Re: AMD64 Status Update -- And Future Directions
>>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
Stephen> * Roland Fehrenbacher (rf@q-leap.de) wrote:
>> John, your arguments might make more sense in a Debian centric world,
>> but a lot of, if not most users (rather than maybe some developers)
>> don't live in such a world, and still want to use and love Debian. So
>> maybe it boils down to the question: is Debian for their developers only
>> or does it also listen to their users. I think the latter is the
>> case. As I said, it is your time you invest, and there are certainly
>> worse ways of where to put it. But please don't try to influence people
>> with in my opinion simplistic and (sorry for the repetition) Debian
>> centric arguments.
Stephen> Uhh, of course they're Debian centric, this is the Debian
Stephen> operating system we're talking about. I *don't* think this is
Stephen> developer-centric, as you're implying.
>> Comparing niche architectures like that to x86 is not valid. Backwards
>> compatibilty is a major issue (just in terms of number of users) for x86
>> but not for the platforms you listed.
Stephen> The point is that those other architectures are just as useful as
Stephen> x86 when you're using Debian.
>> >> myself: Multiarch is actually working now!!!!
John> That is completely false.
>> Please reread my e-mail from Monday. A little cleanup (which should be
>> done soon if possible) will fix those problems.
Stephen> So do it. Prove us wrong about how much longer it'll take.
Stephen> Somehow I doubt we'll see multiarch within a year.
>> Well, you mentioned performance right. Some people actually really need
>> it, and they require the Intel compiler whether it is part of Debian or
>> not.
Stephen> Sounds like you might be better off running i386 on amd64 then.
Stephen> Feel free to, the rest of us are going to take advantage of the
Stephen> architecture (you know, *amd64*).
Some people need both for which the chip was designed.
John> I think you are the one making flawed arguments here.
>>
John> But in any case, I think there is something deeply troubling about
John> the multiarch supporters shouting at me:
>>
John> Stop!!! Stop!!! You'll make people want to join you!!!
>>
John> Let's let people have their own free will. If they want to join the
John> pure64 project, they will; if it sucks, they won't; and I don't see
John> the too as being exclusive clubs.
>> Well sometimes it is better to use one's brain before running in some
>> direction and later finding out it was wrong. Who is talking about
>> people not having their free will? I think it must be allowed to give
>> arguments for both sides and everyone can decide what he wants to do. I
>> believe that multiarch is the better way, and I try to convince others
>> about this, just like you do for your proposal.
Stephen> That's right, people can decide what they want to do, they can
Stephen> either use the 64bit-only port, work on multiarch, or do both.
Stephen> The problem is that people keep trying to convince us with flawed
Stephen> arguments that the 64bit-only port is a bad idea and seem
Stephen> concerned that people might actually find it useful.
>> Short term popularity is not always the best indicator.
Stephen> Sure, but if it's short-term then people will return to multiarch
Stephen> and it will continue after such short-term.
Stephen> Stephen
Reply to: