| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
CorrectionCorrectionPosted Apr 14, 2008 19:56 UTC (Mon) by andikleen (guest, #39006)In reply to: My kid hates Linux (ZDNet) by andikleen Parent article: My kid hates Linux (ZDNet)
I mentioned Slackware as one set of distributions that do not do proper multilib. I was told now that at least one of the 64bit variants of slackware (slamd64) does proper FHS compliant multilib, which I wasn't aware of. I apologize for the misrepresentation.
(Log in to post comments)
Correction Posted Apr 14, 2008 22:32 UTC (Mon) by cathectic (subscriber, #40543) [Link] This is not correct either - there is no official Slackware x86-64 port; the only official Slackware is the 32 bit x86 build, or the Slack/390 port. Anything else is unofficial and not Slackware (although we do try very hard to be Slack like). So technically, Slackware doesn't do multilib (and Pat Volkerding has stated in interviews in the past that any such official port would likely not be multilib anyway, so you would be right on that front); but then again, Slackware doesn't do x86-64 either at the moment either. (I should state for the record here that I am a Slamd64 contributor).
Correction Posted Apr 16, 2008 22:11 UTC (Wed) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link] Well, I think Andikleen is partially correct: While not supported by Slackware's own development team (i.e. Patrick Volkerding et al), the Slamd64 distribution is otherwise a 64-bit clone of Slackware.
|
|
||||||||||||