OSNews

And this is exactly the problem I'm talking about. An ISV produces some software, let's go with Ubuntu for example. Now personally, I hate Ubuntu and don't want to use it. So I want to install it on Slackware. However it depends on Ubuntu's libraries, both names and versions, requiring me to hack around to make it work. This is not compatibility, this is mandatory, reactionary hacking for any other distro that wants to support the application in question. This is a simptom of the bigger problems (no standard ABI being the issue here), and is hardly the way to solve compatibility issues. If this happens enough, every distro will become a cluttered mess of hacks to make applications for every other distro work. As if the mess isn't big enough already. I've said it before and I'll say it again, this whole distro mentality needs to stop. Make a standard, call it Linux, or GNU/Linux, or whatever you want. Make that standard the consistent target, and tell the ISVs to port to Linux, meaning this new standard distro. If it'll make you feel better, have a couple of standard distros for desktop and server needs. And since Linux is open, nothing's stopping anyone else from making a distro if they really want to, it just won't be the standard Linux. And, before someone asks, this is not what the LSB is trying to do. The LSB is trying to come up with a standard that all distros can follow. i'm advocating dropping the distro model entirely. And you know what? If the Linux community can't get its act together I think its time to start seriously targeting one of the BSD platforms, or Solaris. There's consistency for you, since they're actual operating systems, not a kernel and a userland thrown together in a million different ways. FreeBSD is always FreeBSD, NetBSD is always NetBSD, and Solaris... you guessed it. Perhaps the effort should go into making the various *BSD systems more desktop friendly. Or, perhaps more efficient, focus on Solaris as it's already pretty well along in that area with a sound kernel and ABI, and standards you can expect to be followed throughout the system in each major version, and usually the versions after that as well.. The only real impediment Solaris is facing is the lack of a lot of drivers for some relatively common hardware, but even that's improving. If I had to put my money on which UNIX will eventually be ready for average joe's desktop, I'd put my bet on Solaris.
Now, I suppose I get to sit back and watch all the freetards flame me. Fair warning, all flames 2>&1 /dev/null. Or if you prefer the short hand, all flames >& /dev/null.

Wrong.

http://www.varicad.com/en/home/products/requirements/

There are any number of closed-source commercial applications (such as the one linked above as an example) that have no problem whatsoever.

Pray tell, where is there any word at all about what distribution you must have in the "System requirements" for the Linux version of the indicated example product?

All that you require is a recent enough version of some common libraries installed. This is dead easy to check with your package manager.

"And this is exactly the problem I'm talking about. An ISV produces some software, let's go with Ubuntu for example. Now personally, I hate Ubuntu and don't want to use it. So I want to install it on Slackware. However it depends on Ubuntu's libraries, both names and versions, requiring me to hack around to make it work. This is not compatibility, this is mandatory, reactionary hacking for any other distro that wants to support the application in question."

I have never seen this problem running many commercial applications for Linux. Parallels, VMWare, CrossOver Office, Doom 3, etc. Those applications run on any distro without complaint and without any special work around. I am not saying it doesn't exist, as it may. I just have never seen it.

The preference for open standards and user freedom instead of lock-in would probably keep any one distribution from being the only way to run a program.

There could be some licensing agreements like VMware's ESX not being officially supported unless on a RHEL system. I don't see any technical limitation that would force acceptance though.