On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 12:43:37PM -0400, Chip Salzenberg wrote: > According to Andrew Suffield: > > On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 09:25:12AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: > > > Of the three points, I (as one of the folks involved with the BSD ports, > > > at least) am quite willing to grant that amd64 is worthy of special-case > > > treatment because of what it is, and where it's going. > > > > Do I really have to remind people that this was said of ia64, too? > > So ia64 is a dud; anyone who wasn't in Intel marketing (or drank their > kool-aid) could see it. They must have really been passing that stuff around, then. > You're not suggesting that amd64 is going to > run aground like ia64 did....? Why not? With the exception of i386 and sparc, pretty much everything else has. Processors don't win or lose based on anything, but, uhh.... ...sheer luck? I can't think of anything else. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature