Clarence Verge wrote: > > I'm beginning to get the feel for another reason why Linux isn't > mature enough (read static enough) for prime-time.
This has got nothing to do with Linux. The only reason that Arachne does not run on libc5 is because Michael compiled it for one library only. Like it or lump it. > 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. With Linux I can take the source code of a program written in 1980 and compile it for libc5. I can also take the source code for a program written today and compile that for libc5. The issue is *not* libc5. 99% of Linux programs are open-source and you can compile them on whichever library you choose. The problem is Arachne. ARACHNE IS NOT OPEN SOURCE. > With Windoze and Linux neither of the above will work due > to an entirely different philosophy. The difference in philosophy is: Linux is about freedom. You have the source code. You are free to use it as you wish. Modify it? Sure. Compile it for libc5? Fine. You've got the source. You are in control. Linux newbies naturally start with user-friendly distributions that provide pre-compiled programs and easy installation. This is fine for newbies and casual users. But, as Linux users mature they tend to move beyond the confines of their pre-masticated distribution and start doing things for themselves. Freedom. The key to this is source code. > Linux (Unix) has been around along time, but it has cancer. > IMO, the final answer lies elsewhere. Clarence, please don't let the library problem with Arachne turn you against Linux. It was Michael's decision to make it closed- source -- this is a very un-Linux thing to do. Cheers, Steven
