How long will 64bit Ubuntu users have to wait?
Mark at Reitblatt.com
Sat Sep 30 07:03:11 BST 2006
On 9/30/06, Kilz _ <kilzzz at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for editing things I said out. Remember the A and B.
"Since someone has to have a reason for running the operating system designed
for their hardware in your opinion. a and some b"
That last sentence makes no sense by itself. Please take the time to
proofread your emails to make sure they even make sense.
> Thats 3d
Not exactly common on the average desktop I wager. And among those
that use it casually, I doubt many of them have systems that take
advantage of the 64bit (48bit) memory space. Or will in the near
future. We are talking a very very small percentage here. There are
many other areas for the developers to focus their attention that the
majority of Ubuntu users will benefit from.
> But still there is no basis for you to tell a 64bit system owner
> they have to use any version over another.
Umm. Yes, there most certainly is such a basis. Namely that support
for the 64bit desktop is poorer than for the 32bit. I thought that was
the whole point of this train-wreck? You have had your answer: It's
not an immediate priority. Not a surprising conclusion given that your
argument consisted of little more than "but 64 is bigger than 32!" and
"you can't make us use 32bit!".
> That talk sounds like the modern
> day Microsoft.
What's with the MS hate? This goes for everyone. It comes off as quite
childish. "Ooo, Microsoft did A! We MUST do ^A otherwise we are
EBIL!". Drop the boogy-man. It's not productive. It can serve as a
(somewhat) decent guideline occasionally (very rarely?), but let's not
go overboard and make it an infallible litmus test. It's especially
amusing coming from a Hotmail address with MSN advertisements as a
> Share your special moments by uploading 500 photos per month to Windows Live
More information about the ubuntu-devel