How long will 64bit Ubuntu users have to wait?

[Mark Reitblatt]

On 9/29/06, Kilz _ <kilzzz at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Since someone has to have a reason for running the operating system designed
> for their hardware in your opinion.

Huh? You barge in here demanding that resources be shifted to support
x86_64 and when asked why perfect x86_64 support was needed this is
your response? You sound like you think 64 bit is some magic thing
that is automatically better than 32 bit. There are certain use cases
that certainly benefit from x86_64 which were mentioned earlier, but
virtually nothing for the average desktop user. You want perfect 64
bit support? Explain why it is needed. I imagine the majority of
people using x86_64 on the desktop are just doing it for the hell of
it*. Prove me wrong.


> Since you have brought up Vista. Isn't it a shame that once it is released
> you are going to have a hard time doing the same to 64bit system owners who
> want to switch? That is unless you expect people running 64bit Vista to want
> to downgrade to 32bit to get functionality they are used to.

I think this is the problem. You seem to think that "downgrading" from
x86_64 to x86 is somehow "bad". The reality is most people get no real
benefit either way. Instead of crying about having to "downgrade", why
don't you see if you can even justify working on a 64 bit desktop in
the first place. Just because "the hardware is 64 bit" is a horrible
reason. If you can't justify it, how in the world can you possibly
justify demanding that other people divert resources to support your
arbitrary decision?


* I mean desktop as in "not workstation or server".

-- 
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in
society -- Mark Twain