Debian 11 “bullseye” freeze started

Post by magicalhippo » Sat, Jan 16, 2021, 12:03 AM UTC

bayindirh wrote: post #90

dagw wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who doesn't use Debian as my only (or even main) OS, but does manage a few Debian servers, I completely disagree on memorable. I can never remember the order of code names and whenever I read something like "stretch or later" I always have to Google to find out if the servers I have qualify or not. Other than that, I have zero complaints about Debian

> I can never remember the order of code names... Me neither, don't worry about it :) > I read something like "stretch or later"... Well, they're really irresponsible if they're writing like that. All of the places I've seen, downloaded debs either write Debian 9+ or Debian 9+ (Stretch and later) or any similar fashion. I didn't encounter any Debian $codename only compatibility notes. I also don't write $codename onl…

Post by jabl » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 10:47 AM UTC

ncmncm wrote: post #92

jabl wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, SGI used to make those huge shared memory NUMA machines based on MIPS (then they switched to IA-64, after that x86-64, and then they got bought by HPE). But yes, I guess that's far enough back in time that they didn't have any formal model for the behavior. I guess they had some kind of prose specification, and then they just winged it.

My recollection (from discussion with an engineer on that project) was that they were using Itanium there. They used Itanium in preference to amd64 because amd64 had one fewer address pin than they memory they wanted to put on needed.