On Mon Jun 09, 2003 at 10:36:42PM +0200, Stefan van der Eijk wrote: > Vincent, > > I'm sorry if you took my post personally...
Personal? Hardly. > I find it amusing that every time this subject (status of non-i586 > ports) comes up, mdk employees become very defensive. Why? Errr... not defensive. Simply attempting to clear up some misunderstandings. > I also find it amusing that the view I have on the subject seems to be > totally screwed up. I guess I don't understand how products are > developped and how businesses are run. Maybe it's time to visit my > shrink again? I'm in no position to recommend anything regarding your mental health. That is for you or your chosen professional to decide. > >>>You don't need to post to PPC and X86_64. Mandrake builds for and > >>>supportes > >>>the following archs: x86, ia64, x86_64, and PPC. > >>> > >>>I think you guys are missing the point that some of these archs are being > >>>developed and supported. > >>> > >>> > >>Note: "some" is the key word in the sentence above. > >> > >> > > > >Of course it is. That's why I used it. > > > Thought so. I don't know why you focused on that. I think you were just trying to pick a fight. Of course "some" is the correct word to use. Do we support sparc? No. Do we support alpha? No. Do we support mips or any other arch? No. Do we support PPC/x86/x86-64/ia64? Yes. Are they all cooker? No. No one claimed we supported them all so why you're focusing on the word "some" in a sentence that did not refute anything you had previously claimed other than disagreeing with your perception of a supported arch, I don't know. > >>IA64: Last package uploaded: > >> -rw-r--r-- 1 mandrake rpm 171556 Feb 28 09:54 > >>ispell-3.1.20-16mdk.ia64.rpm > >>'nough said. > >> > >> > > > >Internal building? There is a Corporate Server for ia64 in the works. > > > >Just because "cooker" itself isn't being built, publically available, for > >cooker does not mean no work for it is being done. Since I'm not directly > >involved in the ports, I don't know if they are building/testing cooker > >internally, but I believe they are. > > > >The reason ia64 and x86_64 may not be on public mirrors is the same reason > >Stew mentions below. It's not worth the bandwidth to put cooker/ia64 or > >cooker/x86_64 on mirrors when a handful of people will test. What's the > >point of taking up mirror space when 5 people have the capability/desire to > >test it? > > > Interesting. The alpha distro is on the mirrors. It is consuming > bandwidth. And there is no future for it, at least, that is what > Gwennole and other mdk employees tell me. Management is quiet about it. Ummm.. what version is that alpha distro? Nevermind. I think it's been so long someone just plain old forgot to delete it. > >You forget that ia64 and x86_64 are far from "mainstream" yet. > > > >'nuff said. > > > yep... 'nuff said. If it ain't mainstream, why develop it? Should be a > lot easier to develop it when it gets mainstream. In the meantime, put > out a press release telling that you're developing it... > > wait... hmmm... what did I just say? Ok, now you're just being silly. This argument of resources and time and mangement has been beaten around so long I wonder why I even bother poking my head up in these threads. If you can't understand that money makes the world go round, there's no helping you. I don't care if something is 90% developed by the community, there is still 10% that has to be paid for by someone and that someone is MandrakeSoft who, quite frankly, is not in a position to start pumping out as many ports as Debian. So do we wait for mainstream? Hell yes. Why do you think there hasn't been a PPC release for every x86 release? Because someone thinks it costs too much to develop for the return of sales. Think about it. > >No, they don't paint a different picture. It paints a very accurate and > >sensivle picture. If there is no one on cooker-ppc, or few people, who are > >interested in developing/testing cooker/PPC, why use the bandwidth? It's > >the same issue as x86_64 and ia64. This doesn't mean there isn't internal > >interest in it at all... but why use/waste bandwidth for a dozen people who > >may be half-heartedly using it? Compiling just for the sake of compiling > >is > >silly... Stew has other responsibilities beyond just the PPC port. > > > >And, as he indicated, and has happened with previous versions, once 9.2/x86 > >is done and cooker is re-opened, work on PPC will begin again. That is > >what > >has happened in the past. It also has, I might add, worked well. > > > >That being said, we are attempting to rectify the questions around PPC once > >and for all, but this is a mangement call and takes time. > > > > I'm not a manager... but what I've learnt in my 29yrs of walking the > planet: better a wrong descision than no descision at all... Yes, well, tell that to management. I'm not a manager either. I'm waiting for the same resolution as you. > >No. It just means that Stew doesn't have concrete answers regarding the > >future of PPC. I don't have these answers either. I *am* trying to get > >them, once and for all. As soon as this is known, rest assured, the list > >will know. > > > Ah... that's clear then. For now, it's dead. It may be reanimated post 9.2. That's what happened in the past, I don't know why you expected something completely different considering that's what happened for 8.0/PPC and 8.2/PPC. > >>x86_64 is (is it?) being developed somewhere out of sight... > >> > >> > > > >http://www.mandrakesoft.com/company/press/pr?n=/pr/products/2418 > > > >This shows that Corporate Server, a more accurate target for this platform, > >has been released. Making a 9.1 for x86_64 at this time just doesn't make > >sense because Mandrake Linux is a desktop distro. So the resources were > >put > >into the corporate product for a corporate (currently) architecture. Once > >x86_64 and/or ia64 become more mainstream (read: consumer availability and > >pricing), there will likely be regular Mandrake Linux distribs for that > >architecture. > > > >In fact, read this: > > > >http://www.mandrakesoft.com/company/community/mandrakesoftnews/news?n=/mandrakesoft/news/2414 > >"Mandrake Linux 9.0 for AMD 64-bit technology is available. 2003-03-13" > > > > "and is also available on several public FTP mirrors" > where? > or: can't do that --> too much bandwidth, nobody wants it? I don't know. I never bothered to look. I don't have an AMD64 processor to run it on. I suppose you could ask Gwenole where you might find it. > "a product dedicated to server deployment in medium to large accounts" > > I regularly work for enterprise customers here in the Netherlands. > Mandrake is not on the picture there, by far. Mdk currently doesn't have > the capability to execute. That's neither here nor there. I'm glad you're working for some fancy folks over there who think that Mandrake is no good for them. Bravo. What this has to do with the discussion at hand I have no idea. > >Reading the cooker list is not sufficient for getting all the info. Press > >releases are often helpful as well. > > > Anybody can make a press release... Following up, that's a different story. Yeah. Ok. Sure. Check MandrakeStore. Corporate Server for x86_64 is being sold. It *is* being followed up. I'm sure if you looked around a little, you might even find that 9.0/x86_64 version as well. I've done all the looking for you that I can stand, so if you want to find it, find it. I really have nothing further to contribute to this thread. What a waste of time. -- MandrakeSoft Security; http://www.mandrakesecure.net/ Online Security Resource Book; http://linsec.ca/ "lynx -source http://linsec.ca/vdanen.asc | gpg --import" {FE6F2AFD : 88D8 0D23 8D4B 3407 5BD7 66F9 2043 D0E5 FE6F 2AFD}
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
