> > Those are two reasons. > > > > Unfortunately, the current debian amd64 port doesn't look like it supports > > cedega (forinstance). > > > > More generally, by not providing 32 bit support, we're reducing the > > bang/buck ratio.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 09:18:39PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Let me put it that way: > > You Do Not Get To Decide What Hardware People Buy. > > Agreed? Sure. > Fact of life: amd64 boxen are going to be very common. > Fact of life: for very large subset of debian userland, pure64 works and > on these boxen it works better than debian/i386. I'm disputing this. So far, I offer as evidence the fact that 32 bit userland has been a crucial element in amd64's success. So far as counter evidence, I'm getting handwaving and "that's not how I built my machine". > Fact of life: multiarch is vapour and will not be usable for quite a while. I'm talking about 64/32 bit userland -- which is something other distributions already offer. That's not vapor. > Care to explain how not having any 64bit userland would be better? It'll be a lot easier to support 64/32 bit userland this way. > > > It currently looks like ia32 will be replaced by amd64/ia32e as both > > > AMD64 and intel are changing the products and adding the > > > 64-bit extension does not seem to be very expensive for the CPU > > > manufacturers. > > > > Agreed. And, Debian's amd64 currently isn't positioned to be useful in > > this sense. > > In which sense? Given an amd64 box (and that's not up to you), having > that beast is better than not having it. If nothing else, i386 with > amd64 kernel and pure64 in chroot is *obviously* better than i386 alone. In the sense of sane a straightforward 32+64 bit environment. I have an amd64 box -- that is indeed up to me. I've got 64+32 bit userland because my toolchain (binutils+gcc+libc) was built that way. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
