[Simh] Systems Engineering Labs (SEL) simh simulator available

[Jordi Guillaumes i Pons]

Nowadays, the easiest way to distribute binaries is to use containers. I made some containerised simh images (I’ve not upgraded them for a while though). Details in my blog http://ancientbits.blogspot.com/2016/05/containerizing-simh-bsd-in-box.html?m=1

Jordi Guillaumes Pons


El 27 des 2018, a les 23:45, Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com> va escriure:

> 
> 
>> On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 7:03 PM David Brownlee <abs at absd.org> wrote:
>> Well, Joyent also makes binary pkgsrc packages for SmartOS, macOS, and CentOS/REL :) https://pkgsrc.joyent.com/
> 
> xkcd on standards  sigh.....
> 
> Note: I have lived this issue at Intel for +10 years BTW [we make a very slick set of development tools that are compatible across different OS's]....
> 
> So I will step on top of Soap Box ....  
> 
> As I often have to remind some of our more our engineers at work installs, particularly binary installs, must be socially compliant with the OS - i.e. what the customer expects.  This is the 'least astonishment principle.'
> 
> That means custom installers that are common for the tool, but different from the native OS are a no-no if you really want someone to use the tool as a binary. [And that's expensive and hard to do well BTW].
> 
> Yup, custom installers makes it easier for >>you<< but not for the person doing the installs.   So if you make the choice to support an OS, particularly as a binary, then the install needs to be for that OS --- for winders its a different  installer than from DOS which is different than VMS.    For VMS its the DEC Installer.  For, the UNIX family Solaris is different from the loathsome DEC setld(8) of Ultrix and Tru64, which is different from IBM AIX which is different from HP-UX, etc....  Linux gets really strange on the binary front.   The good news is the commerical folks using Linux it is primarily rpm and there are tools the convert from tools that convert from rpm to yum/getapt etc., but generally Linux folks generally do not want a binary installer ;-)  But there are N different Linux package managers and each one is 'better' than the other?   If you have a binary distribution for your tool, which do you use?
> 
> That said ....
> 
> simh is a wonderful tool and the fruits of the labor of many people.  But I see it as primarily a github (source) release.   When Mark graceously does make a binary, he seems to follow least astonishment.   But since he has made the sources available and some distro's have picked it up and created binaries of their own, many have done a poor job of following up with the source distribution.   Which of course, fails the least astonishment principle also (because it's easier for the distro maintainers of course).  They can claim they have 'simh' but because they made it eaiser for themselves, they are in effect an older (unmaintained) 'fork' or the tree.
> 
> And this is the of course is a flaw in FOSS.   The economics don't follow.   Ecomonically, you want to make it as easy on the builder of the tool if your 'product' is the sources.  Which is what Mark does (an excellent job IMO as its pretty impressive the number of OS's that can build it).
> 
> But if you take the sources and package it and create an installer ... well Mark and Bob should speak for themselves .... but I think that is you own problem; not simh's
> 
> Stepping down from Soap Box ...
> 
> I will grant you that the users of simh are likely to be a tad more techie than 'the average bear.'   But to me that says, you can trust them to go to github, do a 'clone' and then build it themselves.
> 
> My thinking at least ....
> 
> Clem
> ᐧ
> _______________________________________________
> Simh mailing list
> Simh at trailing-edge.com
> http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/pipermail/simh/attachments/20181229/cfe33ecb/attachment.html>