NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 15:38 -0500, Patrick Finnegan wrote: > Yes, it's unfortunate that RH decided to do it the "stupid" way, which > keeps the system from being 99% backwards compatible with 32-bit > programs; who really needs a 64-bit address space version of 'ls' > anyways? > > This is one of my reasons that I prefer Debian - all the basic system > libraries are compiled for both 32 and 64 bit, and the number of 64-bit > libraries keep expanding... at least with Linux/OSS you can compile the > needed 64-bit libraries yourself, unlike the proprietary bits in UNIX. > Now if just everyone else would follow suit, and switch to doing things > the more sane way, I'd be just a little bit happier. :) > The problem I have is that its a pain to support various releases of Linux. You can always compile code on RHEL3 and have it run most everywhere. You can't compile for RHEL5 and run it on an older version of Linux. So in general, I push the RHEL3 versions of my programs. The problem is shared library support. I've found support for legacy shared libraries to be pretty strong in the 32 bit world but not in the 64 bit world. So I'm running into some problems trying to get older 32 bit applications to run on current 64 bit platforms. So now, I'm looking more towards supporting 64 bit directly in order to make sure I don't have to jump through hoops to get the applications to run. ________________________________________________________________________ Daniel Vietor Mail: devo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Unisys Corp Title: Engineer/Meteorologist 2476 Swedesford Rd Phone: 610-648-3623 Malvern PA 19355 Fax: 610-695-5524
ldm-users
archives: