harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Yang Paulex" <paulex.y...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] Harmony Q2 release requirements
Date Tue, 06 Mar 2007 07:34:35 GMT
2007/3/6, Stepan Mishura <stepan.mishura@gmail.com>:
>
> 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).
>
>
> Let's say that x86 (Windows/Linux) is our primary focus. And next goal is
> to
> be solid on x86-64 architecture.


+1

Thanks,
> Stepan Mishura
> Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division
>



-- 
Paulex Yang
China Software Development laboratory
IBM

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message