Browse thread
Why don't you use batteries?
-
Edgar Friendly
- Rakotomandimby Mihamina
- Alan Schmitt
- kattla
- Vincent Aravantinos
- Dario Teixeira
- Ashish Agarwal
- Tom Hutchinson
- Richard Jones
- Jake Donham
- Jean-Christophe Filliâtre
- Sylvain Le Gall
- Philippe Wang
- Erik de Castro Lopo
- rixed@h...
- Philip
- Rakotomandimby Mihamina
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Richard Jones <rich@a...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Why don't you use batteries? |
On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 01:03:28PM +0100, Jon Harrop wrote: > Linux is basically a complete disaster in this regard because it > offers so little binary compatibility between distros. You probably want to use a commercial Linux distribution. Red Hat (as an example) *guarantee* perfect binary compatibility for the 7 - 10 year lifespan of a release of RHEL. By guarantee I mean any binary incompatibility is treated as a regression and fixed as a very high priority (just below security issues). We internally run source level tools to try to avoid releasing incompatible ABIs in the first place. > Building upon a decent VM solves this problem and many others, of > course, but Linux has none. Not sure what you mean by this. Linux was the first _PC_[1] OS to incorporate a hypervisor into the kernel (Xen or KVM depending on your interpretation of the words "hypervisor" and/or "incorporate"). With RHEL 6 we'll also be making the same ABI guarantees as above for KVM virtual machines. Rich. [1] VM/CMS and the rest was on mainframes, m'kay? -- Richard Jones Red Hat