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

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.


Reply to: