Hi Landon, thank you for the in-depth proposal. On one hand, I think that package management cannot solve the same problem, since package management is not guaranteed to be the only means by which software arrives on a system. So it would be great if the system technically supported FatELF. On the other hand, I think you totally downplay the main argument against: The increase in size of apps. If an application is fleshed out more and more, with extensive documentation, and if it contains lots of pre-rendered graphics, especially now on Mac OS where apps should include high-res versions of the graphics that are roughly 4 times the size alongside the normal versions, your argument about code size versus size of resources sounds about right. On Haiku however, apps usually have a lot less resources, the main chunk is indeed the code. And each additional architecture increases that size one more time. So I would prefer a system distribution that itself ships containing only code for one architecture, but supports picking that architecture out of a FatELF binary, should it encounter one. Same with packages. I would prefer if packages would exist for each architecture, but that they can optionally include (and declare to contain) FatELF binaries. Don't know if I thought this through. Just trying to point out that the size increase is indeed a problem I would want to avoid, or at least not have by default. Best regards, -Stephan