On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:53:57PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:56:05AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 12:00:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > But why would you spend over 1000 pounds on an arm Linux desktop box > > > instead of a few hundred pounds on a random i386 desktop box? > > Because you don't want a 100+W dissipating screaming monster on your desk ? > > You can get low power x86 systems that have much better performance (> 1 > GHz).
They would be too slow for autobuilder work though. > > > A reasonable answer is because you're developing for arm's for embedded > > > applications; but if so, what's the big deal with using unstable or > > > snapshots, and running your public servers on other boxes? > > > > Because using unstable is not a workable solution. Try to make a daily > > unstable install, and count how many days it is broken on the tier1 arches, > > and see how worse it can become on tier2 slower arches. > > Most work for embedded systems would be cross-compiled from faster > systems anyway. Yeah, and most people doing it this way use windows as development platform anyway, i know. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
