FatELF

comment 1

2009-11-04T14:11:55Z

Actually, the simplest solution would be to dump 32 bits alltogether. The minor fraction of proprietary, 32-bit software that runs on free systems can be ported to 64 bits easily. It is only proprietary systems like Mac OS or Windows that have their hands tied and have to maintain backwards compatibility, which leads to hacks like universal binaries.

Ideals vs. Reality

2009-11-04T14:31:48Z

The point of system software is to be used, not to be maintained against some conceptual ideal. In the case of backwards compatibility MacOSX and Windows have it right. They have sacrificed conceptual purity to maintain a higher level of usability. Users are maintain a relative level of satisfaction with the system and frankly I don't know of anyone who would complain at the existence of Universal binaries or 32 bit compatibility mode. I see no real drawbacks to Universal binaries. If you're someone who actually cares so much that they want N binary versions to choose from rather than 1 binary option then you're probably also someone who's capable of downloading the source and building it yourself. Is this a philosophical problem of the Linux community at large that usability is somehow secondary to "purity"?

RE: Ideals vs. Reality

2009-11-04T19:26:56Z

The difference on Linux is that most software is distributed as source code. If someone wants to use, say, Mosaic as their browser, they just recompile it for their current CPU.

At the same time, there are a lot of use cases where having combined 32-bit / 64-bit is useful:

I'm a software developer, and I want to test both the 32-bit and 64-bit build of my software.
I'm a user, and I want to use some piece of closed-source software.
I'm a system administrator, and I want to have one NFS share for both 32-bit and 64-bit systems.
I'm a system administrator, and I want to have one rescue CD / USB key for both 32-bit and 64-bit systems.

comment 4

2009-11-04T21:10:42Z

The difference on Linux is that most software is distributed as source code.

Well, no. Most software is available as source code, which is how upstream distribute it. But as a practical matter, most software on Linux is distributed as binary packages by Fedora, Ubuntu, and others. Building from source is a somewhat theoretical ability that many people have no interest in doing (and I say that as a LinuxFromScratch user)...

RE: comment 4

2009-11-04T21:28:48Z

Fair enough. I suppose I should have said "also distributed" as source. It's still a pretty significant difference from OS X and Windows. On those platforms the choice is to either have backwards compatibility or throw away existing programs. On Linux a third choice, recompiling, exists. You are completely correct that it's a non-starter for a lot of people.

/lib32 and /lib64 ftl

2009-11-06T02:49:35Z

The multilib/bi-arch in Linux is indeed a bad reinvention of the wheel. Solaris has had proper multiarch support for years. Architecture specific files would reside in /usr/lib/${ARCH}