Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Binary Portability in Linux

Filed under

An interesting topic for a change: is Linux binary portable? That is, can we take a binary file and be sure it’ll run in any other Linux system? What happens if we broaden that to any POSIX system, will it blend? Eh, I mean, will it run?

Doing some research on the subject I wrote down a list of the thought process which led my to an (inconclusive) answer:

1. First we should define what a binary is for us: When we talk about a binary we are usually thinking about a compiled binary file, not an interpreted script file like Ruby or Python. Those are for people who like things to actually work, so let’s focus on a compiled executable file, like a C/C++ application.

2. Defining compiled file: What could it be other than a sequence of bytes the microprocessor can understand? Yes, that’s right, it’s sort of interpreted code, only there’s electronics behind, not more code. This brings us to the first interesting conclusion: the executable must be (leaving emulators aside) compatible with the architecture you’re on. Running Sparc? Well then, the binary better be compiled for Sparc because otherwise to the uP will not make any sense.

rest here

More in Tux Machines

Android/ChromeOS/Google Leftovers

Games: SC-Controller 0.4.2, Campo Santo, Last Epoch and More

Android Leftovers

Ryzen 7 2700X CPUFreq Scaling Governor Benchmarks On Ubuntu Linux

With this week's Ryzen 5 2600X + Ryzen 7 2700X benchmarks some thought the CPUFreq scaling driver or rather its governors may have been limiting the performance of these Zen+ CPUs, so I ran some additional benchmarks this weekend. Those launch-day Ryzen 5 2600X / Ryzen 7 2700X Ubuntu Linux benchmarks were using the "performance" governor, but some have alleged that the performance governor may now actually hurt AMD systems... Ondemand, of course, is the default CPUFreq governor on Ubuntu and most other Linux distributions. Some also have said the "schedutil" governor that makes use of the kernel's scheduler utilization data may do better on AMD. So I ran some extra benchmarks while changing between CPUFreq's ondemand (default), performance (normally the best for performance, and what was used in our CPU tests), schedutil (the newest option), and powersave (if you really just care about conserving power). Read more