Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 5th Nov 2009 23:05 UTC
Linux As we all know, Mac OS X has support for what is called 'fat binaries'. These are binaries that can carry code for for instance multiple architectures - in the case of the Mac, PowerPC and x86. Ryan Gordon was working on an implementation of fat binaries for Linux - but due to the conduct of the Linux maintainers, Gordon has halted the effort.
Permalink for comment 393117
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
This is just another solution...
by fernandotcl on Fri 6th Nov 2009 00:02 UTC
Member since:

...looking for a problem...

Most people who criticize package managers don't know how gracefully they work and instead rely on old myths that don't make any sense anymore (if you got into the "RPM hell" any time in the last 5 years, you obviously screwed up).

Now, sure, there are alternatives to package managers. But coming up with a patch that implements something that would be useless to all current distributions and getting upset about not getting it integrated into serious projects is a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

Here's an idea. Create a Linux-based system which doesn't rely on a package manager with a central repository. Make sure the ABI is 100% stable among all your releases (provide compatibility kludges for when that isn't the case). And now you've got your problem!

Isn't it an elegant system? Instead of relying on binaries provided by your distribution, you have to download from third parties directly (now that's a great idea, isn't it). Not only you waste more bandwidth and disk space, but you'll also depend on apps to nag you about updates or silently update themselves.

I miss the days when tech-inclined people were smart.

Reply Score: 1