[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: multiarch/bi-arch status (ETA) question

Thomas Steffen <steffen.list.account@gmail.com> writes:

> On 7/5/05, David Wood <obsidian@panix.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Adam Stiles wrote:
>> > Binary compatibility is irrelevant at best  {every Linux machine already has a
>> > compiler installed}  and harmful at worst  {Windows has wide-scale binary
>> > compatibility -- and rampant malware}.  
> That is the theory, and I do believe in theory... until something more
> practical comes along. I use Openoffice, Acrobat Reader, Partimage,
> Mplayer, a bit of Wine, Oracle and sometimes Matlab for Linux. That
> makes seven applications that are not supported on pure-amd64. To the
> average user, running or not running seven applications is *way* more
> important than your theory. In fact, the average user is probably
> better off with a 32bit system, until he/she has 4 GB of memory.

Hmm, I use Acrobat Reader, Mplayer and a bit of Wine on my
pure64. What problems do you have?

>> 1) We don't care about anything that's not free software. (This is already
>> too much for most people, but let's say that's no problem...)
> Yep, that is the Debian stance. And Debian constantly redefines what
> counts as free software, which means you can suddenly be out in the
> rain.
>> 2) We believe that C/C++ is usually magically portable across hardware
>> architectures.
> As programmer I have to say that it should be, if you apply the due
> care. However, it will never really work unless you actually test and
> debug it. BTW, gcc/gdb does not properly support 64bit on SPARC, just
> as a side note on "magically portable".

Not magically, but properly written it does. Writing portable code is
an artform less and less people seem to perform nowadays.


Reply to: