[room] Fwd: DB2 and Ubuntu (comment about DCC)

[Michael Shigorin]

----- Forwarded message from Boris Bialek <bbialek/ca.ibm.com> -----

Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:55:31 -0500
From: Boris Bialek <bbialek/ca.ibm.com>
To: sounder/lists.ubuntu.com
Subject: DB2 and Ubuntu (comment about DCC)

Folks,

reading through the whole thread  - one comment here because as part of
this discussion I got pinged form a number of people about the DB2
validation and the compatibiloity discussion.

DB2 is validated for Ubuntu 5.04 (and we work on 5.10). This does not mean
our support team will support any other Debian distros that are not 100%
BINARY compatible to them - the same rule applies to knock offs (sorry my
wording) of any other distribution.

 I heard the questions about specific ones from Spain who use subsets from
Ubuntu or are completely based on it. Those are fine as long as the users
are able to quote the right version if they come to the situation that they
require IBM support (which they normally paid for...).

Source code compatibility is after our own experiences not sufficient for
validation or support  because there are enough options where people can
select a complete different compile tree leading to binary that is not
tested at all and generates in worst case data corruption (the nuclear
accident in databases).

Cheers,
Boris

Boris C. Bialek , Senior Manager,  DB2 Competitive Technologies and
Enablement
Email: bbialek/ca.ibm.com    Tel: +1 905 413 3078
Blog: http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/linux/db2/


----- Message from Mark Shuttleworth <mark/canonical.com> on Fri, 06 Jan
2006 17:00:15 +0000 -----
                                                                           
            To: Matt Zimmerman <mdz/ubuntu.com>                            
                                                                           
            cc: sounder/lists.ubuntu.com                                   
                                                                           
       Subject: Re: Debian Common Core Alliance                            
                                                                           

Matt Zimmerman wrote:

>On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 05:45:59PM +0100, Magnus Blomfelt wrote:
>
>
>>What I'm saying is that having compatible versions of the kernel, libc
and
>>gcc results in a higher level of source code compatibility.  Having
>>compatible versions of the kernel, libc and gcc is a strict requirement
>>for binary compatibility. Therefore having binary compatibility results
in
>>a higher level of source code compatibility.
>>
>>
>
>If we can agree that source compatibility is the important factor here,
then
>binary compatibility is only interesting insofar as it implies source
>compatibility, and binary compatibility is far from the best method,
>overall, to provide for source compatibility.
>
>
Guys... this is a bit of a round-about discussion now. I prefaced my
response to the initial question by saying that I really didn't want to
create a flame-fest, and I'm disappointed that the post has been blasted
around the media with headlines like "Shuttleworth says DCC is dead".
That's not what I've said. Magnus, I think you need to think carefully
what you mean by "binary compatibility". It's trickier than you might
think. For example, changing just one option in the kernel config can
result in incompatibility of binary kernel modules even where the same
source code *exactly* is used.

For now, I suggest we put this conversation to rest, because it's
turning into an "is, isn't, is, isn't" dialogue.

Mark

----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
 ---- WBR, Michael Shigorin <mike на altlinux.ru>
  ------ Linux.Kiev http://www.linux.kiev.ua/