既然是专有词汇也就不怕看不懂,要是要更精确点可以翻译成上游(upstream)
或者直接用upstream
google了一下,似乎习惯上都只有这两个翻译的方法.
http://i18n.linux.net.cn/这里就是直接用的upstream
MarkShuttleworth
-
firingstone
- 帖子： 336
- 注册时间： 2005-07-11 17:37
- 来自： 浙江
-
alexfaye
- 帖子： 26
- 注册时间： 2006-02-03 16:37
- 联系：
-
alexfaye
- 帖子： 26
- 注册时间： 2006-02-03 16:37
- 联系：
So the imperative to work with very current code overrides the idea of maintaining compatibility with a specific ABI, especially if we have little or no say in the ABI we should be trying to remain compatible with.
But, I heard that Ubuntu is LESS compatible than other similar projects?
That's absolutely not true. If you touch or change the kernel, or x server or clients, or libc, or compiler, you have effectively made yourself incompatible. And as far as I am aware every significant distribution has, with good reason, invested work in those components to ensure
that they meet the needs of their users. In the process, they make themselves "binary incompatible". What makes open source work despite this, of course, is the fact that source code and patches usually travel across distros, which is why we focus our attention there, not on the binary bits.
Some people might say "but I installed a Linspire package on Ubuntu, and it worked, so they must be compatible". And yes, in many cases a binary package from Linspire or Debian will Just Work (TM) on Ubuntu. But this is "accidental compatibility", not "certified binary compatibility". Your Mileage May Vary (YMMV) is not the sort of certainty most people would accept, and can hardly be called "compatibility". Many packages have very simple dependencies, and don't really require specific versions of system libraries, and they may well Just Work. But if you look below the hood, at some level or other, you will find binary incompatibility in every significant derivative distribution, from Knoppix through Linspire and the DCC, with Ubuntu being no different.
因此使用当前代码的紧迫性压倒了保持与某一个ABI的兼容性的想法，尤其是如果我们对应该保持兼容性的ABI知之甚少的时候。
但我却听说Ubuntu的兼容性比其他类似的项目要差。
这种说法绝对是错的。如果你接触到或改变了内核，x服务器，客户端，libc或是编译器，你就会很容易是你自己的系统变的不具兼容性。距我了解，每一个有重大意义的发行版，都在确保其中组件能满足用户需求方面下了很大力气，并在这一过程中出现了“二进制不兼容”。尽管如此，源代码和补丁程序却使开源程序在不同发行版中能运行起来，这也就是为什么我们把注意力集中到这里，而不是二进制比特中。
一些人也许会说“但我在Ubuntu中安装了Linspire的软件包，并且运行了起来，因此它们是兼容的。”确实是这样，在很多情况下，从Linspire或Debian提取的二进制软件包能运行在Ubuntu上。但这仅仅是“很偶然的兼容”，而不是“经验证的二进制兼容性”。每个人的系统会不一样并不能成为使多数人接受的说辞，也不可能被称之为“兼容性”。很多软件包都具有一定的独立性，也不真的需要特定版本的系统库，因此它们有可能运行起来。但是如果你揭开上面的幕布，你会发现二进制不兼容存在于每一个有重大意义的发行版中，比如从Knoppix到Linspire，DCC，Ubuntu也不例外。
But, I heard that Ubuntu is LESS compatible than other similar projects?
That's absolutely not true. If you touch or change the kernel, or x server or clients, or libc, or compiler, you have effectively made yourself incompatible. And as far as I am aware every significant distribution has, with good reason, invested work in those components to ensure
that they meet the needs of their users. In the process, they make themselves "binary incompatible". What makes open source work despite this, of course, is the fact that source code and patches usually travel across distros, which is why we focus our attention there, not on the binary bits.
Some people might say "but I installed a Linspire package on Ubuntu, and it worked, so they must be compatible". And yes, in many cases a binary package from Linspire or Debian will Just Work (TM) on Ubuntu. But this is "accidental compatibility", not "certified binary compatibility". Your Mileage May Vary (YMMV) is not the sort of certainty most people would accept, and can hardly be called "compatibility". Many packages have very simple dependencies, and don't really require specific versions of system libraries, and they may well Just Work. But if you look below the hood, at some level or other, you will find binary incompatibility in every significant derivative distribution, from Knoppix through Linspire and the DCC, with Ubuntu being no different.
因此使用当前代码的紧迫性压倒了保持与某一个ABI的兼容性的想法，尤其是如果我们对应该保持兼容性的ABI知之甚少的时候。
但我却听说Ubuntu的兼容性比其他类似的项目要差。
这种说法绝对是错的。如果你接触到或改变了内核，x服务器，客户端，libc或是编译器，你就会很容易是你自己的系统变的不具兼容性。距我了解，每一个有重大意义的发行版，都在确保其中组件能满足用户需求方面下了很大力气，并在这一过程中出现了“二进制不兼容”。尽管如此，源代码和补丁程序却使开源程序在不同发行版中能运行起来，这也就是为什么我们把注意力集中到这里，而不是二进制比特中。
一些人也许会说“但我在Ubuntu中安装了Linspire的软件包，并且运行了起来，因此它们是兼容的。”确实是这样，在很多情况下，从Linspire或Debian提取的二进制软件包能运行在Ubuntu上。但这仅仅是“很偶然的兼容”，而不是“经验证的二进制兼容性”。每个人的系统会不一样并不能成为使多数人接受的说辞，也不可能被称之为“兼容性”。很多软件包都具有一定的独立性，也不真的需要特定版本的系统库，因此它们有可能运行起来。但是如果你揭开上面的幕布，你会发现二进制不兼容存在于每一个有重大意义的发行版中，比如从Knoppix到Linspire，DCC，Ubuntu也不例外。
Welcome to my blog:
http://www.2fois.cn
http://www.2fois.cn
-
alexfaye
- 帖子： 26
- 注册时间： 2006-02-03 16:37
- 联系：
It is possible to build a new distribution using only package selections from another distribution, and that's useful. It's like the CDD project - and will in future I think be important in the ubuntu world too. But it's not fundamentally very interesting - it's just package selection, which is useful for a specific set of users but does not advance the state of the open source art. OK, why do you recompile packages?
利用其他发行版的软件包也是可以创建新的发行版的，这种做法是很有用的，这就像CDD项目，我认为在将来的Ubuntu的世界中也是很重要的。但这种做法没多大意思，仅仅是选择软件包而已，只对一些特定的用户有用，而对提高开源技术实力没有多大帮助。因此，为什么要重新编译软件包呢？
利用其他发行版的软件包也是可以创建新的发行版的，这种做法是很有用的，这就像CDD项目，我认为在将来的Ubuntu的世界中也是很重要的。但这种做法没多大意思，仅仅是选择软件包而已，只对一些特定的用户有用，而对提高开源技术实力没有多大帮助。因此，为什么要重新编译软件包呢？
Welcome to my blog:
http://www.2fois.cn
http://www.2fois.cn