[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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: