Re: amd64 and sarge
Xavier Roche wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Frederik Schueler wrote:
Not adding pure64 at all is not very suitable for much more of our
users than those two or three who want to run non-DFSG-free software,
Do you have any reliable statistics ? And this is not only a non-DFSG
Xavier, if you want statistics, you might dig into the popcon data. I
don't understand the purpose of your observation. Are you really
suggesting that an architecture should not be released by Debian because
some of the software in "non-free" cannot be installed on it ? Perhaps
you disapprove having "ia64" and "alpha" in stable ... because I can't
run Netscape, Realplayer, etc on them.
32-64 bit migration has many drawbacks, and is not something that most
administrators will do directly. You can't migrate a regular production
server on 64 bit in one step.
Do you have any reliable statistics to justify that assertion ?
Oh, do you remember the Itanium fiasco and its "pure 64 bit" architecture?
Yes. Like s390, ia64 is more expensive and cannot boot i386
architecture. What does that have to do with amd64, which is cheaper
than high end ia32 hardware and is able to dual boot to i386
architecture as needed for the migration strategy ?