Re: 64-bit transition deadline (Re: Etch in the hands of the Stable Release Managers)
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 04:36:06PM +0100, Luis Matos wrote:
> Ter, 2007-04-10 às 08:28 -0600, Warren Turkal escreveu:
> > On Tuesday 10 April 2007 07:43, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> > > > I may have exaggerated by saying 20 years, but I will not settle for
> > > > less than 10. And we need those anyway to compare results obtained by
> > > > one software against the other.
> > >
> > > This is interesting. I often hear people citing pros and cons of FLOSS
> > > and commercial stuff, but don't remember anyone stating such
> > > extravagant development gaps as 10 years or so. I'd like to hear
> > > opinions of others who have also used those Cplex Maple, and whatever
> > > else you may have in mind. This however brings to mind libre CAD stuff
> > > which truly lags behind.
> >
> > People wouldn't use those programs more than the free equivalents if there
> > weren't some reason. Sometimes that reason is that the proprietary solution
> > has a larger library of extras (libs, etc.) around it that makes it easier to
> > quickly do something without reinventing the wheel. Sometimes the reason is
> > as simple as someone doesn't want to have to learn a new software package or
> > port all there stuff to a new software. These are hard barriers to overcome.
>
> Maybe software vendors will look at linux for more power for less
> hardware, using 64 bit solution.
I already said (in this thread) that these software are already
linux-friendly, proposing several versions compiled against varying
glibc, and probably do exist for 64 bits. If we use these, it is that
they work under the current Debian distribution. What I was afraid of,
was to forget that even the academic world cannot always abide the pure
only-free software rule. The progress of science is more important (in
the context of academic research) than the pureness of freedom.
I recognize that this is "niche software" (English is not my native
language, I hope this is the right term), but this is important "niche
software". As said above, academics prefere using free software, but
will use what is the most advanced if necessary. For example, gcc is the
compiler of choice, but for some cases icc is deemed necessary.
My point is: do what Debian must, but do not consider breaking
commercial software lightly, and do not think that freedom is all what
is required by some well-known target audience such as universities.
Tolerance is as great a value (in some contexts).
Reply to: