|
I don't think so re: 32 bit...voted no....I tend to run Virtual Machines, actually, VB PUEL edition keeps me from booting into windows!
|
It would be nice if all programs played well with 64bits, however some just don't. If you have one or two of these programs that you have to use, and you do not wish to have to run two different systems, then you should probably answer yes.
If not then no would be a good choice. Nobody is forcing the developers of our favourite system to do anything that they don't want to, I am sure that they look in from time to time and can make educated guesses as to what the system and it's users needs. Please try to keep speculation and personal politics to a minimum, after all it is just a yes/no question :) samac |
Quote:
|
no.
|
Compatibility for migration
32-bit compatibility would make migration easier. However, I think I can swing it with with a separate 32-bit root, as opposed to a multilib setup in a common root. So I'd just need to have 32-bit compatibility turned on in the kernel (I build my own anyway). I'd just do a full install of 32-bit slackware in one directory tree, and 64-bit slackware in another directory tree, and pick which one to be root at boot time. This could be done via initramfs, initrd, or a patch I wrote for the kernel to allow choosing a subdirectory to be root on the parameter line.
|
By the looks of today's changelog, multilib will at least be possible in Slackware64. I don't expect the Slackware team to have to maintain the extra packages required for multilib, however I think it's nice that it will at least be possible.
|
Quote:
|
I'd appreciate a multilib system but can live without, especially if going multilib makes everything (maintainance for the Slack team, compiling) much more complicated and if it brings weird behaviour.
|
From the Slackware64 -current ChangeLog.txt:
Code:
Mon May 25 17:52:56 CDT 2009Maybe we can install 32-bit packages with some care, and they'll run, but perhaps not be *officially supported* by Slackware. |
Beowulf999 posted this in another thread.
Quote:
|
I don't know if I'm the only one, but I think a pure 64bit OS would be most desirable. It also fits our KISS principle.
|
I vote for Yes.
Primo: easier and quicker distro-upgrade from previous version of Slack. Secundo: there are to many software not ready for 64-bit (ie. Wine, Skype, Sane)... ;) |
Hi all,
Transitions in the computer world are a pain in the butt. I personally dislike setting up a new operating system, personalizing my settings, personalizing my wife's settings, etc. One of the things that I really like about Slackware is that, after I set it up, it basically runs unattended without problems -- except for applying the occasional security patch. The important things for me are the applications. I need stuff to work and to work well. Slackware is an excellent distribution for adding lots of esoteric libraries to get even more esoteric programs to run (e.g. QGIS, GRASS, Wine, Scribus, Inkscape). If 32-bit compatibility is necessary for some of those programs, then I'm all for it. I'm not saying that the full Slackware installation needs to have everything pre-installed, but I'd like to be able to use 32-bit libraries if I need them. However, this may be a moot point. The above-quoted section from the --current changelog shows that 32-bit compatibility will be enabled. Regards, -Drew |
I didn't voted because i wait to see if pure 64 is possible with all the stuff i use @home and @work...
In order to chroot and execute programs in a single script : ########################## #!/bin/sh cd /home/me/my_slack32_environment chroot ./ <<EndChroot /usr/bin/run_my_32bit_app EndChroot ########################## |
I vote Yes
certainly at least 5 years more An operating system is to serve applications, not applications to serve operating system. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:34 AM. |