Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
You sure did make a mess for library developers.
The Alpha is trivial to support.
Maybe, but AFAIR, the Alpha doesn't have a 32-bit mode
like 64-bit PowerPC processors do. IIRC, S390x and SPARC64
have the same issues... except the number of 32-bit users
on those platfo
Peter Bergner writes:
> Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
>> Why:
>> Somebody thought it was a good idea for a 64-bit
>> system to have all the apps be 32-bit.
>
> As one of the people that made the decision that the
> majority (not all) apps be 32-bit, I can say without
> hesitation that it was the right
Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> Why:
> Somebody thought it was a good idea for a 64-bit
> system to have all the apps be 32-bit.
As one of the people that made the decision that the
majority (not all) apps be 32-bit, I can say without
hesitation that it was the right choice!
> This means that a 32-b
Just wanted to say hello to everyone. I have been following this _great_
mailing list for about 2 weeks now. You helped me get my ibook2.2 up and
running :D. Also wanted to thank Ben H for his excellent work.
Also, I think this question is very valid. At what point _do_ you draw the
line?
-ajay
Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
This is kind of a survey for PowerPC Linux users.
Is it OK to make 32-bit PowerPC apps bigger and
slower to allow for running them on IBM's 64-bit
hardware? This would hurt everyone running Linux
on a Mac.
My vote is *NO*.
Why not have the people running such systems u
I don't quite understand the issue.
- Original Message -
From: "Albert D. Cahalan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ross Vumbaca" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Albert D. Cahalan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 2:02 AM
S
Geert Uytterhoeven writes:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
This is kind of a survey for PowerPC Linux users.
Is it OK to make 32-bit PowerPC apps bigger and
slower to allow for running them on IBM's 64-bit
hardware? This would hurt everyone running Linux
on
On Jan 30 2003, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> This is kind of a survey for PowerPC Linux users. Is it OK to make
> 32-bit PowerPC apps bigger and slower to allow for running them on
> IBM's 64-bit hardware? This would hurt everyone running Linux on a
> Mac.
IMVHO, it would make life *even* h
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:42:44PM +1100, Ross Vumbaca wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> >This is kind of a survey for PowerPC Linux users.
> >Is it OK to make 32-bit PowerPC apps bigger and
> >slower to allow for running them on IBM's 64-bit
> >hardware? This would hurt everyone running
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> >> This is kind of a survey for PowerPC Linux users.
> >> Is it OK to make 32-bit PowerPC apps bigger and
> >> slower to allow for running them on IBM's 64-bit
> >> hardware? This would hurt everyone running Linux
> >> on a Mac.
> >
> > 32 bit PowerPC
>> This is kind of a survey for PowerPC Linux users.
>> Is it OK to make 32-bit PowerPC apps bigger and
>> slower to allow for running them on IBM's 64-bit
>> hardware? This would hurt everyone running Linux
>> on a Mac.
>
> 32 bit PowerPC Linux is not exclusive to the Mac. It is run
> on PowerPC A
Hi,
Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
This is kind of a survey for PowerPC Linux users.
Is it OK to make 32-bit PowerPC apps bigger and
slower to allow for running them on IBM's 64-bit
hardware? This would hurt everyone running Linux
on a Mac.
32 bit PowerPC Linux is not exclusive to the Mac. It is run
On Wed, 2003-01-29 21:11, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> This is kind of a survey for PowerPC Linux users.
> Is it OK to make 32-bit PowerPC apps bigger and
> slower to allow for running them on IBM's 64-bit
> hardware? This would hurt everyone running Linux
> on a Mac.
It seems inevitable that bloati
13 matches
Mail list logo
