Re: 64-bit transition deadline (Re: Etch in the hands of the Stable Release Managers)
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 09:11:38PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Robert Millan <email@example.com> writes:
> > On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 02:54:12PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> >> * We want to restrict the release cycle for Lenny to less than 2 years,
> >> we want to discuss experiences of Etch first though to get a more
> >> accurate time planning.
> > 2 years means april 2009, which is past the 64-bit transition deadline:
> > http://catb.org/~esr/writings/world-domination/world-domination-201.html
> We do support enough 64 bit architectures (including the mainstream
I agree that the distribution itself is well supported . For some reason,
though, its popularity doesn't reflect much wider spread availability of
64-bit capable hardware, but that's a separate discussion.
 with the exception of wine which is not present ;-)
> and ESR is a brainless fuckwit,
Haha, yes. He's also using his essay to promote his views about supporting
non-free software, etc. But that doesn't mean he (and the other co-authors)
aren't making very interesting points in it.
> so I don't see how this is
> relevant for us. Could you clarify what you think that we need to do for
> a 64-bit OS that is not yet in etch?
Just what we're always doing. Package new software, and improve things
everywhere. etch is good, but certainly lenny is going to be better.
The thing is, that if lenny will be released post-deadline, all the
improvements carried by it will be of no use for the 64-bit battle that
will have finished by late 2008. Of course, if we lose that battle we
can still keep fighting, but the major benefit of beating microsoft
completely off the 64-bit market in just a few months will be lost.
My spam trap is firstname.lastname@example.org. Note: this address is only intended
for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list.