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 393239
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Always On the Cards
by segedunum on Fri 6th Nov 2009 13:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Always On the Cards"
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

What's complicated about Linux deployment of binaries? Companies interested only have to provide RPMs and DEBs for RedHat and Ubuntu, and a statically compiled "catch all" version for the rest. Given that homogeneity is not the word that defines Linux, there are no solutions for a non existant problem. This is the way Linux works, like it or not.

That's why few ISVs are motivated to package for Linux distributions even now. No one wants to do it. Deployment is a PITA. It is on any platform. It's a massive cost in time, effort and resources for testing and supporting multiple scenarios that ISVs just can't do it.

To suggest packaging for umpteen different package managers, multiplied by umpteen different distributions multipled by umpteen different distributions versions and then suggesting they have a statically linked catch-all is so f--king stupid it isn't even funny. No ISV is doing that now and no one will do it ever.

To suggest that isn't complicated.........well, you've never done serious deployment in your life.

...and that leads people to offer different choices for different purposes: thats what makes Linux so great, that most companies can't get their head around.

I don't see any choice here...........

Reply Parent Score: 2