harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [general] Harmony Q2 release requirements
Date Tue, 06 Mar 2007 13:47:20 GMT

On Mar 6, 2007, at 12:31 AM, Stepan Mishura wrote:

> On 3/5/07, Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>>
>> <SNIP>
>> > >>>>> Since currently the most stable platform is Windows/IA32
I  
>> suggest
>> > >>>>> that Harmony Q2 will be released on that specific platform
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> you mean, we have no time for 2 platforms?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I mean we should IMHO make a focus: have superb results on a  
>> single
>> > >>> platform on a limited set of applications rather than have  
>> million
>> > >>> somehow working scenarios
>> > >>> on a dozen of platforms.
>> > >>
>> > >> Does it make sense?
>> > >
>> > > I think, limiting ourselves for the next milestone is a good
>> > > idea. Though, IMHO, limiting ourseles to windows is more of a
>> > > limitation than of making us focused. It does not take much  
>> effort to
>> > > support Linux with te same priority of bugfixing (if  
>> scenarious are
>> > > pretty automated), but lets people be sure that we are not to  
>> break
>> > > their work in favour to support windows faster.
>> > >
>> > > There may be a hybrid strategy: improve on windows, do not break
>> > > anything on Linux, seems pretty acceptable to me.
>> >
>> > I have zero interest in exclusively working on Windows.  None.   
>> Zip.
>> > Zero.  Nada.
>> >
>> > Linux is a peer distro for this project.  It always has been.
>> >
>> > To be an open source project that only distributes software for
>> > closed source ecosystems like Windows is the sort of irony I'd  
>> prefer
>> > not to be associated with :)
>>
>> Nobody is talking about being a project for Windows only.
>>
>> The idea is going deep first and extend in deapth next.
>>
>> If we try to have everything before we have something we will have
>> nothing:
>> if we try to have presense on each platform before we are solid on at
>> least
>> one platform we will lose: for each platform there always be  
>> "another"
>> implementation that is better.
>>
>> Instead we should stick to some specific platform, make it solid and
>> then extend
>
>
> I don't see a big issue here to ague about - my impression is that  
> most of
> the issues currently we have are OS-independent. Why not focus on
> architecture rather then OS? We've already implementation for  
> Windows/Linux.
> I've heard that Windows implementation a bit more optimized (VM  
> guys please
> correct me if I'm wrong). But is it really doesn't matter, IMHO,  
> they both
> are quite solid. And I think that improving both of them won't double
> required efforts (compared to improving implementation for one  
> selected OS).

Exactly.

>
>
> Let's say that x86 (Windows/Linux) is our primary focus. And next  
> goal is to
> be solid on x86-64 architecture.
>
> Thanks,
> Stepan Mishura
> Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division


Mime
View raw message