Re: AMD64 for sarge [<rant> Package: ftpmasters, Severity: serious, ...]

[Chip Salzenberg <chip@debian.org>]

According to Andrew Suffield:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 12:43:37PM -0400, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> > 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.

Indeed so.
Alpha?  "We don't need it, Itanium will be better."
PA?     "We don't need it, Itanium will be better."
Intel must have their own reality distortion field.

When the ia64 was supposed to be hitting it big I was working at a
hardware company (VA Linux).  VA was participating in the project that
ported Linux to the Itanium[1].  But all you had to do was read the
trade press, especially The Register, and it was obvious that Itanic
was pre-holed when it left the shipyard -- no iceberg required.

[1] Intel must have been paying us for it.  Keeping on Intel's good
    side was important, too: Most of our systems used Intel CPUs and
    Intel motherboards.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg            - a.k.a. -             <chip@pobox.com>
                  Poetry mode ... is the default.