Boston Linux & UNIX was originally founded in 1994 as part of The Boston Computer Society. We meet on the third Wednesday of each month at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in Building E51.

BLU Discuss list archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Discuss] Systemd & not Re: I, uh, deleted the wrong kernel....

On 10/03/2016 10:49 AM, Mike Small wrote:
> Jerry Feldman <gaf.linux at> writes:
> ...
>>> The only thing I kind of dislike about slackware is the directory
>>> structure in the 64 bit version. Libraries go into /lib64 and
>>> /usr/lib64.  Obviously this is a pretty petty criticism, but not really
>>> needing multilib I find it annoying to have these directory names. I
>>> prefer OpenBSD's approach, which is to not bother with multilib and have
>>> simple expected names like /usr/lib and /lib.
>> Fedora  and RHEL are the same way. That is because they fully support
>> both 64-bit and 32 bit libraries and applications.
> And Debian/Ubuntu too, though I almost like their solution better even
> though it's actually more complex.  It just seems backward looking to do
> the rename on the 64 bit directory. I guess in 2006 or whenever it
> probably seemed reasonable, but in retrospect lib32 for x86 and lib for
> x86_64 would have made a lot more sense.
> Like a lot of things in Linux, for the sake of someone who needs a
> feature you have this added piece of clutter/complexity you may
> eventually need to become aware of that you would never hit on a simpler
> less feature laden O/S. (But of course if you actually need to run 64
> bit and 32 bit processes side by side OpenBSD's answer of, "if you need
> 32 bit install the 32 version of the O/S," might be frustrating, at
> least until they finish the vm hypervisor they've started maybe.)
First of all, this was done when 64-bit was the exception. Running a 64 
bit VM inside of a 32-bit OS is certainly a poor practice for many reasons.
32 bit applications actually perform better in a 64-bit OS than they do 
natively. (I had to run a number of benchmarks several years ago). I 
would agree that maybe naming lib32 and lib64 would have been a better 
practice. I actually go back the the 8 and 16-bit era. Also, this 
practice goes back to prior to x86_64. we had several 64-bit chips 
before AMD came out with the 64-bit x86 chip. MIPS, PA-RISC, and Sparc 
had 32-bit legacy modes, and many users were 32-bit. The Alpha did not 
have 32-bit legacy, and did not have a 32-bit mode, so Unix and Linux on 
Alpha were all 64-bit. (there were software models that allowed a 32-bit 
application to be compiled to run on the Alpha, but it was mainly a 
compiler option).

Jerry Feldman <gaf.linux at>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id:B7F14F2F
PGP Key fingerprint: D937 A424 4836 E052 2E1B  8DC6 24D7 000F B7F1 4F2F

BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities.

Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS!

Boston Linux & Unix /