Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
> > Unfortunately, the current debian amd64 port doesn't look like it supports
> > cedega (forinstance).
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 04:16:48PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> It does support a number of commercial binaries though already, for
> those that need them. Many of us don't.
I don't know what you mean here. Is "It" amd64 or cedega? I'm guessing
amd64. Are the commercial binaries i386 or amd64? I'm guessing amd64.
Unless the debian amd64 port supports 32 bit binaries (the 32 bit binaries
I'm using on an amd64 system are available for free, though they're not
dfsg free) I think you're missing my point.
> > More generally, by not providing 32 bit support, we're reducing the
> > bang/buck ratio.
> Not by much considering the only place this is really a problem is where
> you need both 32bit and 64bit applications running at the same time and
> interoperating with each other - rather rare in *reality*.
I don't know how you quantify *reality*, but when I was first putting
together my amd64 system, I was certain I could get by without any 32
bit apps. It turns out I was wrong.
> > > It currently looks like ia32 will be replaced by amd64/ia32e as both
> > > AMD64 and intel are changing the products and adding the
> > > 64-bit extension does not seem to be very expensive for the CPU
> > > manufacturers.
> > Agreed. And, Debian's amd64 currently isn't positioned to be useful in
> > this sense.
> Not positioned to be useful? Where the hell do you get that idea from?
Did you bother reading what you were replying to?
I'm saying that Debian's current amd64 port isn't positioned to be useful
in as providing extensions to a 32 bit environment.
That's not saying it's not useful. It's saying that it's not providing
a very specific form of use.
> Do you even *use* Debian? Do you realize that 97% (or whatever) of
> Debian is already *available* on Debian's amd64?
I use Debian. On amd64. For now, I'm using it (the i386 flavor) in a
chroot jail on a gentoo base, or by rebooting into it.