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

Re: 64-bit transition deadline (Re: Etch in the hands of the Stable Release Managers)



Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com> writes:
> On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 10:10:58PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com> writes:
>>> 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.
>> I don't believe that there will be a 64-bit battle in late 2008,
> Does that mean you don't believe there will be such battle, or that you
> don't believe the predicted date?

I don't believe that there will be such a battle. There is no reason to
switch from i386 to amd64, no real gain for users.

> Do you really intend to release in that date?  I'm not very informed about
> the release process, but it seems to me there's a psychological factor here,
> in which the first announced release date is intentionaly unrealistic.

There is no official schedule, this is my personal opinion, I'm a lowly
release assistant and wave the "I'm not speaking for the team"-flag all
the time.

>> FWIW, ESR is not a good reason to move from a goal-based
>> schedule to a time-based schedule.
> Hey, let's not make the discussion happen all around ESR. He doesn't deserve
> that.  If there's a reason to do this, ESR is _not_ that reason.  But he
> wrote a good essay that for the most part (i.e. when you ignore the blatant
> propaganda about non-free codecs) contains very interesting information.

I disagree here, because I believe the essay to be wrong and thus
worthless for further considerations. The basic assumption is that you
need to move to a new processor architecture because of a need for more
memory than your current architecture can manage. There are two reasons
why this argument is simply bullshit:
 (i) There is no real need for more than 2 GB of RAM on a desktop. Even
     servers are usually not in need of such a mass of memory, and this
     will not change in the next 18 months. [1] [2]
(ii) Apple has shown that transparent emulation between two processor
     architectures *can* be an option, and that multi-architecture
     binaries are also possible to smooth a transition. I doubt that
     Microsoft will be able to force all third-party vendors to
     transition to a new architecture at the same time, so Windows
     will be basically bi-arch at some point and users won't be forced
     to do a hard transition anyway, so there won't be a phase where
     Linux could gather all of those poor, aimless users under its
     cuddly penguin wings.

Anyway, debian-release@l.d.o is not the place to discuss such things,
they are not relevant for our decisions about a release schedule, there
is no actual goal that should be kept in mind for the release planning
and all of us can simply go on with out lifes.

Please do not answer on this list.

Marc

Footnotes: 
[1]  If it will become a problem, it will need a lot more time than
     that.
[2]  The new trend is virtualization anyway, so single instances of one
     OS rarely see more than a few hundred megs of RAM.
-- 
BOFH #290:
The CPU has shifted, and become decentralized.

Attachment: pgpYL5xyQ3ZXS.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: