Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 160

Thread: Ryan Gordon Is Fed Up, FatELF Is Likely Dead

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    119

    Default

    I think the *right* place to solve this is at the package layer, and that is precisely where it has already been done. I'm glad this waste of a project was rejected.

  2. #22

    Default

    Personally, I really *like* fatELF's. But then, we all have our creepy fetishes...

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Pretty much any mac user that has used universal binaries would disagree with you.
    Ahh so this is a solution to one problem being applied to a completely different situation, regardless of whether or not there really is a problem to solve? No wonder it makes no sense.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yuma View Post
    Ahh so this is a solution to one problem being applied to a completely different situation, regardless of whether or not there really is a problem to solve? No wonder it makes no sense.
    How is it any different? One package for multiple arch.

    I also have to say that this is great motivation for Ryan to say "Screw linux development, concentrate on the OS X ports"
    Last edited by deanjo; 11-04-2009 at 12:45 AM.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    How is it any different? One package for multiple arch.
    The Mac only has two architectures to deal with. Linux works on, what, like 25. And Linux distro's already have solutions in place (like multi-lib and different repo's) to deal with this problem.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hubick View Post
    The Mac only has two architectures to deal with. Linux works on, what, like 25. And Linux distro's already have solutions in place (like multi-lib and different repo's) to deal with this problem.
    Umm not true, Mac universal binaries deal with 3 archs, PPC, x86 and x86-64 (and is actually capable of adding more archs)

    Multi-lib is fine but usually the bloat that comes with doing such is much larger then what a universal binary approach would add. Installing 32-bit libs often installs a shitload of 32-bit compatibility libs that are not really needed.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    How is it any different? One package for multiple arch.

    I also have to say that this is great motivation for Ryan to say "Screw linux development, concentrate on the OS X ports"
    Are you saying you really can't see the differences between Linux and OSX?

    For starters, lets go with the fact that on Linux most people get their software through a package manager, which completely voids the entire reason for this projects existence. So we've already narrowed down it's usefulness to only projects that are deployed by 3rd parties as binaries, like Flash. Then there's the fact that even in the Flash case, it would be a better solution for the users if they've packaged their project in rpms or debs which again would take care of this already. So it's just good for those oddball companies that refuse to play by Linux rules for whatever reason.

    Then there's the fact that Linux supports dozens of architectures. Which ones are the FatELF's supposed to support? I'm guessing you'd end up with a huge mismatch, with a bunch of packages just for x86, others for x86/x64, and still more with added support for PowerPC, ARM, etc. The Mac's version only had to support 2. It seems like a huge mess just waiting to happen.

    I'm sure there's tons of other differences as well, but the bottom line is, what does this really solve? What problem are you having that this would fix? Saying it worked on the Mac is not an answer, it's dodging the question by putting up a straw man.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    Are you saying you really can't see the differences between Linux and OSX?

    For starters, lets go with the fact that on Linux most people get their software through a package manager, which completely voids the entire reason for this projects existence. So we've already narrowed down it's usefulness to only projects that are deployed by 3rd parties as binaries, like Flash. Then there's the fact that even in the Flash case, it would be a better solution for the users if they've packaged their project in rpms or debs which again would take care of this already. So it's just good for those oddball companies that refuse to play by Linux rules for whatever reason.

    Then there's the fact that Linux supports dozens of architectures. Which ones are the FatELF's supposed to support? I'm guessing you'd end up with a huge mismatch, with a bunch of packages just for x86, others for x86/x64, and still more with added support for PowerPC, ARM, etc. The Mac's version only had to support 2. It seems like a huge mess just waiting to happen.

    I'm sure there's tons of other differences as well, but the bottom line is, what does this really solve? What problem are you having that this would fix? Saying it worked on the Mac is not an answer, it's dodging the question by putting up a straw man.
    Not dodging the questions at all, had old games such as loki games used such a approach I would still be able to use those games for example in a modern distro. Right now you try to run some of those old games and they *cough* *puke* and fart trying to find matching libs. In a "universal binary" approach this wouldn't be the case. Even in opensource projects such as Warsow this is a issue for example where it specifically looks for libcurl3 where as my distro has long gone and replaced that for libcurl4 (and doesn't even offer libcurl3 anymore). So what do you do you go and gripe to the game devs saying "hey my distro uses xyz lib though" to which the reply all to often today is "well it works on ubuntu". Then there is the issue as well that each distro's location of libs can vary some dump it in various places like /lib or /lib32 or /lib64 etc. BTW, Apple's universal libraries also handle more then just 2 arch, 4 by default PPC32 PPC64, x86 and x86-64. Your right, it can lead to a very big binary size but in reality how many ET:QW games are going to only need a recompile to play it on a arm arch? This is where common sense comes into play, but nice try at the "worst case" scenario play as unlikely as it is to ever come into reality.

    Ryan is just trying to make a solution that would allow commercial developers to develop for linux without having to worry about each distro's "nuance" in order to get their product to run on each persons flavor of linux. This is a sore point that does hold linux back from being mainstream (as well, like it or not the lack of commercial apps).
    Last edited by deanjo; 11-04-2009 at 01:29 AM. Reason: Editted to correct the number of archs universal binaries handle

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    27

    Default

    Why would kernel devs risk infringing on patents 5432937 and 5604905 to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Thats the impression I got for the lack of desire to get the code pushed upstream. Not only that, but because it involves patents, its a taboo topic.

    What I am disappointed about is that I will never see the creativity involved in the creation of a fatelf logo.

    From the patent point of view, I see much less contreversy here:

    http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/3/537

    < quote >
    Based on feedback from this list, the patent concern that I'm not qualified to resolve myself, and belief that I'll be on the losing end of the same argument with the glibc maintainers after this, I'm withdrawing my FatELF patch. If anyone wants it, I'll leave the project page and patches in place at http://icculus.org/fatelf/ ...

    Thank you everyone for your time and feedback.

    --ryan.
    < / quote >

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Hannover (Germany)
    Posts
    125

    Default

    He could probably invest his time into a new game like Command and Conquer. Some very good RTS would be nice

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •