Have you guys seen this fatelf stuff before?

pseudomind · 2009-10-19 17:00:45

I was just reading through some of the backpages on reddit... Anyhow, this fatelf concept is new to me. I was just wondering if it would ever be possible for something like this to be utilized by arch. I think it would be really cool if both the x86 and the x86_64 portions of arch could be merged back into one. I must admit that I don't understand this all too well, but it really does seem quite interesting.

http://icculus.org/fatelf/

skottish · 2009-10-19 17:47:08

It's possible but I don't see Arch as an organization ever adopting this. For every package that one downloads they'd end up with two versions of the same thing. This would increase the binary sizes dramatically for either architecture. I'd guess that it would be something around 70% larger for 64 bit users and well over 100% for 32 bit users.

winch · 2009-10-19 18:48:28

Distributions no longer need to have separate downloads for various platforms. Given enough disc space, there's no reason you couldn't have one DVD .iso that installs an x86-64, x86, PowerPC, SPARC, and MIPS system, doing the right thing at boot time. You can remove all the confusing text from your website about "which installer is right for me?"

A live cd that would run on pretty much anything would be neat but would it actually work? Is it actually possible to have a bootable cd that will boot and do something useful on multiple architectures?

jasonwryan · 2009-10-19 18:55:04

You can remove all the confusing text from your website about "which installer is right for me?"

How many people who run Arch would be confused by this? Seriously, if you need this sort of help...

fsckd · 2009-10-19 19:05:26

For systems where the user must select the package herself, "fat" binaries allow for fewer choices making the process easier. Arch Linux would have no need for this as pacman automates the decision making.

Historically fat binaries were used by Apple for each of their major architecture transitions: 68k -> PPC -> x86

Since fat binaries only duplicate the architecture dependent parts, the install size can be about 1/3 to 2/3 larger. YMMV

Reading the page it might be good for a live cd/dvd or usb flash installs that are used with different computers.

Andrwe · 2009-10-19 20:11:26

In my opinion if arch would really use such binaries it wouldn't be arch anymore because it would be like $#* %§%()"/(%&§
(decryption in progress ...
... u ...
... b ...
... ... ...
... u ...
decryption crashed cause unknown error occured)

I hope you know what I mean.
It would result in a "noob-system" and I don't like such systems.

pseudomind · 2009-10-19 21:12:09

From the standpoint of the x86 version I do agree with the added size and complexity that this would create. However, for the 64-bit version of arch I think it would make things more clean. I think i have around 30 different lib-32... packages on my computer, which all work great until I install something which is not familiar with the arch lib layout, then there is trouble. I think if the 32-bit and 64-bit libs were combined under the 64-bit ed, then such situations would just not arise. Perhaps I am just looking at this from the end user's point of view though. If it was considerably more difficult for the people making the packages, then I would see it as a bad thing. However, if on the other hand it took the same amount of effort to create one combined package as it would to create either package seperately, then what would happen is there would be less work in total for the people creating these packages. Or maybe at some point in the future there could be the option to install a 32-bit, 64-bit combined library instead of the standard 64bit lib that would come with the system. That way people who have no desire to run 32bit software would not experience the swell from these larger binaries, however people who do want to run 32bit stuff would have a more simple implementation.

Sorry to worry you guys, I don't really have any intention of wanting to make arch into archbuntu. I just thought this idea was interesting and wanted to see if it could be usable here and if so where.

skottish · 2009-10-20 02:04:03

Conversely, I have two lib32 bit libraries and NeroAacEnc and that's only because I'm waiting for FFmpeg to get their AAC encoder up to quality. I ran a pure 64 bit system for a long time and will go back as soon as possible. So for me, adding GBs worth of unused software isn't something that I'd like to do.

Andrwe · 2009-10-20 06:35:15

I'm using a 64-bit arch and a 32-bit chroot and don't have any problems.
I think this fatELF stuff is only nice for liveCD/DVD as fsckd said because for normal installation it would eat too much space.
You should keep in mind that it is designed to give one binary for all possible architectures which means you would have x86, x64_86, ARM, PPC and so on in one binary which means if you use a 32-bit arch you would only need one part of the binary and it is the same for all other architecture but 64-bit.
So only one architecture AFAIK, x64_86, would benefit while all would need much more space for the system.

raf_kig · 2009-10-20 07:04:01

On a live cd it makes even less sense...

1) space constraints are much tougher
2) why would someone want a livecd that contains both archs?

The purpose of that project is to provide software distributors with a possibility to offer one single download. The goal is to reduce confusion because many customers won't be able to tell whether they are running 32/64 bit. With a package manager there really isn't a point, because you don't even have to know your arch for pacman to work.

pseudonomous · 2009-10-20 18:52:14

You would want a live CD that runs on any archicture for the same reason that you'd want install packages that'd work for any architecture; I'm sure there are still people out there who don't know the difference between x86 and x86_64 and don't know what to choose, this way there's only one choice and it works on either.

Also, it's concievable you might do something like, install on a portable usb drive and then hual it around with you, boot a friends computer, boot a computer at work with it, with this, even if you meet a powermac or a sparc ultra 5 you can still, potentially, boot the machine and run like you're running on your home system.

It's a neat idea, but I don't think it makes sense so much for Arch (or really an x86/x86_64 only distro), on the other hand, I think it might make sense for Ubuntu or Debian, particularly Debian, since those guys ARE trying to support every Architecture under the sun, and Ubuntu occassionally decides to support PPC and recently moved to supporting ARM, so if they could somehow move to having a single install disk, or (in the case of Debian) go from having like 23 different architecture dependent repositories to only 2 or 3, it might be a good thing. (On the other hand, if Debian really did put all thier architectures into one fat binary, I suspect many binaries would become quite large).

Ranguvar · 2009-10-21 21:15:29

A 32/64-bit LiveCD can be accomplished by having everything 32-bit, and also providing a 64-bit kernel that is loaded upon detection of a 64-bit CPU

joaca_rj · 2009-10-24 20:54:15

But an external HD ( and they're huge nowadays ) that boots in almost all machines, it would be quite nice.... maybe like a portable OS ( and all the files and stuff )....

edit: sorry, someone already said that....

Last edited by joaca_rj (2009-10-24 20:55:32)

illusionalsagacity · 2009-10-25 16:14:05

In the FAQ section on the FatELF site, it looks like there is a command to strip out the unneeded architecture information in the FatELF binary. That obviously doesn't solve the problem of having to download the entire binary, but it does save disk space in the end.

Q: Can I strip out the bits of a FatELF file that I don't need? If I only run an x86 system, I'd like to delete the PowerPC (or whatever) pieces.
A: Yes. Run fatelf-extract newfilename fatelffilename i386

Andrwe · 2009-10-25 16:44:28

But in this would again cause the situation the fatELF want to solve because you need to know your architecture to use this.
So it wouldn't change anything IMO.

R00KIE · 2009-10-25 23:23:10

That is good for what apple has used it, architecture transitions. Otherwise it looks like bloat, smells like bloat, behaves like bloat .... must be bloat.

If people don't know the architecture of the machine they are using they can always do what they already do now, in case of doubt don't touch it, if it is an install image just download the 32bit version and thats it. Owners of machines with other architectures most probably know what they are using anyway.

These days people just use the "install/remove software thingy" so the package manager takes care of sorting out the correct packages to download. fatELF seems an attempt to oversimplify things that are not complicated to start with.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-10-19 17:00:45

Have you guys seen this fatelf stuff before?

#2 2009-10-19 17:47:08

Re: Have you guys seen this fatelf stuff before?

#3 2009-10-19 18:48:28

Re: Have you guys seen this fatelf stuff before?

#4 2009-10-19 18:55:04

Re: Have you guys seen this fatelf stuff before?

#5 2009-10-19 19:05:26

Re: Have you guys seen this fatelf stuff before?

#6 2009-10-19 20:11:26

Re: Have you guys seen this fatelf stuff before?

#7 2009-10-19 21:12:09

Re: Have you guys seen this fatelf stuff before?

#8 2009-10-20 02:04:03

Re: Have you guys seen this fatelf stuff before?

#9 2009-10-20 06:35:15

Re: Have you guys seen this fatelf stuff before?

#10 2009-10-20 07:04:01

Re: Have you guys seen this fatelf stuff before?

#11 2009-10-20 18:52:14

Re: Have you guys seen this fatelf stuff before?

#12 2009-10-21 21:15:29

Re: Have you guys seen this fatelf stuff before?

#13 2009-10-24 20:54:15

Re: Have you guys seen this fatelf stuff before?

#14 2009-10-25 16:14:05

Re: Have you guys seen this fatelf stuff before?

#15 2009-10-25 16:44:28

Re: Have you guys seen this fatelf stuff before?

#16 2009-10-25 23:23:10

Re: Have you guys seen this fatelf stuff before?

Board footer