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

[Matthew Miller]

On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 01:39:50AM -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> I _swear_ this is _not_ meant to be argumentative.

:) okay.


> 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).

Sure, but they're by their nature not normal desktop systems -- they're
special purpose devices. Right? Having Linux running on them is cool; I just
don't see it as a market for _core_.


> 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.

And my point is -- if you don't see them, then I don't think they're what FC
is aimed at anyway.

But the point about x86_64 and the future is a good one. i686 is basically
nearing the end of its _mainstream_ :) life too, and no sense worrying about
it now.


-- 
Matthew Miller           mattdm at mattdm.org        <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux      ------>                <http://linux.bu.edu/>