On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 03:02:38PM -0000, Markus Spitzli wrote: > > [..] In fact, I expect Oracle will do that once people start asking > > for it, if they havn't already. > > Could be. i dont want to ask every single company to port their software on > 64bit. They port it only if they see a way to gain money. For native 64bit > environment you will have problems to get users and/or companies which use > it. You get them only if you have the apps they need (open or proprietary). > if a only 64bit environment would be really needed then IA-64 would have been > more successful. Yes, multi-arch is a good goal long term, it just won't be available any time soon, regardless of if we do a 64bit native port in the meantime. However, all of our users and developers who don't care to wait that long will be migrating over to all the other dists that already have AMD64 ports finished: Fedora, Gentoo, Mandrake, Netbsd, Redhat, SuSE, etc... When sarge+1 comes out in mid 2007, and especially if the rumors about the Intel x86-64 chips are true, there will be very few ia32 binary only apps left unported, so all this time spent making multi-arch work for AMD64 will have been time wasted. Also this argument about IA-64 just isn't very accurate. If Intel had been selling the chips for well under ~ $4000 USD each then yes maybe it would have taken off. You can get an Athlon64 chip right now for as low as ~ $200 with a motherboard for another ~ $90. I bought my Athlon64 3000+ laptop for $1360 which is around 1/3 of the cost of an Itanium chip alone... BTW - please set your MUA to wrap at least than 80 chars. Chris Cheney
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature