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 393265
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Always On the Cards
by vivainio on Fri 6th Nov 2009 18:00 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Always On the Cards"
vivainio
Member since:
2008-12-26

The cost in time, resources and money has always been in the actual deployment. Packaging for a specific environment, testing it and supporting it for its lifetime is a damn big commitment. If you're not sure what is going to happen once it's deployed then you're not going to do it.


I don't see how fat binaries would solve any of this (testing, support, ...).

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[8]: Always On the Cards
by segedunum on Mon 9th Nov 2009 18:41 in reply to "RE[7]: Always On the Cards"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't see how fat binaries would solve any of this (testing, support, ...).

Because they support one installation platform that has wide distribution support. It's an absolute no brainer. They're not writing their own scripts now ar they unsure about what their dependencies are when they are troubleshooting an issue.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Always On the Cards
by vivainio on Mon 9th Nov 2009 19:09 in reply to "RE[8]: Always On the Cards"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

"I don't see how fat binaries would solve any of this (testing, support, ...).

Because they support one installation platform that has wide distribution support. It's an absolute no brainer. They're not writing their own scripts now ar they unsure about what their dependencies are when they are troubleshooting an issue.
"

I thought fat binaries only deal with shipping multiple versions of the executable (as opposed to static vs. dynamic bundling of libraries). For closed source software, static linking is bit of a non-starter anyway, because of licensing issues.

Reply Parent Score: 2