Re: 64-bit transition deadline (Re: Etch in the hands of the Stable Release Managers)
[M-F-T set appropriately]
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 11:15:56PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Robert Millan <email@example.com> writes:
> > On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 10:10:58PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> >> Robert Millan <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> >>> The thing is, that if lenny will be released post-deadline, all the
> >>> improvements carried by it will be of no use for the 64-bit battle that
> >>> will have finished by late 2008.
> >> I don't believe that there will be a 64-bit battle in late 2008,
> > Does that mean you don't believe there will be such battle, or that you
> > don't believe the predicted date?
> I don't believe that there will be such a battle. There is no reason to
> switch from i386 to amd64, no real gain for users.
So you don't believe that software will continue to push forward our minimum
hardware requirements, the way it has for the past decade or so? What do
you think is the minimum memory required to run a "comfortable" desktop
system (or workstation) today? How does that compare to the minimum memory
requirements at the time sarge was released? woody?
It's clear to me that it's the nature of software development that
developers only put as much effort into restricting their resource
consumption as is necessary to support running successfully on their target
hardware, and the target hardware changes with Moore's Law. Different
software developers will have different standards for how far behind Moore's
Law their minimum hardware requirements should trail, but even Debian has to
drop support for older hardware at some point, even for minimal installs.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.