Binary incompatibility of Linux distributions

[Derek Broughton]

Odd wrote:

> Steven Susbauer wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 May 2009 10:33:43 -0500, Odd <iodine at runbox.no> wrote:
>> 
>>> I do see their point, but from an end-user's POV, it's a hassle.
>> 
>> Not a large one, and many binaries are perfectly compatible. Recompiling
>> software is not really that hard, and a good way to avoid
> 
> End-users mostly aren't capable of that, and they shouldnt
> need to be. If you want Linux to become more than a geek-only
> OS, you need to realize this. Installing apps should be as easy,
> or easier, than on Windows.

It already _is_.  You can just point and click on any software _intended_ 
for Ubuntu and get it automatically installed.  Just like on Windows.  The 
huge advantage that Ubuntu (or any Linux distro) has over Windows is that 
you can also, with a little bit of work, install thousands of other packages 
that were never intended to run on Ubuntu.
> 
>> incompatibilities between distros is to only share the source code (if
>> sharing software), or use one distro and stop jumping around (unless
>> willing to deal with minor differences ;) )
> 
> This too is over the head of most end-users. The sooner we take
> that into account, the better it will be for Linux adoption.

Why?  What part of "use one distro and stop jumping around" is too hard for 
_any_ user? imo, the sooner people stop complaining that "it's too hard", 
when it's at least as easy as on Windows, the better it will be for Linux 
adoption.  Not that I actually care about Linux adoption.  People will use 
the OS they want...
-- 
derek