Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ryan Gordon Is Fed Up, FatELF Is Likely Dead

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ryan Gordon Is Fed Up, FatELF Is Likely Dead

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

    The news just keeps rolling in today... Besides VIA trying again to submit their kernel DRM, learning about KDE 4.4 features, announcing AMD's UVD2-based XvBA finally does something on Linux, the release of the Linux 2.6.32-rc6 kernel, and GNOME 3.0 likely being delayed to next September, we also have news this evening from the well-known Linux game porter Ryan Gordon (a.k.a...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=NzY3Mg

  • #2
    FatELF is a bad idea for everyone, and in the future, FatELF will be a worse idea than now.

    Comment


    • #3
      IMHO, Kernel devs are usually big boys working for good money, they don't really give a crap about you or anybody else.

      Comment


      • #4
        Who else here is sick of the constant UT3 remarks in every single icculus article?

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm really sorry to see him get burnt like that, but that was to be expected. This is a major undertaking. He created something that changes the fundamentals of Linux, spanning many projects. It's very difficult to get consensus for that. It really has to be absolutely clear that this is a necessity before it can take off.

          And I don't think it's that good an idea. It sounds very cool, a binary that works everywhere. So I like it in a gut-feeling way. But when you look at it objectively, when are you going to need this? Why not just put two binaries in the same package and install the correct one? Yes, there is a lack of a unified package manager, but that is being worked on.

          I think Ryan underestimated the difficulty of getting other people to buy into your idea. Look at how many people thought about solutions to the package management problem. You've got RPM in the LSB, you've got Autopackage, you've got PackageKit, you've got PackageAPI... will one of those be the final solution? Maybe we'll know in 10 years.

          Comment


          • #6
            hmm

            .deb already supports multiple archs in a single file, doesn't it?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by phoronix View Post
              Perhaps now Ryan will find the time to finish the Unreal Tournament 3 Linux client?
              Yeah, I am sure the fatelf was the reason...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ethana2 View Post
                .deb already supports multiple archs in a single file, doesn't it?
                I don't know if it specifically supports multiple architectures, but you could always leave the architecture field blank, so it installs on any arch. But then you still have the other 50% of Linux users that don't use dpkg. So that's still a problem that needs solving. But when that is solved, Ryan's itch has been scratched too.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Ant P. View Post
                  Who else here is sick of the constant UT3 remarks in every single icculus article?
                  I think Ryan would be at the top of the list. I strongly doubt that he's the cause of the "delay" we've seen on UT3.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    First they piss off Con, now they piss of Ryan. Can it get any more clearer that they simply don't give a rats ass about making things simpler and improving the end user experience?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Svartalf View Post
                      I think Ryan would be at the top of the list. I strongly doubt that he's the cause of the "delay" we've seen on UT3.
                      Of course that is all speculation as well.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by hax0r View Post
                        IMHO, Kernel devs are usually big boys working for good money, they don't really give a crap about you or anybody else.
                        Not QUITE. However, they don't abide by what they deem as inefficiency or what they deem as inelegant- or provides a solution to a problem that's nonexistent or almost so. The big stopping block with FatELF is that it really didn't solve the problem we face the way Ryan believed it would.

                        The main reason you don't have 64-bit binaries is not a packaging reason (though that doesn't help...)- it's that you have to build the binaries for the differing architectures, and FatELF doesn't fix that problem.

                        It doesn't resolve issues within your code for endianness. It doesn't resolve issues within your code for byte alignment. It doesn't resolve the issues from poorly written code that presumes a void pointer is equivalent to int- and you have issues with that going to a 64-bit world.

                        All FatELF did was allow you to make universal binaries...after you resolve all the other problems. The ones that actually stymie most commercial vendors from doing anything in something other than X86-32.

                        And, knowing what I know about the kernel crowd and of Ulrich...heh...I saw this little turn of events coming from a mile away. Sorry to see him disillusioned, but it happens...Lord only knows, I've been there a time or two for similar reasons myself.

                        This is not to say that it's not a nice idea, mind...it's just that the resistance is going to be high on it and that it doesn't resolve a few crucial issues that need to be sorted out "better" before solving the particular problem he tried to solve.
                        Last edited by Svartalf; 11-03-2009, 10:53 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          hes a fairly household name in the linux community. This is surprising.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                            Of course that is all speculation as well.
                            Considering he's watching and pointing Twitter comments to this thread...heh...I'd say I'm probably in the ballpark at this point. But, yeah, it's idle speculation at that.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Can't these patches be submitted to distros? If all the main distros accept the patches then main no longer matters. I support the fatElf.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X