[GLLUG] Software Distribution

[Karl Schuttler]

Why not follow Apple's Universal Binary model?

The universal binary was convenient as it carried users over from
PowerPC to x86, but beyond that, the universal binary isn't helpful on
any other architectures. ("It'd be nice to have some processor
independent executables on Linux.") 80% of developers are right; they
program for themselves or a company/organization that pays them to
develop something for specific architectures/flavors. Reducing the
number of linux "flavors" would not make the universal binary any more
relavent; one of linux's main points is that it can be ran on
everything from a toaster to a supercomputer (okay, so I haven't seen
one integrated into a toaster oven yet, but you just wait). Having
'one' flavor is more beneficial to desktop users, but isn't necessary
for server side applications. You really need to fill up space running
a graphical interface, etc, on a server that will only be doing LAMP?

Distros that make things easy for the user (Ubuntu, Suse, etc) are the
ones that have the most commerical potential. Why not do like other
developers and only build binaries for those that are popular and
represent your clientele? This seems to me what other developers have
been doing for years: developing for windows and mac OS but counting
out linux because linux users aren't the ones bringing in the dough.

This response is less to Clay and more to Mike/Eduardo; I don't really
have any commercial software development experience, but I can
understand how building for multiple distributions could be
frustrating. All I ask is that you make the source available so others
can compile it; if you aren't, then you aren't following a FOSS
business model, which is why you are only releasing binaries. In this
case, developing for linux probably isn't your thing.