Brian White said: >> But seriously, this is b*****ks. The place to start is making some >> decisions and building some software. All else is just fluff and >> handwaving. > > What do you think planning is if not making decisions?
OK, I'll be more specific -- making decisions that actually MEAN something. The only spec issue that affects how the real work is done is whether '9x is supported. Once that's decided, minimum CPU, RAM... that's just subjective fluff. The minimum spec is a version of Windows that the project supports, and a PC that will run it. At the very bottom end it will be dog slow. At what point will it start being useful? A matter of opinion, and it's pointless trying to set a fixed point. Say we settle on the NT line from v4 up -- some people will be able to do useful work with a 386 and 16MB. Compilation target doesn't interest me either, because I think the number of packages that will run significantly faster when built for i586 is pretty small. By all means do some tests and prove me wrong. >> The first job is to answer certain key technical questions (discussion >> of >> which can be found in the archives of this list, but the .exe issue and >> 9x >> compatibility spring to mind). > > That was asked and answered in the very first "planning" stage. I > proposed > that we try to make things match as closely to other Debian distributions > as possible (including dropping the .exe extension) and have the minimum > system requirements such that we could support this (i.e. NTFS). I'd agree with that, since it's what I have argued for all along. > I believe so, too. I would like to get some of this done and can do a > fair > amount in many respects, but I don't know enough about the base system to > put that together. Once that is done and the system becomes self-hosting, > then things can really get moving, but getting to that point is going to > be difficult. Yup, and you won't get any closer by talking about hardware specs. -- John Ineson
