Slashdot Mirror


Ryan Gordon Wants To Bring Universal Binaries To Linux

wisesifu writes "One of the interesting features of Mac OS X is its 'universal binaries' feature that allows a single binary file to run natively on both PowerPC and Intel x86 platforms. While this comes at a cost of a larger binary file, it's convenient on the end-user and on software vendors for distributing their applications. While Linux has lacked such support for fat binaries, Ryan Gordon has decided this should be changed."

11 of 487 comments (clear)

  1. Gee, just 14 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    after the diminse of NeXTStep!

    (c)Innovation!!(tm)(R)

  2. Re:Linking problems by martin-boundary · · Score: 3, Funny

    Could this technology also help binaries to link against multiple versions of standard libraries (glibc, libstdc++)?

    I think FatELF is too skinny for that. You want SantaELF, which links all those libraries statically in each binary...

  3. Re:We need 1-file installs by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is /., if it is not as pretty as Aqua, it does not count.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  4. Re:Only useful for non-free applications by selven · · Score: 3, Funny

    Thank god English is free of that stupid distinction.

  5. Re:Only useful for non-free applications by meringuoid · · Score: 5, Funny
    Free has meant 'no charge' for a lot longer than it has meant 'free (as in liberated) software'.

    Yes, that's right. That's why a 'freeman' was someone you didn't have to pay for his work, whereas a 'slave' was, er...

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  6. Re:Linking problems by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why stop there? Just let each application carry with it a complete OS.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  7. Re:Only useful for non-free applications by Thad+Zurich · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think Carlin showed that the f-word (no not "free", the other one) is very close to this already.

  8. Re:Use the source, Luke! by Thuktun · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now why would I want to do anything that fucktarded, when I can just use the source? And if I needed cross-platform that badly, I can always ship ONE java app with ONE instance of data. The '90s called, they want their obsolete fat and universal binaries back.

    The elusive (+1 Insightful, -1 Flamebait) post makes a brief appearance, flashing its brightly-colored plumage, before disappearing back into the brush.

  9. Actually yes Linux needs a universal format by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 2, Funny

    Linux needs to become more like Mac OSX than Windows.

    What I would like to see in Linux in the near future:

    Universal file format for X86, X64, and PowerPC executiables that replaces the ELF format (WIZARD format, ELF needs food badly!)

    GNOME and KDE merged into one GUI that emulates both of them, GNIGHT or something.

    Ability for Linux to use Windows based drivers when Linux based drivers do not exist, something better than that NDISwrapper but under a GPL license and built into Linux.

    GNUStep being developed into something that resembles Aqua, Aero, and other GUIs and is backward compatible with the Mac OSX API calls to recompile OSX programs for Linux. Maybe even in the near future run OSX Universal binaries somewhat like WINE runs Windows programs.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  10. Re:Only useful for non-free applications by arndawg · · Score: 2, Funny

    I was going to write a long rant about how i use gentoo and that it rocks. But my firefox haven't compiled yet and i can't be bothered with lynx anymore. I might come back tommorow and rant. kthx

  11. Re:We need 1-file installs by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 2, Funny

    Surely you mean GNOBODY.

    --
    (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons