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 393119
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by fernandotcl
by fernandotcl on Fri 6th Nov 2009 00:10 UTC
fernandotcl
Member since:
2007-08-12

This approach to binaries has a lot of benefits. For instance, distributors could ship a single DVD which would work on all architectures the distribution in question supports, making it easier for users to pick the right .iso to download.

I take that as a joke? Why the hell would an user with a non-x86 CPU be confused as to which version of a distro to pick?

Even if you consider that ARM is about to make a leap into mainstream through "netbooks", don't you think someone who bought an ARM netbook is either a) not aware that you can install another operating system on it (or not caring enough about it) or b) skilled enough to know what version to pick?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by fernandotcl
by gabrielwalker on Fri 6th Nov 2009 06:20 in reply to "Comment by fernandotcl"
gabrielwalker Member since:
2006-05-30

The minute an ARM-based netbook lands in Wal-Mart, yes you'll have people who had no idea it was a different architecture. And you'll have complaints, bad reviews, and returned hardware. This will lead to bad press, news and blog stories about 'how Linux is failing in the marketplace', and 'ARM notebooks: the future, or a failed experiment?'

Reply Parent Score: 4