On Jan 22, 2008 7:17 PM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But in the end it boils down to this: Do people want universal > binaries, considering the size tradoff? I do think so, but I hope this > isn't like the live-CD where everybody says that it is a good idea but > when push comes to shove few people step up and use it.
Wow, that's a really good question. Given that the entire point of universal binaries is to prevent people from accidentaly downloading the binary for the wrong architecture and getting frustrated when it doesn't work, maybe before (or in parallel with) actually working hard to do universal binaries we should think about other approaches to solving that problem. E.g., is there a way to tell with high probability from javascript which architecture (ppc or intel) the visitor is using? (Probably yes, since many websites already seem to do this.) If so, we could just have the download page immediately give only a link to exactly the right binary. It seems like this would be well worth doing anyways and if it works right it will just solve the whole problem that we're trying to solve with universal binaries. William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
