Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:53:57PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:56:05AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:00:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > 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?
> > Because you don't want a 100+W dissipating screaming monster on your desk ?
>
> You can get low power x86 systems that have much better performance (> 1
> GHz).
They would be too slow for autobuilder work though.
> > > 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?
> >
> > Because using unstable is not a workable solution. Try to make a daily
> > unstable install, and count how many days it is broken on the tier1 arches,
> > and see how worse it can become on tier2 slower arches.
>
> Most work for embedded systems would be cross-compiled from faster
> systems anyway.
Yeah, and most people doing it this way use windows as development platform
anyway, i know.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: