Re: perspectives on 32 bit vs 64 bit
Dear Lennart, dear list,
Didn't want to start a shouting contest ... So a fast answer with lots
of [ Snips ... ] :
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
[ Snip... ]
Laptops love proprietary hardware. New laptop implies new chips, which
of course require a newer than that kernel to support. The kernel in
sarge hardly qaulifies for that.
Which was *precisely* my point ...
[ ... ]
The curent tasksel insists on an X version that does not support my
hardware either (ATI X700). I had no choice but to install XFree, *then*
upgrading to xorg.
Hmm, you bought something with an ATI. Well you deserve the trouble
that causes then. :)
No choice nowadays when you buy a laptop. At least, this one can be used
with free drivers (fbdev, ati, radeon ...), which is more than one can
say of most laptop video hardware. And yes, I checked that point before
buying.
And no, I do *not* deserve that : this is what I call "Holier than
Stallman" attitude. It reeks of self-righteousness.
Ooops : there was a smiley at the end...
[ re-re-Snip ... ]
So openoffice was coded by peopel that didn't code things cleanly. So
it doesn't work in 64bit (for 1.x releases that is). So ubuntu does the
32/64bit mix for you, and debian amd64 aims at being a pure 64bit
system. Different goal, different result.
As a developper, I could agree. As an user, I couldn't care less. What I
see is one pure-amd-64, which might be a 32-bits-library virgin ("holier
than thou" attitude, again...) but is unable to use a very useful tool
(many people have to cope with M$-formatted documents for now : not
every institution is (yet) as wies as the Massachussets (sp ?) state...)
without requiring work largely exceeeding the average end-user knowledge
; the other made practical compromises : it cannot boast 32-bits purity,
but is usable by the average John Doe (which I tend to be, as far as
systems go ...).
Is the goal of Debian to be a hackers-only distribution ? That's not my
reading of the Social Contract...
All of this took me two days. And require a load of previous Linux and
Debian knowledge. Yet, all of this was deemed as "obvious" by the Debian
Ordained Developers (TM).
I wouldn't know, I am not one. It does seem obvious to me that
installing software older than your hardware should result in problems.
(Semi-) correct (most modern hardware seem to be useable with older
Micro$oft crocks), but irrelevant.
In contrast, putting an Ubuntu (amd64 5.10 preview) CD in the drive and
installing took me one hour (two to get some fine-tuning working)... The
one thing I had to sweat on was Wine (I still have to read some .mdb
databases, inf*cluding forms and reports) : I had to install a chroot.
And what kernel does that version of ubuntu use and when was it
released?
2.6.12...
I suspect the latest testing/unstable installer would work fine too (if
it's not one of its broken days).
Hah ! I tried that. and bit my fingers up to the elbows...
[ re-re-re-Snip ... ]
i386 would have given you almost exactly the same problems (except OO.o,
but that's a different issue).
My point, again ... It seems to be a Debian problem (see below).
[ Donning asbestos longjohns... ]
I'd like to add a general comment on Debian : while it is, IMHO, the
best Free Software distribution available, its useability is somewhat
spoiled by two factors :
- "Die-hard hackers", who seem unable to understand that recompiling a
kernel is *not* something the average end-user (or even the average
engineer more interested in engineering than tuning his tool) will do if
it can be avoided at all... Ditto for xorg.conf hacking, ditto for
cdrecord anomaly, ditto for ... (well, I won't make the list).
Does any other distribution include a tool to help you do that
(kernel-package)? Does debian tell you you need to compile a new
kernel? (No it doesn't). It even has a tool to compile modules from
source for your debian provided kernel (module-assistant) or even
against your own kernel build should you choose to make one.
While I agree that kernel-package is a great tool, my feeble attempts at
module-assistant failed miserably : at least in unstable,
module-assistant complains about kernel-tree not being this or that in
terms so obscure that it seemed simpler to configure and compile a new
kernel.
- "Holier than Stallman" Free Software bigots, who object at anything
not GPL, unable to understand the value of a temporary compromise... (e.
g. refusing to provide a pointer to libdvdcss in totem or xine docs)
While the latter factor seem to dwindle a bit these days (their latter
effort to have non-free removed from Debian servers seems to have failed
for good), the first one still remains a problem. Not much, I agree, but
those quirks are irritating.
Actually many of the debian developers aren't too pleased by the GPL,
and especially are worried what the FSF will come up with for GPLv3
given what they did for the documentation license.
I have mixed views on this (documentation license) : I think tat neither
DFDGuidelines nor GPL doc license answer essential requirements, but I
am not sure that those "essential documenrs" are mutually compatible...
Therefore, I'll refrain taking sides until I understand better the
issues at hand.
Debian's main weakness it the infrequent release which mean new hardware
is not supported for a long time by stable.
Agreed for stable. But that's also a problem with testing and unstable.
Cuirrent testing and unstable disks are unusable : this can be forgiven
for unstable, less so with testing ...
Debian's main strength is
that is doesn't release a new release very often, so you know your
installed system will be supported for years without requireing you to
upgrade and retest that the upgraded stuff will run your services
without making changes.
And an *excellent* reason for oldstable...
[ ... ]
Linux (and bsd and anything else, even windows) always has trouble
installing and working on new hardware until you get drivers for that
new hardware. Computers have always been that way. This is not a
Debian specific problem at all. Ubuntu just happens to think making a
new release every x months no matter what is the right idea. For some
people that works. For others it would not. Ubuntu also does not try
to support 10+ architectures with the same source code, it sticks with
the common ones which seriously helps in getting things to work quickly.
Again, different goals, different results.
That might be the point of updates. Woody had such updates, and they
could have been more frequent.
I have not personally tried ubuntu, but I have heard good things about
it, and I don't tell people not to try it if they want to. I don't
usually recomend people to try it either, since I haven't tried it
myself so I have no idea what I would be recomending, but I hence also
can't discourage it's use since I don't know what it is like.
Ubuntu seems to have *one* goal lacking in Debian (while present in the
Social Contract) : useability by end-users.
Which was my point : the current state of Debian amd-64 for your average
Joe is much more an insult than posting an Ubuntu question in the
debian-amd64 list (and the overtones of *that* answer reeked of
self-righteousness...). You can't point you garden-variety user to
Debian amd-64 today and expect him|her to be satisfied with the result.
Bo not misread me : I didn't switch to Ubuntu for my desktop machine,
and Debian is still my reference. But I had to tell, without being
insulting to anybody, that it has its weak points.
Sincerely yours,
--
Emmanuel Charpentier charpent@bacbuc.dyndns.org
Reply to: