On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, Clarence Verge wrote: > On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 19:04:51 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Stop! It won't work! The Linux version of Arachne was > > compiled for glibc2 (not libc5). Arachne cannot be run > > in BasicLinux until a libc5 version is released. > > > Sorry to get you excited about nothing. > > Bummer. > I'm beginning to get the feel for another reason why Linux isn't > mature enough (read static enough) for prime-time.
This isn't about Linux. It's about Michael (and Steven). He decided when porting Arachne to Linux, that he'd go with the latest libraries. You can't really fault him for that. Computer years, like dog years, go by at a different rate than regular human years. If he wrote Arachne to an already obsolete library... well, then he'd have to be messing with one more thing to upgrade a few months later. I think keeping BasicLinux small is a good goal, but when it's done by keeping it in a 5 year old time warp, (that's 35 computer years, remember) then obviously, there will be certain pieces of newer software that just won't work. > With DOS I can take a program written in 1980 and use it now > on the latest DOS. I can also take the latest DOS application > and run it on DOS 3.3. Lots of stuff that was written for DOS in 1980 won't run on later DOS's. Part of the reason I abandoned DOS when I did was for that very reason. Some stuff just wouldn't work on newer hardware with newer DOS's. I don't know what you mean by the "latest DOS app" but I can guarantee that there are plenty of apps written for DOS 5 or DOS 6, which will NOT run on DOS 3.3. > With Windoze and Linux neither of the above will work due to an > entirely different philosophy. Sell them something new tomorrow > AND make damn sure they have to buy something ELSE to run it ! Huh??? Linux works fine on my 486, and I hear from reliable sources that it'll even function on a 386. FreeBSD 4.4 is the very latest of that OS, and it runs on a 486 too. Nobody in the 'nix world is making anybody BUY anything! If you want to run Linux kernel 1.0.1, you're perfectly free to do so. Just don't expect every programmer in the world to make his programs backward compatible to that kernel... That'd be ridiculous. > DOS is dead. Windows is only imitating life. > Linux (Unix) has been around along time, but it has cancer. DOS is a favorite old sweater that is full of holes. It's time to throw it away, but it's hard to make that break, so most of us will stash it in the attic. Windows these days is simply imitating 'nix. Linux is like a living language. It grows and changes whenever and however the army of volunteer programmers decide to take it. As an individual user, you are free to "freeze" your static box at any moment in time you want... or to ride the waves of KDE and Gnome and all the other cutting edge stuff that seems to get some people all excited. Steven seems to have his computer frozen ca. 1997. Mine is like a glacier, cyclically freezing and thawing to crawl forward. The glacier moves 100 yards one year, and then might move only a few inches the next. > IMO, the final answer lies elsewhere. The answer lies within you. You are the one who decides which trade-offs you're willing to make. You are the one who decides what hardware to purchase (or carry home from the dump). You are the one who decides which OS and what version to run. You are the one who decides what software to buy/download. And if all that still doesn't give you enough room for being where you want to be, then you can always put together your own distribution... and if you STILL aren't happy with your computational position in cyberlife, it's time to start honing up those programming skills. ;-) - Steve
