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 393235
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Always On the Cards
by segedunum on Fri 6th Nov 2009 13:23 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Always On the Cards"
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

Because that's a crap hodge-podge 'solution' for the fact that Linux distributions have no way to handle the installation of third-party software. There's no standardised way for any distribution to acually handle that or know what's installed, which is extremely essential when you are dealing with third-party software. Conflicts can and do happen and the fact that anyone is having to do this is so amateurish it isn't believable.

It doesn't handle ABI versions, doesn't handle slightly different architectures like i686 that could handle the binaries..... It's such a stupid thing to suggest ISVs do it's just not funny.

It's the sort of 'solution' that makes the majority of ISVs think that packaging for Linux distributions is just like the wild west. Telling those ISVs that they are silly and wrong is also stupid and amateurish in the extreme but still people believe they are going to change things by saying it.

Edited 2009-11-06 13:39 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Always On the Cards
by sbenitezb on Fri 6th Nov 2009 16:05 in reply to "RE[6]: Always On the Cards"
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

Because that's a crap hodge-podge 'solution' for the fact that Linux distributions have no way to handle the installation of third-party software.


Linux distributions should handle only their own packages. Everything else should go in /usr/local. There are installers (like those for Windows) that companies can use to make the install process more friendly. And just as you said ISVs are not distributing versions for Linux of their software, I remember have installed many closed source software for testing. Most of them had an install script that did the job and installed successfully in /usr/local.

There's no standardised way for any distribution to acually handle that or know what's installed,


Why does it matter? Can the package manager update the closed source software itself? No. In Windows, if you want to update an application, you have to buy a new version and reinstall. You are really thinking that ISVs aren't distributing Linux versions because the package managers don't integrate well with them? Silly.

which is extremely essential when you are dealing with third-party software. Conflicts can and do happen and the fact that anyone is having to do this is so amateurish it isn't believable.


As amateurish as in the Windows world, where most applications provide their own copy of libraries which are already available in a normal Windows installation. That doesn't stop them from delivering.
If anything, the LSB should really be enforced.

It doesn't handle ABI versions, doesn't handle slightly different architectures like i686 that could handle the binaries..... It's such a stupid thing to suggest ISVs do it's just not funny.


Oh, but you have the solution right? Because last time I checked, ISVs are not distributing Linux solutions because they are not developing them for a start. And then you have the flash plugin shit that almost recently got 64bits support for Linux. Distribution was never a problem, development was.

It's the sort of 'solution' that makes the majority of ISVs think that packaging for Linux distributions is just like the wild west. Telling those ISVs that they are silly and wrong is also stupid and amateurish in the extreme but still people believe they are going to change things by saying it.


But you seem to think that ISVs have Linux developers and have ported their software to work on Linux but they are unable to package their software and that's why they dont' deliver, right? Sweet Jesus, open your eyes. ISVs don't distribute Linux versions because they develop their software with MFC, .Net and even more rare APIs that are not available in multiple architectures, and they use 32bits specific integers, etc.

Reply Parent Score: 4

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


Jesus, open your eyes. ISVs don't distribute Linux versions because they develop their software with MFC, .Net and even more rare APIs that are not available in multiple architectures, and they use 32bits specific integers, etc.


You open your eyes.

I can list one-man micro-ISVs that port to both OSX and Windows.

The iphone was getting better support from developers when it had less than 10% the share of Linux.

Linux is a total clusterf*** for proprietary developers. Not only is there a lack of standards between distros but individual distros are designed around open source. It's mess and denial isn't helping the situation.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Always On the Cards
by tobyv on Sun 8th Nov 2009 05:36 in reply to "RE[6]: Always On the Cards"
tobyv Member since:
2008-08-25

Linux distributions have no way to handle the installation of third-party software.


Sure there is!

Install:
tar -xC /opt package_static.tar

Uninstall:
rm -r /opt/package_static

The (statically linked) future is now!

Reply Parent Score: 1