> * Currently; If you do not need 64bit compatibility now you will probably
> want to install only 32bit binaries. However if in the future you run into
> software that requires 64bit compatibility. With the status quo it would
> require you to re-install the OS
When you get a new computer, normally you reinstall the OS and copy over your /home directory. For all but a few highly technical users, this is the norm. Windows even has a special "feature" called Windows Genuine Advantage that forces you to reinstall the OS when the hardware has changed. You *cannot* use your previous install.
Anyway, running a Linux installer and then doing some apt-get only takes an hour or two.
> * Application developers (both OSS and otherwise) can devote their time
> more efficiently to meet the needs of their users and can treat 64bit
> compatibility as a optional feature that they can support when it's
> appropriate for them rather then being forced to move to 64bit as
> dictated by Linux OS design limitations.
FATELF has nothing to do with whether software is 64-bit clean. If some doofus is assuming that sizeof(long) == 4, FATELF is not going to ride to the rescue. (Full disclosure: sometimes that doofus has been me in the past.)
> He would of not spent all this time and effort into implementing FatElf if
> it did not solve a severe issue for him.
I can't think of even a single issue that FATELF "solves," except maybe to allow people distributing closed-source binaries to have one download link rather than two. In another 3 or 4 years, 32-bit desktop systems will be a historical curiosity, like dot-matrix printers or commodore 64s, and we will be glad we didn't put some kind of confusing and complicated binary-level compatibility system into the kernel.