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.
Thread beginning with comment 393102
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Always On the Cards
by segedunum on Thu 5th Nov 2009 23:29 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

I didn't really expect to be walking into the buzzsaw that I did.

I knew you would. This kind of resistance was always going to be the case, and it reminds me slightly of the demise of AutoPackage.

While package management in distributions is a good way of maintaining a Linux distribution itself, virtually all developers working on various Linux distribution components simply can't accept that their little baby concept is nowhere near being the panacea for wider software deployment and installation.

Unless deployment, installation and configuration of software, and especially third-party software, gets way, way easier then desktop Linux in particular will go nowhere. I can understand why somebody from Red Hat might rail against it as specific Red Hat packages for some prorietary software gives them a nice form of lock-in.

This is the sort of pack mentality amongst even developers, and not just rabid users, that hacks me off about the open source 'community'.

Reply Score: 8

RE: Always On the Cards
by sbenitezb on Fri 6th Nov 2009 01:30 in reply to "Always On the Cards"
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

Unless deployment, installation and configuration of software, and especially third-party software, gets way, way easier then desktop Linux in particular will go nowhere.


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.

This is the sort of pack mentality amongst even developers, and not just rabid users, that hacks me off about the open source 'community'.


It's a community, a free community where individuals share a common goal (one way or the other) and that goal is to have a free and working OS, the best possible. Where you have freedom, you have choice, 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.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Always On the Cards
by Slambert666 on Fri 6th Nov 2009 03:28 in reply to "RE: Always On the Cards"
Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

Companies interested only have to provide RPMs and DEBs for RedHat and Ubuntu, and a statically compiled "catch all" version for the rest.


Obviously, you know nothing about the subject, yet you feel compelled to comment anyways....
If you did know something about this you would know that for an application beyond the most trivial you would have to provide RPM for SuSE, Mandriva and RedHat, DEB for Debian and Ubuntu each of these in 32 bit and 64 bit versions (that is a total of 10).
Then lets say it has a UI so you want to provide a Gnome and a KDE version, so now you are at 20.
Then you app may have sound, so you provide one for ALSA and one for PA, and now you are at 40.
So 40 binaries to cover just the basics, if you app is just a little bit more complicated and has Hardware discovery and a Daemon that gets activated at install time then you will have to make your binaries not only distribution dependent but also dependent on the version of the distribution.

This is the point where most ISVs says "F**K THAT" and decides not to support Linux.

But the binary is just the last part in a long chain of actions, if you are an ISV that gives a S**T about quality you have to test your app before you release and that of course means testing on all different versions, including update versions of the different distros, so you do not only have to provide 40 binaries you have to test for about 200 to 300 different distribution scenarios.

This is the way Linux works, like it or not.


Linux has unfortunately been conquered by some businesses that has a strong commercial interest (RedHat, etc.) in keeping this mess going for as long as possible.
Even open source projects suffer from this, because the first thing to go when faced with this many possible scenarios is quality control. It really is unfortunate that many Open Source projects works better and has a higher quality on windows than on Linux (whatever flavor you prefer).

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Always On the Cards
by segedunum on Fri 6th Nov 2009 13:46 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

RE: Always On the Cards
by Soulbender on Fri 6th Nov 2009 03:59 in reply to "Always On the Cards"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

This is the sort of pack mentality amongst even developers, and not just rabid users, that hacks me off about the open source 'community'.


Good thing that never happens with closed source development because what you cant seedoesn't exist.
Considering how utterly abysmal much closed source software this kind of behavior and thinking is obviously not specific to open source.

Reply Parent Score: 2