Re: multiarch/bi-arch status (ETA) question
Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
> On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 13:36 -0400, David Wood 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}. All that matters is _source_
>> > compatibility: that the same source code will compile cleanly on a range of
>> > different architectures. Thanks to the excellent work done by the GNU
>> > project in developing their compiler suite and automated configuration /
>> > building tools, source compatibility is already a reality. And processors
>> > are fast enough now that there is no time saved in using precompiled
>> > binaries.
>>
>> I've heard this argument before. Maybe I misunderstand, but it seems to
>> amount to:
>>
>> 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...)
>>
>> 2) We believe that C/C++ is usually magically portable across hardware
>> architectures.
>
> Well, you did say usually...
>
> Perfect example of non-portable C/C++ code: OOo.
OOo is C, C++, asm, java, python, perl, ... and many more.
> It's not in the debian-openoffice archives yet, but the latest
> message from this thread says that OOo2 might not ship 64-bit
> native.
During the LinuxTag several people told me that tries on 64bit
just resulted in crashes, e.g. when opening any file.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: