[TUHS] Fwd: [simh] Announcing the Open SIMH project

[Dan Cross]

On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 10:30 AM Theodore Ts'o <tytso at mit.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 09:28:14AM +1000, David Arnold wrote:
> > Lest it be thought that all is sweetness and light in Linux-land,
> > there were years of fairly intense competition involved in getting
> > installers to the point that you can start with a downloaded image,
> > burn it to a USB, boot it, run it, and (optionally) make it persist
> > over a reboot, all with very minimal need to understand or care
> > about the many, many things going on under the hood.
>
> On Sun, Jun 05, 2022 at 09:40:44PM -0400, Dan Cross wrote:
> >
> > But every distribution has its own installer, and they vary wildly.
>
> The key is I think *competition*.  Distributions were competing to
> attract a user base, and one of the ways they could do that was by
> improving the install experience.  There were people who reviewed
> distributions based on which one had the better installer, and that
> helped users who were Windows refugees choose the ones that had the
> better installer.

My point is that this is something that varies from distro to distro;
it is therefore inaccurate to claim that "Linux solved it" since many
different distros that have widely varying installation processes
fall under the very large "Linux" umbrella.

> The other advantages of having a many distributions is that gave more
> people to opportunity to exercise leadership --- you can "drive the
> big red firetruck" by founding a distro like Debian or Slackware, and
> the people who are interested in improving a distribution can be
> different from those who drive kernel development.  This is one of the
> things that I've learned from my rector at my church, who had a
> background in community organizing.  One of the big differences
> between community organizing compared to the corporate world is that
> it's more important to give more people --- volunteers ---
> opportunities to contribute, and very often this is far more important
> than efficiently organizing a corporate-style team to get some job
> done.  Was it inefficient to have multiple teams competing on
> installer development, and release engineering?  Sure, but it also
> drew more people into the Linux ecosystem.

That's an interesting angle and one that I think bears more on the topic
at hand than many folks are willing to let on: the barrier to contribution is,
in a lot of important ways, lower in the Linux ecosystem than it is in the
BSD world. At least historically speaking, and perhaps still true. Anecdotally,
I was able to get a patch into the KVM unit tests (not precisely Linux but
related) in pretty short order recently while the OpenBSD people simply
ignored my problem report and patch. YMMV.

> > The ABI compatibility thing breaks down, too. A colleague was trying
> > to get the host-side of a Salae logic analyzer working on Arch, and it
> > doesn't. They more or less require Ubuntu 18.something, and that's
> > not what he runs. As far as most end-users are concerned, your
> > distribution of choice is "Linux", and distributions vary in all kinds of
> > ways.
>
> There are three different things that's worth separating.  One is a
> consistent kernel<->user space interface, this is what Linus Torvalds
> considers high priority when he says, "Thou shalt not break
> userspace".  This is what allows pretty much all distributions to
> replace the kernel that was shipped with the distribution with the
> latest upstream kernel.  And this is something that in general doesn't
> work with *BSD systems.

Eh? I feel like I can upgrade the kernel on the various BSDs
without binaries breaking pretty easily. Then again, there _have_
been times when there were flag days that required rebuilding
the world; but surely externalities are more common here (e.g.,
switching from one ISA to another).

> The second is application source-level compatibility, and this is what
> allows you to download some open source application, and recompile it
> on different Linux distributions, and it should Just Work.  In
> practice this works for most Linux and *BSD users.

This, I think, is where things break down. Simply put, the way
people build applications has changed, and "source-level"
compatibility means compatibility with a bunch of third-party
libraries; in many ways the kernel interfaces matter much, much
less (many of which are defined by externally imposed standards
anyway). If a distro ships a too-old or too-new version of the
dependency, then the open source thing will often not build, and
for most end users, this is a distinction without a difference.

> And the third is application *binary* level compatibility.  And this
> is what is important if you have some binary that you've downloaded,
> or some commerical application which you've purchased, and you want to
> run it on Linux distribution different from the one which is
> originally designed.  Static linking solves most of the problems, but
> if the user needs to use proprietary/commercial binaries, if they
> stick to RHEL, Fedora, Ubuntu/Debian, they will generally not have
> issues.

Yup. But then that you're running Linux is mostly immaterial; it could
be Windows and the same would be true.

        - Dan C.