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

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

On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:00:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Darren Salt wrote:
> >I demand that Anthony Towns may or may not have written...
> >>Put them behind a firewall on a trusted LAN, use them to develop software
> >>for arm chips, and then just follow unstable or run non-security-supported
> >>snapshots. Apart from writing software for embedded arm things, I can't 
> >>see
> >>the value
> >"Linux desktop box" comes to mind...
> 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 it's cool. In both senses of the word (have you ever had to
measure the temperature of an i386 box?)

My current laptop is not a powerpc-based one because it's cheap as
compared to equally fast i386-based hardware...

> 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 you want to focus on fixing bugs in /your/ software rather than
in the toolchain that breaks it in different ways with every upgrade?

> >>-- and if an arch is just going to be used for development, does it really
> >>need all the support we give stable in order to make it useful for servers
> >>and such?
> >Probably not, but ISTM that you'll first have to ascertain that it *is* 
> >only
> >being used for development before you can say that that support definitely
> >isn't needed.
> Uh, you've got that round the wrong way: you don't do something because 
> you can't say support definitely isn't needed, you do something because 
> you *can* say support definitely *is* needed.

Joey Schulze has already said that doing security support for two
architectures is exactly as hard as doing security support for twenty
architectures, so the point about supporting stable is kindof moot. The
same isn't true for testing, obviously.

     smog  |   bricks
 AIR  --  mud  -- FIRE
soda water |   tequila
 -- with thanks to fortune

Reply to: