[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting



On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:30:20 +1100, Hamish Moffatt writes:
>On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:06:18PM +0000, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
>> * Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org> [2005-03-14 23:00]:
>> > But really, is there much benefit in making *releases* for the SCC
>> > architectures?
>> 
>> For some SSC arches, it *might* not make a difference (possibly m68k)
>> but others (e.g. s390 and mipsel) are typically used for servers
>> or gateways, and you don't really want to run unstable in such
>> environments.  testing+security updates might be a compromise, but
>> unstable is clearly not an option for a S390 box or a mipsel Cobalt
>> gateway.
>
>OK, that makes sense. Can you buy those architectures new? (Surely yes
>in the case of s390 at least, probably mipsel also as the mips CPU
>manufacturers are alive and well.)

Why should we start following some greedy manufacturers' EOL decisions?  
How and why does X being sold affect the lack of manufacturer support
(that's available without signing an NDA and thus is of interest to
us)?

All the other criteria I can understand (not that I agree with
them fully), but that one just stinks. We claim to be community-driven,
so we should act that way. The manufacturers' sale spiel should in
no way affect us.

az

-- 
+ Alexander Zangerl + DSA 42BD645D + (RSA 5B586291)
About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt
ax.  It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead.
 -- Dijkstra

Attachment: pgpZzo74BhFN5.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: