Re: Broken applications: Could we be honest?
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 01:29:37PM -0600, Art Edwards wrote:
> Excuse me for chiming in, but I think many places simply look
> for the best performance and productivity/dollar(euro). We do use the PGI compiler,
> mostly because gnu had not had a f90-f95 compiler, and partly because
> of, maybe, a 10% improvement in speed.
heh, I think that whole choice f90/f95 codes and compilers issue a
chicken and egg problem. its probably not a idea to get into any religous
discussions on why one should use a certain toolchain to build things.
> What I find interesting is that both Fedora and Debian have similar
> problems for different reasons. Debian has now stable release for
> AMD64 because Sarge was released before AMD64 was really ready. This means
> that we are all stuck in the beta test-site pool. It would be really nice
> if Debian actually packaged up a "stable-like" version of AMD64 at the
> same level as Sarge. Fedora has been moving so quickly, that they have
> incorporated the same problems into a nominally stable release.
To be honest, I find that debian amd64 (sarge) is quite stable, we
choose to use it simply because we like debian and what apt-get has to
offer. In terms of building a compute cluster using debian amd64 (sarge)
it's certainly a risk since its a release candidate rather than what
debian stable is typically like.
I guess if you find packages to be broken or dont work as expected,
do as other have suggested on these lists, report the bugs, or fix them
yourself and submit the fix to someone so that it gets to become stable
Trinity Centre for High Performance Computing,
Lloyd Building, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland.