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 393221
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
dragossh
Member since:
2008-12-16

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.


As opposed to relying on your distribution to provide the latest packages for you, which may or may not happen. Wonderful.

And please, disk space? We have 1TB HDDs today. While I prefer my OS and apps to have a small footprint, several more megabytes don't matter all that much.

Reply Parent Score: 1

TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

Thats all fine and dandy when you are using 1TB hdds. But what happens when you need to put the system on a rom chip? Or pxe boot it. I dont want the extra cruft in my system.

Reply Parent Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Small programs fit on small chips.

But more importantly a software distribution system that is used 99.9% of the time on x86 boxes for programs like Firefox and OO shouldn't be designed around embedded development.

Reply Parent Score: 2