Why are there only i686 and i586 Version of glibc and kernel? -- more "mainstream" or "popular"?

[Bryan J. Smith]

Matthew Miller wrote:  
> Okay. "Older" isn't the right word. "Non-mainstream PC" maybe.
> You mention embedded x86 processors -- that's exactly my point.

I _swear_ this is _not_ meant to be argumentative.

But you mention "mainstream."  What does that mean?
If it means "more popular," I'm not sure that's a good term.
Because there are a _crapload_ of these systems out there
(literally millions, probably 30% already running Linux).

It wouldn't hurt if Fedora booted on this if possible.
They have the performance, memory and disk required.

As long as the software can be built for the ISA, I say leave it be. 
There's a good reason to aim for 386 ISA, 486 ISA if needbe.  686 still
makes a nice optmization, as long as 386/486 is still the target ISA.

That's all my point is.  486 ISA is still quite commonplace, even if you
don't see the millions of systems where it's at.

	

-- 
Bryan J. Smith, E.I. -- b.j.smith at ieee.org