Portable Software (German Wikipedia)

Simon Peter: Comparison table. klik.atekon.de, 29. Januar 2009, archiviert vom Original (nicht mehr online verfügbar) am 23. Dezember 2015; abgerufen am 26. März 2010 (englisch). Info: Der Archivlink wurde automatisch eingesetzt und noch nicht geprüft. Bitte prüfe Original- und Archivlink gemäß Anleitung und entferne dann diesen Hinweis.@1@2Vorlage:Webachiv/IABot/klik.atekon.de

administratosphere.wordpress.com

David Douthitt: Why doesn’t my /bin/sh script run under Ubuntu? administratosphere.wordpress.com, 20. Juli 2011, abgerufen am 10. Januar 2012 (englisch): „In Ubuntu 6.10 […] the decision was made to replace the Bourne Again Shell (bash) with the Debian Almquist Shell (or dash) as /bin/sh in Ubuntu. There was considerable uproar […] as using dash instead of the original bash caused numerous scripts to break. […] If the focus of Ubuntu were to provide a stable and unchanging environment, then their decisions would be different – and would result in an improved customer experience.“

apple.com

developer.apple.com

Apple Computer: "Universal Binaries and 32-bit/64-bit PowerPC Binaries" in der Mac OS X ABI Mach-O File Format Referenz. 8. März 2006, abgerufen am 13. Juli 2006.

atekon.de

klik.atekon.de

Simon Peter: Comparison table. klik.atekon.de, 29. Januar 2009, archiviert vom Original (nicht mehr online verfügbar) am 23. Dezember 2015; abgerufen am 26. März 2010 (englisch). Info: Der Archivlink wurde automatisch eingesetzt und noch nicht geprüft. Bitte prüfe Original- und Archivlink gemäß Anleitung und entferne dann diesen Hinweis.@1@2Vorlage:Webachiv/IABot/klik.atekon.de

duden.de

portabel – Duden, Bibliographisches Institut; 2016

evanjones.ca

Evan Jones: Portable Linux Binaries. 13. Februar 2008, abgerufen am 10. Januar 2012 (englisch): „Linux is not well known for its binary portability. Libraries vary from system to system, and the kernel interfaces have a tendency to change. […] Recently, I needed to build a binary on one system, and run it on another. It only used standard C library functions, so I expected it to be easy. It was not. […]“

gaslampgames.com

Nicholas Vining: Dear Linux Community: We Need To Talk. Gaslamp Games, 13. Oktober 2010, abgerufen am 30. Januar 2011 (englisch): „The Linux community, in their infinite wisdom, proceeds to flame the hell out of CDE. […] “We should all just be using package management.” Here is what I want to say, and let my words be carried down from the mountaintops, written on tiny stone tablets: Package management is not a universal panacea.“

kuro5hin.org

Hisham Muhammad: The Unix tree rethought: an introduction to GoboLinux. www.kuro5hin.org, 9. Mai 2003, abgerufen am 19. Dezember 2011: „Unfortunately, not all programs have the flexibility to be installed anywhere. Occasionally, hardcoded paths creep in, even in programs that belong in userland (which should, at least theoretically, allow themselves to be installed inside a user's home directory).“

licquia.org

Jeff Licquia: Autopackage Considered Harmful. licquia.org, 27. März 2005, abgerufen am 21. Oktober 2012.

microsoft.com

support.microsoft.com

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/256986 Beschreibung der Microsoft-Windows-Registrierung (3. Dezember 2007)

redirecter.toolforge.org

Simon Peter: Comparison table. klik.atekon.de, 29. Januar 2009, archiviert vom Original (nicht mehr online verfügbar) am 23. Dezember 2015; abgerufen am 26. März 2010 (englisch). Info: Der Archivlink wurde automatisch eingesetzt und noch nicht geprüft. Bitte prüfe Original- und Archivlink gemäß Anleitung und entferne dann diesen Hinweis.@1@2Vorlage:Webachiv/IABot/klik.atekon.de
Eskild Hustvedt: Our new way to meet the LGPL. 8. Februar 2009, archiviert vom Original am 13. April 2014; abgerufen am 9. März 2011 (englisch): „You can use a special keyword $ORIGIN to say ‘relative to the actual location of the executable’. Suddenly we found we could use -rpath $ORIGIN/lib and it worked. The game was loading the correct libraries, and so was stable and portable, but was also now completely in the spirit of the LGPL as well as the letter!“
Arnaud Desitter: Using static and shared libraries across platforms; Row 9: Library Path. ArnaudRecipes, 15. Juni 2007, archiviert vom Original am 1. Juni 2008; abgerufen am 7. Juli 2010 (englisch): „Win32: . and then PATH“
Rick Anderson: The End of DLL Hell. microsoft.com, 11. Januar 2000, archiviert vom Original am 5. Juni 2001; abgerufen am 15. Januar 2012: „Private DLLs are DLLs that are installed with a specific application and used only by that application.“
Ian Murdock: On the importance of backward compatibility. 17. Januar 2007, archiviert vom Original am 14. Januar 2012; abgerufen am 4. Januar 2012 (englisch).
Tony Mobily: 2009: software installation in GNU/Linux still broken and a path to fixing it. www.freesoftwaremagazine.com, 23. Juni 2009, archiviert vom Original am 26. Juni 2009; abgerufen am 23. März 2010 (englisch): „Every GNU/Linux distribution at the moment (including Ubuntu) confuses system software with end user software, whereas they are two very different beasts which should be treated very, very differently.“
Michael Simms: Handling misbehaving libraries in binary products. Linux Game Publishing, 18. August 2009, archiviert vom Original am 22. Februar 2014; abgerufen am 15. Januar 2012 (englisch): „It is a bit of an arcane artform, making a game that runs on all Linux versions. […] [libraries] will load their own dependencies in a way we cannot control. The biggest problem is that OpenAL and SDL try to dlopen libasound, and on some machines, libasound doesn’t work with our binaries. On others, it can actually crash the whole game due to incompatibilities. This is a common issue when dealing with unknown system configurations when sending out a binary-only product into the world.“
Peter Keller: The Road to Hell Is Paved with Good Intentions. 24. Mai 2005, archiviert vom Original am 23. November 2008; abgerufen am 12. Januar 2012 (englisch): „Don't break APIs and behavior across revisions of dynamic libraries. Yes, this means YOU Linux. This is one of the single greatest causes of portability failures. Just Stop Doing It.“
Eric Brown: LSB 4.0 certifications aim to heal Linux fragmentation. linuxfordevices.com, 8. Dezember 2010, archiviert vom Original am 24. Dezember 2013; abgerufen am 16. November 2011 (englisch): „[…] LSB helps to reduce fragmentation, it does not eliminate it. "The issue of packaging and broader dependencies is still a big one (for me) at least," writes Kerner. "The same RPM that I get for Fedora won't work on Ubuntu, and Ubuntu DEB packages won't work on SUSE etc etc."[…]“
Simon Peter: AppImageKit Documentation 1.0. (PDF; 38 kB) PortableLinuxApps.org, 2010, S. 2–3, archiviert vom Original am 29. November 2010; abgerufen am 29. Juli 2011 (englisch): „Not easy to move an app from one machine to another: If you've used an app on one machine and decide that you would like to use the same app either under a different base operating system (say, you want to use OpenOffice on Fedora after having used it on Ubuntu) or if you would simply take the app from one machine to another (say from the desktop computer to the netbook), you have to download and install the app again (if you did not keep around the installation files and if the two operating systems don't share the exact same package format – both of which is rather unlikely).“
Mike Hearn: Guide to Making Relocatable Applications (BinReloc 2.0). autopackage.org, archiviert vom Original am 25. Januar 2009; abgerufen am 26. Januar 2012 (englisch): „However, most applications are not relocatable. The paths where in they search for data files are usually hardd at compile time. On Win32, applications and libraries are easily relocatable because applications and DLLs can use GetModuleFilename() to obtain their full path.“
Troy Hepfner: Linux Game Development Part 2 – Distributable Binaries. gamedev.net, 1. Oktober 2007, archiviert vom Original am 13. Oktober 2007; abgerufen am 19. Dezember 2011 (englisch): „Creating an executable that works on almost all Linux distributions is a challenge. There are a number of factors that contribute to the problem […]“
Christoph Baus: Yet another Unix nightmare: statically linking libstdc++. 31. Mai 2005, archiviert vom Original am 10. Februar 2010; abgerufen am 15. Januar 2012 (englisch).
Ulrich Drepper: Static Linking Considered Harmful. redhat.com, archiviert vom Original am 27. Mai 2010; abgerufen am 13. Januar 2012 (englisch): „There are still too many people out there who think (or even insist) that static linking has benefits. This has never been the case and never will be the case. […]“
Bruce Byfield: Autopackage struggling to gain acceptance. linux.com, 12. Februar 2007, archiviert vom Original am 31. März 2008; abgerufen am 21. Januar 2012 (englisch): „If Hearn is correct, the real lesson of Autopackage is not how to improve software installation, but the difficulty -- perhaps the impossibility -- of large-scale changes in Linux architecture this late in its history. It's a sobering, disappointing conclusion to a project that once seemed so promising.“

slashdot.org

linux.slashdot.org

timothy: CDE — Making Linux Portability Easy. Slashdot, 12. November 2010, abgerufen am 21. Januar 2012 (englisch): „A Stanford researcher, Philip Guo, has developed a tool called CDE to automatically package up a Linux program and all its dependencies (including system-level libraries, fonts, etc!) so that it can be run out of the box on another Linux machine without a lot of complicated work setting up libraries and program versions or dealing with dependency version hell.“

smedbergs.us

benjamin.smedbergs.us

Benjamin Smedberg: Is Ubuntu an Operating System? 4. Oktober 2006, abgerufen am 20. Januar 2012 (englisch): „Ubuntu isn’t trying to be a platform for mass-market application software: it is trying to be the primary provider of both the operating system and all the application software that a typical user would want to run on his machine. Most Linux distributions are like this, and I think it is a dangerous trend that will stifle innovation and usability, or even worse make the desktop irrelevant.“

web.archive.org

Simon Peter: Comparison table. klik.atekon.de, 29. Januar 2009, archiviert vom Original (nicht mehr online verfügbar) am 23. Dezember 2015; abgerufen am 26. März 2010 (englisch). Info: Der Archivlink wurde automatisch eingesetzt und noch nicht geprüft. Bitte prüfe Original- und Archivlink gemäß Anleitung und entferne dann diesen Hinweis.@1@2Vorlage:Webachiv/IABot/klik.atekon.de
Eskild Hustvedt: Our new way to meet the LGPL. 8. Februar 2009, archiviert vom Original am 13. April 2014; abgerufen am 9. März 2011 (englisch): „You can use a special keyword $ORIGIN to say ‘relative to the actual location of the executable’. Suddenly we found we could use -rpath $ORIGIN/lib and it worked. The game was loading the correct libraries, and so was stable and portable, but was also now completely in the spirit of the LGPL as well as the letter!“
Arnaud Desitter: Using static and shared libraries across platforms; Row 9: Library Path. ArnaudRecipes, 15. Juni 2007, archiviert vom Original am 1. Juni 2008; abgerufen am 7. Juli 2010 (englisch): „Win32: . and then PATH“
Rick Anderson: The End of DLL Hell. microsoft.com, 11. Januar 2000, archiviert vom Original am 5. Juni 2001; abgerufen am 15. Januar 2012: „Private DLLs are DLLs that are installed with a specific application and used only by that application.“
Ian Murdock: On the importance of backward compatibility. 17. Januar 2007, archiviert vom Original am 14. Januar 2012; abgerufen am 4. Januar 2012 (englisch).
Tony Mobily: 2009: software installation in GNU/Linux still broken and a path to fixing it. www.freesoftwaremagazine.com, 23. Juni 2009, archiviert vom Original am 26. Juni 2009; abgerufen am 23. März 2010 (englisch): „Every GNU/Linux distribution at the moment (including Ubuntu) confuses system software with end user software, whereas they are two very different beasts which should be treated very, very differently.“
Michael Simms: Handling misbehaving libraries in binary products. Linux Game Publishing, 18. August 2009, archiviert vom Original am 22. Februar 2014; abgerufen am 15. Januar 2012 (englisch): „It is a bit of an arcane artform, making a game that runs on all Linux versions. […] [libraries] will load their own dependencies in a way we cannot control. The biggest problem is that OpenAL and SDL try to dlopen libasound, and on some machines, libasound doesn’t work with our binaries. On others, it can actually crash the whole game due to incompatibilities. This is a common issue when dealing with unknown system configurations when sending out a binary-only product into the world.“
Peter Keller: The Road to Hell Is Paved with Good Intentions. 24. Mai 2005, archiviert vom Original am 23. November 2008; abgerufen am 12. Januar 2012 (englisch): „Don't break APIs and behavior across revisions of dynamic libraries. Yes, this means YOU Linux. This is one of the single greatest causes of portability failures. Just Stop Doing It.“
Eric Brown: LSB 4.0 certifications aim to heal Linux fragmentation. linuxfordevices.com, 8. Dezember 2010, archiviert vom Original am 24. Dezember 2013; abgerufen am 16. November 2011 (englisch): „[…] LSB helps to reduce fragmentation, it does not eliminate it. "The issue of packaging and broader dependencies is still a big one (for me) at least," writes Kerner. "The same RPM that I get for Fedora won't work on Ubuntu, and Ubuntu DEB packages won't work on SUSE etc etc."[…]“
Simon Peter: AppImageKit Documentation 1.0. (PDF; 38 kB) PortableLinuxApps.org, 2010, S. 2–3, archiviert vom Original am 29. November 2010; abgerufen am 29. Juli 2011 (englisch): „Not easy to move an app from one machine to another: If you've used an app on one machine and decide that you would like to use the same app either under a different base operating system (say, you want to use OpenOffice on Fedora after having used it on Ubuntu) or if you would simply take the app from one machine to another (say from the desktop computer to the netbook), you have to download and install the app again (if you did not keep around the installation files and if the two operating systems don't share the exact same package format – both of which is rather unlikely).“
Mike Hearn: Guide to Making Relocatable Applications (BinReloc 2.0). autopackage.org, archiviert vom Original am 25. Januar 2009; abgerufen am 26. Januar 2012 (englisch): „However, most applications are not relocatable. The paths where in they search for data files are usually hardd at compile time. On Win32, applications and libraries are easily relocatable because applications and DLLs can use GetModuleFilename() to obtain their full path.“
Troy Hepfner: Linux Game Development Part 2 – Distributable Binaries. gamedev.net, 1. Oktober 2007, archiviert vom Original am 13. Oktober 2007; abgerufen am 19. Dezember 2011 (englisch): „Creating an executable that works on almost all Linux distributions is a challenge. There are a number of factors that contribute to the problem […]“
Christoph Baus: Yet another Unix nightmare: statically linking libstdc++. 31. Mai 2005, archiviert vom Original am 10. Februar 2010; abgerufen am 15. Januar 2012 (englisch).
Ulrich Drepper: Static Linking Considered Harmful. redhat.com, archiviert vom Original am 27. Mai 2010; abgerufen am 13. Januar 2012 (englisch): „There are still too many people out there who think (or even insist) that static linking has benefits. This has never been the case and never will be the case. […]“
Bruce Byfield: Autopackage struggling to gain acceptance. linux.com, 12. Februar 2007, archiviert vom Original am 31. März 2008; abgerufen am 21. Januar 2012 (englisch): „If Hearn is correct, the real lesson of Autopackage is not how to improve software installation, but the difficulty -- perhaps the impossibility -- of large-scale changes in Linux architecture this late in its history. It's a sobering, disappointing conclusion to a project that once seemed so promising.“
Bart PE (Memento vom 17. Januar 2011 im Internet Archive) – Artikel auf pcwelt.de