| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| Ryan Gordon Halts FatELF Project |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2009-11-05 23:05:32 |
| 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. |
|
| TYPO |
| By Elv13 on 2009-11-05 23:09:04 |
| OSX binary are called universal binaries, not fat binaries |
 - Score: 0 |
| RE: TYPO |
| By Thom_Holwerda on 2009-11-05 23:10:04 |
| Universal binaries are an implementation of the concept of fat binaries. |
| - Score: 7 |
| shame |
| By poundsmack on 2009-11-05 23:12:43 |
|
its a shame to see Ryan Gordon's talent not be put to good use anymore for the project, i can understand why he wouldn't want to peruse it anymore. while it might not be "needed" it sure seems like it would have been appreciated and useful. c'est la vi. Edited 2009-11-05 23:13 UTC |
| - Score: 2 |
| bah |
| By Redeeman on 2009-11-05 23:19:03 |
| not really a big loss.. there appears to be basically no real benefit to doing this, certainly nothing that compares to the downsides, this appears to be one of the cases where the kernel devs and glibc people etc actually made a sane decision for once |
| - Score: 8 |
| RE: bah |
| By mckill on 2009-11-05 23:28:45 |
|
> not really a big loss.. there appears to be basically no real benefit to doing this, certainly nothing that compares to the downsides, this appears to be one of the cases where the kernel devs and glibc people etc actually made a sane decision for once that's because you're simple minded and lack seeing the 'bigger' picture. this would make it a lot easier for devs to release a single binary that can actually reach quite a few different users, not just X86, PPC, but also 64bit versions. this is also pretty big with ARM making a nice push. |
| - Score: 1 |
| Always On the Cards |
| By segedunum on 2009-11-05 23:29:47 |
|
> I didn't really expect to be walking into the buzzsaw that I did. I knew you would. This kind of resistance was always going to be the case, and it reminds me slightly of the demise of AutoPackage. While package management in distributions is a good way of maintaining a Linux distribution itself, virtually all developers working on various Linux distribution components simply can't accept that their little baby concept is nowhere near being the panacea for wider software deployment and installation. Unless deployment, installation and configuration of software, and especially third-party software, gets way, way easier then desktop Linux in particular will go nowhere. I can understand why somebody from Red Hat might rail against it as specific Red Hat packages for some prorietary software gives them a nice form of lock-in. This is the sort of pack mentality amongst even developers, and not just rabid users, that hacks me off about the open source 'community'. |
| - Score: 8 |
| RE: TYPO |
| By Kroc on 2009-11-05 23:31:29 |
| OS X binaries were fat before they became universal. PPC 32-bit and PPC 64-bit code, and even in some cases targeting different code for G4 and G5. “Universal” binaries just added Intel to the fat mix, that was all. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[2]: bah |
| By siride on 2009-11-05 23:31:33 |
| The problem can be solved more easily by other means. Simply including multiple binaries, one for each architecture, in the package. Then having a script or some other mechanism pick the right binary at launch time. Everything else, libs, text files, etc. can be more easily shared. Furthermore, these mechanisms are simple to understand and implement, and don't require massive changes to glibc and the kernel. |
| - Score: 6 |
| RE[2]: bah |
| By Redeeman on 2009-11-05 23:52:30 |
|
> that's because you're simple minded and lack seeing the 'bigger' picture. this would make it a lot easier for devs to release a single binary that can actually reach quite a few different users, not just X86, PPC, but also 64bit versions. this is also pretty big with ARM making a nice push. far from it, theres no real reason to want to distribute one big fat binary, its stupid, and serves no real purpose |
| - Score: 1 |
| Comment by boldingd |
| By boldingd on 2009-11-05 23:55:52 |
|
I quietly dreaded OS News getting ahold of this one; about all I can say is, "in before hate-fest." Honestly, I agree with the Kernel team, it sounds like a lot of complexity was being added to solve something that wasn't really a problem. Exactly as detailed, it's a cute idea, and it'd be great if it carried no cost, but it touches a lot of very basic, fundamental things in the system. Not to mention the minor quibble that it means that many Linux binaries could potentially have lots of different binaries stuffed into them, which kinda seems like a frivolous waste of space -- even if not very much. And, heh, just a minor point, we're not talking about a closed-source project here. If a lot of users want this included in the kernel, you can actually start writing mails directly to the kernel maintainers -- or try to submit your own patches, if you're so inclined. If a large groundswell of demand shows up, the kernel team may relent. |
| - Score: 3 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |