Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 21:18, Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> wrote:
> > The most likely reason someone would pick the AMD64 architecture over
> > the PowerPC architecture is that AMD64 can natively run I386 binaries.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 10:22:52PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> Fast PPC systems are unreasonably expensive and most of them don't compete
> well with i386 systems.
There's other options, like itanium. Of course, that's expensive,
too.
The problem here -- the reason these alternatives are expensive --
is that they don't offer a migration path. The resulting low volume
sales has kept the price high.
> i386 systems are sold in bulk (low prices), and are assembled in a commodity
> manner which gives a good variety of parts that can be used. AMD64 is just
> the next generation of i386 server CPUs. Soon the 32bit Athlon and P4 CPUs
> will go the same way as the K6 and the P2 and it'll be all 64bit from both
> AMD and Intel.
Yep. Unfortunately, the current debian amd64 port pretty much ignores
this, because it's "inelegant".
> Once CPUs capable of running the AMD64 instruction set are commonly available
> a straight AMD64 system with no 32bit compatibility will be better than PPC
> on the basis of price and features.
That is true, and I did ignore this aspect. However, by this logic,
we should consider "amd64 architecture which offers 32 bit
compatability" to trump "ppc architecture which does not".
In other words, "that ppc doesn't have a /lib64" isn't sufficient reason
to not use that system on amd64.
--
Raul
Reply to: