Re: Broken applications: Could we be honest?
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 01:56:57PM -0600, Art Edwards wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 03:11:19PM -0700, email@example.com wrote:
> > Before I bought my machine (18 months ago, now) I benchmarked it
> > on the code that I use. It was 10 times faster than my old 500 MHz
> > Pentium-III, and 30% faster than an equivalently available/priced
> > new Pentium-IV.
> How did it compare to an AMD XP? How much are you paying for the increase
> in speed?
Going for a high-end processor probably contributed $300 to the
$1100 total (not including monitor, which I did not upgrade).
I did not measure the speed of an AMD XP, I have trouble imagining
it was any faster than the Pentium-IV.
> FLOPS/dollar(euro) are what drive my decisions.
My needs don't parallelize. I wanted one fast workstation.
And I got it.
> > > Unless such core pieces as the debugging tool (ddd) and the data display
> > > tool (xmgrace) are working, it is dishonest to pretend that the 64-bit
> > > version is ready for testing.
> > [chop]
> I could spend my time rolling up my sleaves (fortune knows I've done that many
> times) or I could do what I'm paid to do, physics. I'm willing to stay in
> the stable sand box to do that. There simply is no stable sandbox for AMD64.
18 months ago, Debian amd64 was considered bleeding edge.
Now I would not hesitate to use it for production work.
Everything I need works reliably in Debian sid. I see
no reproducible reports that grace or ddd are exceptions.
If you want help troubleshooting your amd64 install, ask.
Your descriptions in other email make it sound like something
is definitely broken, but I can't tell exactly what.