CentOS Death in 2021

Richard Gaskin ambassador at fourthworld.com
Tue Dec 15 20:00:31 EST 2020

Pi Digital wrote:

 > But that does not seem to correlate to the way it is for MacOS or Win.
 > Are you saying they compile from all of those versions of MacOS and
 > Win they reference to supporting.

Mac and Windows are each made by a single organization, with specs 
defining compatibility.

"Linux" isn't an OS per se, it's a family of OSes, where the one thing 
they all have in common is some form of the Linux kernel.

Lots of combinations are possible, from distros made for tiny IoT 
devices to clusters of supercomputers, and just about everything in between.

Thinking about the wide open world of Linux in the same terms one things 
about monolithic OSes made by single companies for narrowly-defined 
hardware can lead to a wide range of issues.

Here, the core issue is expectations management.

Personally, I find this guidance very useful, and is more succinct than 
I've seen from other Linux software vendors:

     The requirements for GUI functionality are also required by
     Firefox and Chrome, so if your Linux distribution runs one
     of those, it will run LiveCode.

 > When reading about LiveCode support, to me it doesn’t matter if it
 > is LC Ltd or the LC app. The two are pretty much interchangeable.

One is a business, the other is a technology stack. The difference may 
not matter to you, but it matters to them, and understandably so:

LiveCode-the-software runs on such a wide range of Linux systems it 
would be impractical for the folks at LiveCode-the-company to commit 
support resources for them all.

So while a good many of us enjoy running LiveCode-the-software on 
anything we get our hands on, we respect that LiveCode-the-company isn't 
in a position to provide guidance if our choices don't line up with the 
systems they've chosen to support.

 > ...the release notes are written SPECIFICALLY for LC the product, not
 > in reference to the company.

Clearly I agree that the wording in the Release Notes can too easily 
give that impression, which is why I submitted the enhancement request 
to clarify it:

 > I cannot see where this inference is coming from.

It is not an inference. I'm familiar with qualifiers like "might be", 
and use them liberally. I did not use a qualifier here, because in this 
case I'm drawing from direct conversation with a key member of the core 

The explanation I conveyed to you was given to me a while back by Dr 
Peter Brett in one of my ongoing Community Liaison meetings I have with 
the company.

This is why I wrote: "...cited Mark Weider. He and I have each had
conversations with the core team on this, and what he wrote is correct."

I have no reason to make this up.  When I take time to write to you it's 
because I'm doing my best to provide you with the best information I have.

 > Basically put, if they can’t build it in, for example, Ubuntu 20, then
 > it is not supported fully because of some minor/major issue.

Have you considered the possibility that not everything in the build 
system is made in LiveCode?

It's quite a beast they have there, compiling on each platform, 
shuffling the packages around to build installers, zips, and DMGs, each 
containing engines for multiple platforms.

A great many components in the long tool chain used to build a LiveCode 
installer are not written in LiveCode.  Each has their own dependencies, 
and changing one part sometimes means changing others in an intricate 
ripple effect.

Funny thing is, those of us who use LiveCode on Linux daily are the 
least bothered by these support commitment things.

Let our experience be of help where it can: LiveCode runs well on Ubuntu 
18.04 and Ubuntu 20.04, with the exceptions Panos noted earlier.

  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems
  Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
  Ambassador at FourthWorld.com                http://www.FourthWorld.com

More information about the use-livecode mailing list