View Single Post
Old 7th January 2009
jggimi's Avatar
jggimi jggimi is online now
More noise than signal
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 7,977
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randux View Post
...I don't think I should have to be a BSD-expert to be able to get the apps I want running...
I'd like to do some level-setting on why porting is the way it is, and why I recommend Linux to you, and Slackware in particular.

Please bear with me if this is all review for you. First, on the complexity of "porting" applications:
While Linux and the BSDs are both Unix-like, and appear very similar to end-users running shells or X Windows, they have remarkably different antecedents and are internally architected quite differently.
BSD's history began as a series of enhancements and improvements to AT&T's Unix. Eventually, BSD replaced all AT&T code. Please consider the BSD-based OSes something akin to "forks" of AT&T Unix, from an operational and architectural perspective.

Linux, however, is a kernel. In order to use the Linux kernel in an OS, a Linux distribution is crafted, containing userland libraries and applications, typically comprised mainly of components from the GNU Project.
GNU ("GNU's Not Unix"), was a project founded more than 25 years ago to develop and distribution a FOSS Unix-compatible OS. That initial intent has not wavered -- the gnu.org website proclaims that there is a "GNU Operating System" and the kernel is "not yet ready." Sure. Well, whatever they've been smoking, the GNU Project has successfully produced a large number of applications and libraries that have found use in most, if not all, Unix and Unix-like OS vendors and projects.
Even when Unix was an AT&T-managed research tool in the 1970s, there were variations between implementations from platform to platform. If you wanted to run an application originally written for the PDP-11 on your VAX or Interdata, you had to "port" it. So Unix administrators were porters, as that was a required skill at the time.

When Unix went commercial, over time there were many variants, some with vastly different operations and architectures. OSF/1-base Unix systems were vastly different from SVR4-based systems. These wide variations even among Unix systems complicated matters further for the administrator who wanted to "port" an application to their platform of choice.

Standards were developed, such as POSIX and SUS, designed to aid in the "porting" of applications from one Unix (or Unix-like) system to another. When followed, they simplify porting, but they do not eliminate manual effort entirely. And only a subset of application projects follow such standards.
Second, regarding the Unix-like OS marketplace, Linux, and the porting/packaging of applications:
The market leader for FOSS for Unix or Unix-like platforms, by a wide margin over any other, is Linux. As you already know. This is why you are likely to need less knowledge or skill to configure and compile an FOSS application on Linux than on any other.

The commercial Unix systems, the BSDs, and most Linux distributions spend a great deal of time and effort on simplifying or eliminating the porting effort for their customers/users. The more popular Linux distributions have tens of thousands of pre-built, ready-to-execute applications available for download and install. (Not Slackware, of course.)

The smaller distributions will either have fewer prepackaged applications, will use the ports/packaging system of one of the majors, or directly exploit the ports/packages of a major distribution directly.

In the case of the *BSDs, the largest library of prepackaged ports/packages, by far, is FreeBSD, with nearly 20,000 third party applications and tools that will not require any manual porting.
Because you reject the use of prepackaged binaries, and you reject the dependency requirements of porting work done by others, and you want to use any hunk of code you find online -- (written for Linux, in most cases)... Slackware is the distribution for you.

Last edited by jggimi; 7th January 2009 at 04:44 PM. Reason: clarity, typos
Reply With Quote