Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>> I don't know if its this case or not. I derailed it, and case
>> materials need to be supplied. The idea that we could "fix" some of
>> the 32-bit performance problems, or offer an optional 64-bit only
>> distro, certainly has a certain amount of appeal.
>
> Its not this case or any other case we should/could create. (Except
> at the very, low extreme) We review projects proposed by project
> teams. We can suggest in Advice that such a project team should be
> formed. We can not dictate that projects be created [1].
What I meant is, the project team has not specified *any* case materials
yet. I derailed based upon an understanding of what the case intended
to do (and confirmation with project teams), but now that its derailed,
lets avoid assumptions about what this case is or is not about until the
project team gets a chance to provide us with futher materials.
>
> BTW: What is "an optional ... distro"?
I had in mind that users could download a version of OpenSolaris which
only had the 64-bit binaries, and lacked any support for running a
32-bit kernel. Obviously, since we still have to support 32-bit
processors, we would have to offer this *in addition* to the current
dual 32/64- bit distributions we offer. (At least until someone EOF's
support for older pentiums and earlier. Since I think you can still buy
32-bit only systems today, I don't imagine that EOF to be forthcoming soon.)
And on that note, lets just table this whole case until we get an update
from the project team. Seems kind of fruitless to continue further
discussion until we know exactly what the proposal on the table is.
-- Garrett
>
> - jek3
>
> [1] I remember that the ARCs have made the statement "we will not
> approve any projects in this specific area until XXX is fixed". The
> biggest one I remember was an LDAP disaster Solaris had about a decade
> ago, but this is far from the general case and completely
> inappropriate for this **marketing** decision.
