Multiarch?
Multiarch?
Posted Jan 5, 2011 0:03 UTC (Wed) by ikm (guest, #493)In reply to: Multiarch? by cmccabe
Parent article: Free Software: the road to a Universal bundle, a powerful app store, and world domination (Free Software Magazine)
This was discussed before. The most useful application of fat binaries are shared libraries, where one shared library can be simultaneously used for both 32 and 64-bit apps. This simplifies filesystem layout and life in general considerably (no need to mess with separate library paths, separate library sets etc).
Posted Jan 5, 2011 0:13 UTC (Wed)
by cmccabe (guest, #60281)
[Link] (3 responses)
Why does having a simple filesystem layout matter? Non-technical users never see the filesystem layout on the rootfs.
This is just a lapse in elementary logic. It's like saying:
Elvis Presley ate fried peanut butter and banana sandwiches. Elvis Presley was a famous musician. Therefore, eating fried peanut butter and banana sandwiches will make you a famous musician.
Apple has fat binaries. Apple has a great user experience and a strong brand. Therefore, fat binaries will give you a great user experience and a strong brand.
Only one problem: it's illogical. Eating fried sandwiches will just make you a fat slob, not a famous musician. Moving around paths on the rootfs will mean absolutely nothing to non-technical users, who often don't even know what a shared library *is*, let alone the difference between /usr/lib and /lib64. Just ask any Android user-- paths on the rootfs have nothing to do with the user experience.
Posted Jan 5, 2011 8:37 UTC (Wed)
by ikm (guest, #493)
[Link] (2 responses)
Because it makes life so much easier.
> Apple has fat binaries. Apple has a great user experience and a strong brand. Therefore, fat binaries will give you a great user experience and a strong brand.
No one has ever said this here except you.
Posted Jan 5, 2011 21:21 UTC (Wed)
by JEDIDIAH (guest, #14504)
[Link] (1 responses)
No it doesn't. It's just like the analogy about the fat binaries.
>> Apple has fat binaries. Apple has a great user experience
Well, this idea of yours had to come from somewhere. I don't
These details are completely invisible to a desktop user of a
Some of us "users" don't want our "user experience" to suffer justMultiarch?
> shared libraries, where one shared library can be simultaneously used for
> both 32 and 64-bit apps. This simplifies filesystem layout and life in
> general considerably (no need to mess with separate library paths,
> separate library sets etc).
Multiarch?
Multiarch?
>
> Because it makes life so much easier.
>> and a strong brand. Therefore, fat binaries will give you a
>> great user experience and a strong brand.
>
> No one has ever said this here except you.
see it coming from actual Linux software management from the
last 10 years. No. It sounds like you are attempting to use
ideas and propaganda from another OS without any consideration
for what's already there.
Unix system and are mostly invisible even to a shell user. That's
why I can pop open a terminal and type "sc3u" and it will work as
desired.
because some people latch onto really misguided ideas.