Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
- To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
- From: Darren Salt <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 15:11:40 +0000
- Message-id: <[🔎] 4D4EA6B581firstname.lastname@example.org
- Mail-followup-to: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <423CD937.email@example.com>
- References: <20050314044505.GA5157@mauritius.dodds.net> <20050315085851.GB9429@quetzlcoatl.dodds.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20050316000010.GC16660@quetzlcoatl.dodds.net> <20050316045454.GA31783@nevyn.them.org> <4237F514.email@example.com> <20050316143028.GA23967@nevyn.them.org> <4239389D.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20050317143112.GA27570@nevyn.them.org> <423A3790.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <423B7F3E.email@example.com> <4D4E4E904Dfirstname.lastname@example.org> <423CD937.email@example.com>
I demand that Anthony Towns may or may not have written...
> Darren Salt wrote:
>> I demand that Anthony Towns may or may not have written...
>>> Put them behind a firewall on a trusted LAN, use them to develop software
>>> for arm chips, and then just follow unstable or run
>>> non-security-supported snapshots. Apart from writing software for
>>> embedded arm things, I can't see the value
>> "Linux desktop box" comes to mind...
> But why would you spend over 1000 pounds on an arm Linux desktop box
> instead of a few hundred pounds on a random i386 desktop box?
Compatibility with what I already have and use? The older hardware won't last
forever (and this Risc PC, for example, is 10 years old)...
> A reasonable answer is because you're developing for arm's for embedded
> applications; but if so, what's the big deal with using unstable or
> snapshots, and running your public servers on other boxes?
What's wrong with people just using them as desktop boxes, using both OSes?
>>> -- and if an arch is just going to be used for development, does it
>>> really need all the support we give stable in order to make it useful for
>>> servers and such?
>> Probably not, but ISTM that you'll first have to ascertain that it *is*
>> only being used for development before you can say that that support
>> definitely isn't needed.
> Uh, you've got that round the wrong way: you don't do something because you
> can't say support definitely isn't needed, you do something because you
> *can* say support definitely *is* needed.
That may well be, but ISTM that you implied that the arch isn't going to be
used for non-development tasks...
>>> If so, why? If not, what level of support does it need, that goes beyond
>>> "unstable + snapshotting facility", and why? Debian developers [...]
>> You're focusing too much on development here. There are users too, you
>> know... :-)
> Haven't seen any evidence of it -- developers and vendors, yes, users, or
> uses, no...
I can't answer all of that myself, but there are people who can.
(Adding debian-arm. Note followups to both lists.)
 Not at the same time, of course. ;-)
| Darren Salt | linux (or ds) at | nr. Ashington,
| woody, sarge, | youmustbejoking | Northumberland
| RISC OS | demon co uk | Toon Army
| <URL:http://www.youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk/> (PGP 2.6, GPG keys)
This portion of UTS II is a trade secret of Amdahl Corporation.