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 393249
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Always On the Cards
by sbenitezb on Fri 6th Nov 2009 15:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Always On the Cards"
Member since:

To suggest packaging for umpteen different package managers, multiplied by umpteen different distributions multipled by umpteen different distributions versions

You don't have to support all of them. There's no point in supporting something like Arch, for example. But Ubuntu, SuSe, Red Hat and Debian. The fact that we use 64bit computers today, and ARM processors in the near future complicates things. We are not in a wintel 32bits only world anymore. What do you expect ISVs to do about that?

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.

You seem to have a crystal ball.

To suggest that isn't complicated.........well, you've never done serious deployment in your life.

It isn't complicated for a company to devote 1 person for each platform to do the packaging. Unless they are cheap. Or you really think that all that magic must be done by just one single guy? Come on, distro packagers package thousands of binaries for different architectures even for free. Red Hat guys get paid to do it on a mass scale, how come Adobe cannot devote some resources into providing its "quality" software for Linux? You think they are not interested because it's difficult to package and support. They are not interested because they see no money in doing it, and of course they are not doing it for free.

"...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...........
" [/q]

So narrow minded.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Always On the Cards
by segedunum on Mon 9th Nov 2009 18:44 in reply to "RE[3]: Always On the Cards"
segedunum Member since:

You don't have to support all of them.

You have to support enough of them - and then support multiple versions of one distribution on top. Not going to happen.

You seem to have a crystal ball.

Many ISVs like Adobe have said so, and you don't need a crystal ball to know this is a problem.

It isn't complicated for a company to devote 1 person for each platform to do the packaging.

Deployment is a massive and unknown cost. It always has been You can't just assign one person to every environment and think you have it covered. You have to be able to find out if a problem is with your software or whether it is something else. It entails a support commitment. Linux distributions currently make that cost high, even if you support just one distribution.

If you don't know this them I'm afraid you're not qualified to comment.

So narrow minded.

So inexperienced. You're not going to get a choice of software with that approach.

Reply Parent Score: 2