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 393121
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
This article is anything but fair
by i92guboj on Fri 6th Nov 2009 00:18 UTC
Member since:

I've been following the whole FatELF story in the kernel mailing list and I haven't seen any rudeness, unless you consider rude when someone doesn't agree with your ideas.

One thing the author didn't post is a link to the conversation itself, so users here can actually read it themselves and see how "rude" it was. Please, read the whole thread, then you can come back.

I might have skipped one mail or two, so maybe I missed something, but in general the discussion was as cordial as it could be.

I've followed it, and each point made by the author was rebated with a reasoning by the kernel developers. The opposite rarely happened, so I really wonder if he's really joking when he says people was not hearing him. To me it seemed the other way around, and I am not involved with the kernel developer in any way at all.

Even if I had not the scope to see the point of FatELF (which I think I have), I would still be inclined to think that there would be very little or no gain at all on including FatELF on the kernel. There are lots of ways to preserve old libs so ABI doesn't break, and I certainly don't want to install code for every imaginable architecture on my box.

Besides that, Ryan Gordon clearly stated that there's another reason for him to leave: patent issues he can resolve. That has not been mentioned, I think it's important to know the reasons why he's leaving before demonizing the linux developers.

Please, accept that variety of opinions is actually a good thing. You can always maintain the patch separately yourself. Lots of projects attached to the kernel in one or another way do so. There's no need to stop working on something you have put so much work if you truly think it can be useful.

Reply Score: 13

Ed W. Cogburn Member since:

Besides that, Ryan Gordon clearly stated that there's another reason for him to leave: patent issues

Thank you.

Its sad we had to get 2/3 of the way through this discussion before the *real* problem was finally mentioned. This is why Ryan withdrew his proposal, and he specifically mentioned the 'patent' problem in his withdrawal post as the thing he didn't have an answer for (and nor does anyone else for that matter).

In fact, what really struck me as odd (if not disingenuous), was the contrast between what Ryan said in that last post on lkml, and what he said later (and how others interpretated what was said), but heck, its not like Linux haters have ever needed much of an excuse to go off on a rant anyway...

The article's writeup was unfortunately (but not surprisingly) a little one-sided.

Reply Parent Score: 2

regomodo Member since:

I get the feeling Thom think's Drepper is representative of all os-devs. Drepper's response about why somebody would think one second about fatElf was harsh.

I don't understand why the fatElf dev spent all the time and effort before notifying the kerenl/glibc team to see if it was actually a good idea/needed.

Reply Parent Score: 1

i92guboj Member since:

Drepper has always been that way, I am not going into the "he has the reason or not" debate because I really don't care.

But the kernel team certainly didn't respond in a harsh way at all.

About why did him go that far without consensus, well, that's certainly an interesting point. But even then, if Ryan Gordon really cares about this, there's nothing stopping him from working in the project. There are *lots* of projects that relate to the kernel in many ways, and they continue their way without being in the Linus tree. If he can really show how useful this is, and he gain adepts, the thing might change. But it's ridiculous to go thinking that, because your code is useful to you and two other persons, it is going to get included into the kernel source tree.

If you look at the ML you will also see very valid points about some basic tools needing porting to work with this. It's not just the kernel and glibc (if that wasn't enough), it's the kernel level tools to debug and monitor, the debuggers, profilers, and lots of tools that in turn rely on these and might need also some tunning.

This definitely needs to probe its usefulness and it has also to probe being bug free because it taints basically every single foundation of a linux system you can think of.

Reply Parent Score: 1