Matthias-Christian Ott [2007-10-06 14:09]:
Tilman Sauerbeck <tilman@crux.nu> wrote:
Matthias-Christian Ott [2007-10-06 12:26]:
I do not see why C++ would have been so essential to the spirit of CRUX: there is no precise design or aim behind that choice, and the advantages of C over C++ are, I would say, well known.
Yes, but including standard algorithm source code (lists, binary search trees) conflicts (in my opinion) with the design philosophy of CRUX.
Well, the current CRUX maintainers believe otherwise it seems. And all of us are long time users and contributors, so I believe we do know better about what fits with CRUX' philosophy, and Per's ideas of this distribution than you.
OK, if that is the CRUX philosophy, than the philosophy has to be changed also.
Heh, so you're not interested in CRUX at all? :D
architecture. Why should CRUX restrict their usage to i686?
Because it's the most widespread architecture in use in typical desktop and server systems today.
But what about people that do not have a i686 system, but agree with the CRUX philosophy?
In the past, those people developed their own CRUX flavor in parallel or not so much in parallel to CRUX x86. Examples of this are Daniels' crux64, Matt's and Johannes' crux-sparc and of course also Hannes' current 64 bit Crux and the two PPC flavors. We know this situation isn't perfect, but so far we haven't found a solution that all of the affected parties liked.
eg I only have i686 boxes, how the hell can I vouch for my ported software if I cannot even test it on x86-64?
The software has been (in the majority of cases) already tested by the original developers, we just package them.
This just works in theory, not in practice :) Regards, Tilman -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?