On 01/06/05, Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > IOW, it doesn't (directly) give meaningful predictions about the rate > > at which a given piece of hardware becomes obsolete. > > > > It also has no capacity to predict an organization's *ability* to > > replace hardware. > > ok, true > > > > I'm aware that more's law is not appliable on some archs (like arm > > > I believe) but the question is, well, who uses openoffice.org or > > > kde on an arm (only to cite those) ? > > > > This mitigates the linear growth of the archive itself (assuming we > > did subset the archive for slower archs), but it doesn't mitigate the > > growth of software complexity that causes subsequent revisions of the > > same software to run slower on the same hardware over time -- which, > > if it's true of nothing else, is at least true of compilers. > > hmmm, if you don't give such monsters like openoffice or any big c++ > application to build on slow/rare arches, I guess that will ease the > autobuilders a lot too, not only the archive. > > maybe the solution is to write a [EMAIL PROTECTED] (like [EMAIL PROTECTED] or > [EMAIL PROTECTED] does) in order to ease the autobuilders :D (kidding of > course)
wouldn't that just be like DistCC that all the Gentoo users rave about? > > -- > ·O· Pierre Habouzit > ··O [EMAIL PROTECTED] > OOO http://www.madism.org > > > -- N Jones
