>>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2007 at 10:44 PM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick Troth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Mark Post wrote: >> I want to point out that "the situation that the recent distributions >> are only available as 64-bit" was at the insistence of IBM itself. >> I personally still think that 31-bit versions are ... > > Well ... that is sad. Can you substantiate that?
Substantiate it in what way? What do you require to believe it? > I cannot offer MONEY to the IBM team(s) which support 31-bit > "Linux for S/390". But to abandon a platform is counter to > the whole effort behind Linux. (Not that platforms aren't lost.) This had nothing to do with the developers. It was a business decision made by IBM. The thinking (from what I was told) was that only a very small number of IBM shops didn't have 64-bit hardware, and they by definition were running unsupported, etc., etc., etc. I.e., it came down to money. Mark Post ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
