One FatELF Binary To Run Them All
Even Linux's advocates are unthrilled at one of its sticking points: binaries built for one breed of Linux don't always run on another. And since unifying Linux into a common distribution is about as likely as herding a circus ring full of cats into a clown car, people who want to distribute prebuilt binaries for Linux have few choices. Here's a new choice: FatELF, or universal binaries for Linux.
The idea's actually rather similar the universal binary concept as implemented on the Macintosh. There, a single file encapsulated executables for both the PowerPC and Intel versions of a given program -- a way to transition Apple's audiences gracefully from the old architecture to the new one.
The Linux issue is a bit different. Diversity of implementation is Linux's sine qua non: without it, Linux is that much less Linux. To that end, the vast majority of software for Linux is distributed in ways that take this in account:
* Open source code, compile by the end user.
* A package in the distribution's repository, typically also compiled from source by the distro maintainers.
* As binaries built for each specific release of Linux (e.g., the Opera browser).
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- 1205 reads
- PDF version
More in Tux Machines
- Highlights
- Front Page
- Latest Headlines
- Archive
- Recent comments
- All-Time Popular Stories
- Hot Topics
- New Members
digiKam 7.7.0 is releasedAfter three months of active maintenance and another bug triage, the digiKam team is proud to present version 7.7.0 of its open source digital photo manager. See below the list of most important features coming with this release. |
Dilution and Misuse of the "Linux" Brand
|
Samsung, Red Hat to Work on Linux Drivers for Future TechThe metaverse is expected to uproot system design as we know it, and Samsung is one of many hardware vendors re-imagining data center infrastructure in preparation for a parallel 3D world. Samsung is working on new memory technologies that provide faster bandwidth inside hardware for data to travel between CPUs, storage and other computing resources. The company also announced it was partnering with Red Hat to ensure these technologies have Linux compatibility. |
today's howtos
|
infectious
A great part of the design and philosophy of Free Software is that an application can be compiled or modified differently for each machine, or at an overall level for each distro. Even if RHEL has a vulnerability in application X, that doesn't mean Debian has that same vulnerability.
With these closed-source, all-in-one, vendor-supplied binaries, this (admittedly small) layer of protection goes out the window because all applications are identical; this is an issue with any closed-source, non-Free application of course, except these would have libraries and other dependencies compiled into the single FatELF file. Every layer of security helps, and using these would remove at least one layer.
re: likes uncertainty better
icculus.org: It looks like the Linux kernel maintainers are frowning on the FatELF patches. Some got the idea and disagreed, some didn't seem to hear what I was saying, and some showed up just to be rude.
I didn't really expect to be walking into the buzzsaw that I did. I imagined people would discuss the merits and flaws of the idea and we'd work towards an agreeable solution that improves Linux for everyone. It sure seemed to be going that way at first. Ultimately, I got hit over the head with package management, the bane of third-party development, as a panacea for everything.
Rest Here