Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 13:36 -0400, David Wood wrote: >> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Adam Stiles wrote: >> >> > Binary compatibility is irrelevant at best {every Linux machine already >> > has a >> > compiler installed} and harmful at worst {Windows has wide-scale binary >> > compatibility -- and rampant malware}. All that matters is _source_ >> > compatibility: that the same source code will compile cleanly on a range >> > of >> > different architectures. Thanks to the excellent work done by the GNU >> > project in developing their compiler suite and automated configuration / >> > building tools, source compatibility is already a reality. And processors >> > are fast enough now that there is no time saved in using precompiled >> > binaries. >> >> I've heard this argument before. Maybe I misunderstand, but it seems to >> amount to: >> >> 1) We don't care about anything that's not free software. (This is already >> too much for most people, but let's say that's no problem...) >> >> 2) We believe that C/C++ is usually magically portable across hardware >> architectures. > > Well, you did say usually... > > Perfect example of non-portable C/C++ code: OOo.
OOo is C, C++, asm, java, python, perl, ... and many more. > It's not in the debian-openoffice archives yet, but the latest > message from this thread says that OOo2 might not ship 64-bit > native. During the LinuxTag several people told me that tries on 64bit just resulted in crashes, e.g. when opening any file. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]