* Raul Miller (moth@debian.org) wrote: > On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 04:16:48PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > It does support a number of commercial binaries though already, for > > those that need them. Many of us don't. > > I don't know what you mean here. Is "It" amd64 or cedega? I'm guessing > amd64. Are the commercial binaries i386 or amd64? I'm guessing amd64. > > Unless the debian amd64 port supports 32 bit binaries (the 32 bit binaries > I'm using on an amd64 system are available for free, though they're not > dfsg free) I think you're missing my point. The Debian amd64 port does support some 32 bit binaries through the use of ia32-libs. Personally, I don't know (or really care...) how good the support is. The impression I've been given is that you need something that depends on pretty much only glibc. Of course, I believe this is the case for many commercial binaries. I'm very curious as to what, specifically, *you* need. Though I would appriciate it if you could look beyond that to what the rest of the community needs as well. > I don't know how you quantify *reality*, but when I was first putting > together my amd64 system, I was certain I could get by without any 32 > bit apps. It turns out I was wrong. I'm mildly suprised, I've been doing quite well with it so far, as have a number of other people. Certainly there are some commercial/binary-only things which don't work yet, but then, commercial vendors are starting to provide AMD64 binaries too, which should work on Debian AMD64 (if they don't then let us know and we'll try to help figure out why). > > > > It currently looks like ia32 will be replaced by amd64/ia32e as both > > > > AMD64 and intel are changing the products and adding the > > > > 64-bit extension does not seem to be very expensive for the CPU > > > > manufacturers. > > > > > > Agreed. And, Debian's amd64 currently isn't positioned to be useful in > > > this sense. > > > > Not positioned to be useful? Where the hell do you get that idea from? > > Did you bother reading what you were replying to? > > I'm saying that Debian's current amd64 port isn't positioned to be useful > in as providing extensions to a 32 bit environment. > > That's not saying it's not useful. It's saying that it's not providing > a very specific form of use. The way you responded to the paragraph didn't make it clear what sense you were meaning (at least to my first read of it), sorry. Though, indeed, Debian's amd64 port is positioned to be useful in it's own right, not as a simple extention of a 32bit environment. Most of us strongly prefer this. > > Do you even *use* Debian? Do you realize that 97% (or whatever) of > > Debian is already *available* on Debian's amd64? > > I use Debian. On amd64. For now, I'm using it (the i386 flavor) in a > chroot jail on a gentoo base, or by rebooting into it. This is mildly interesting. You would prefer to have to continue to do that until sarge+1? Personally, I'd rather run Debian amd64 and Debian/i386 in a chroot if I had to, though thankfully I havn't run into anything I need that's only available as 32bit, yet. Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature