On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 13:46 -0700, keith mannthey wrote:
On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 15:43 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 12:29:34PM -0700, keith mannthey wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 14:34 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 11:24:42AM -0700, keith mannthey wrote:
> > >
> > > > Modern Summit hardware x460 is EMT64e (x440,x445 is not) but as
you
> > > > know sometimes customers run 32bit OS's on 64bit boxes.
> > >
> > > I hear this from time to time, and every time I ask "why
doesn't
> > > 32bit emulation in 64bit kernel work for you work?", the only
> > > answers that seen to come back are various flavours of
> > > "we didn't know about it" or "haven't tried
it".
> >
> > Is there a "Guarantee" that 32bit apps will just work with 64bit
> > kernels? I don't think all 32bit apps test (or work) on 64bit OS and a
> > such don't fall in the "Supported" configuration. Customers like
to have
> > ground to stand on when things break. If they run unsupported in their
> > software stack things can get messy (who will fix it?) if problems arise
> > or performance is bad compared to 32bit native.
>
> This is exactly the sort of hand-waving I was talking about.
> If something doesn't work, lets find out why and _FIX_ it.
> Scaremongering, and handwaving isn't going to solve a single bug.
As noted ISV's move slow and customers even slower. Some customers
would still buy AS2.1 if they could. I have head customers say (this
year) that the can't move to 2.6 (RHEL 4) because it hasn't been out
long enough and saw the risk as too high. It is out of my scope for me
to say what all the reasons are for why customers don't just run 64-bit
all the time, but they don't. I think change takes time.
but how is that type of customer relevant for FC6 ?