>> Thought so. > > I don't know why you focused on that. I think you were just trying to > pick a fight.
I'm trying to get some of the inconsitancies I see in this whole "ports" story out of this world. That's all. > 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. i586: yes. The rest, IMHO: hardly. Or does mdk have a different definition for "support"? > Are they all cooker? No. That would kill the pricetag of the products... > 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? Latest package were updated something like today? Look, they're even on mandrakeclub! http://rpms.mandrakeclub.com/rpms/ByDate.html > Nevermind. I think it's been so long someone just plain old forgot to > delete it. Come on. You're being inconsistant here... I've asked mdk management multiple times what the "official" status is of the alpha port. I don't get an answer. I've told mdk management multiple times that if the alpha port is not going to bring in $$$, that they should kill it --> remove it from internal system and mirrors. Stop wasting resources and risking the shareholders investment. How can I be more clear? >> >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. No, I'm dead serious. > 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. I'm also wondering :-) > If you can't understand that money makes the world go round, there's no > helping you. Don't worry, I have a clear understanding that money makes the world go round... > 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. Fair. Then I suugest this is made clear and action is taken. > 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. The pricetags on the x86_64 product should help a bit... What would worry me as a ppc customer, is that the next product may not even be shipped. Just like microsoft did with NT4. First there was alpha, ix86, MIPS and PPC. MIPS and PPC soon died, alpha was killed after NT4. Of course, with the way that a linux is built, it's fairly easy to do a few ports, unlike the microsoft product. > Think about it. Sure.. Problem is also that your development model seems to be of the "sprint to the finish" type. IMHO, if mdk were serious about developing a quality product on multiple platforms, then these should be developed in parallel. This parallel development doesn't _have_ to cost much $$$, if you have the infrastructure & policies in place. Releases can be skipped, but development shouldn't stop or be put on hold. I (and some others) are willing to help you change this --> make it easier and less costly to develop products in parallel. >> >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. OK. Thank you for clearing this up. I guess this is where the real issue is, and that by talking to you I'm barking at the wrong tree. Can you point me to the right trees (forest)? >> >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. OK. clear. >> >>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. I think I've asked him before... got a vague answer back... I'll look it up when I return home tonight. It was in the previous discussion about this topic. >> "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. And I'm sad it's this way. I'd much rather be using Mandrake than deploying Redhat. I like mandrake's technology (like urpmi) more. > What this has to do with the discussion at hand I have no idea. Just picked it up out of the press release. I think serving enterprise customers is something mdk should pay more attention to. The desktop eye-candy is nice, but it won't bring much $$$ to the company. IMHO, the enterprise customers are willing to pay for a suported product, unlike end-users (they'll just download it). Getting things like LDAP, Active Directory integration, enterprise infrastructure management and such applications in is important. >> >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. OK, it's there... by the way: nice pricetag. > I really have nothing further to contribute to this thread. What a > waste of time. Sounds like a WOMBAT? keep smiling! regards, Stefan
