Pidgin or  <insert name of application> doesn't make
> rpms for Redhat and rpms for Suse, and debs for Ubuntu, and this package
> type for this OS and this package type for that.  They generally have the
> dmg's, the exe's and the tarballs. Or just tarballs if its a linux only
> application.    It's not a fault of the kernel nor the OS that the
> software makers aren't prepackaging for 10,000 distros.    It's not the
> software maker's fault or the OS's fault that people are impatient.
>
> And to repeat Linux..is not an operating system and does absolutely NO
> PACKAGE MANAGEMENT, that's up to the operating systems/distros.
> Package management is something that defines most individual distros.
> They each have their advantages and disadvantages.   RPM and the DEB
> systems are incredibly different and they cannot be "unified".  The only
> way for the distros to achieve compatibility is for them to agree on one
> package type, for them to re-do their OS particular file hierarchy.
> Etc..But if they do that, what exactly makes them a
> distro?  What separates them from the next guy? Nothing except branding.
>
> Competition and choice aids package managers in improving themselves
> and getting ideas from others.  Personally, I love pacman, i love apt, yum
> isn't half bad, i don't care for yast too much, emerge is awesome.
>
> At the end of the day though, MOST people, myself included, rarely
> have to install anything from source.  It's usually in the repositories on
> the given distro.  If not, their's sites like getdeb, there is sites that
> host RPMs.   And even if you must compile from source, as mentioned
> before, it's not an overly complex process. configure make make install.
> Most of the time if there's an error
> about a missing dependency the output tells you so and you can usually use
> your package mananger/OS repo's to get the dependency.
>
> Lastly: http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm
>

Applause!