[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: FESco meeting summary for 20090507

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 17:44, Jon Stanley <jonstanley gmail com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 1:34 PM, drago01 <drago01 gmail com> wrote:
>> What happened to this https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/142 ?
> Sorry about that, as I mentioned in the ticket, entirely my fault this
> didn't get brought up :(
> Anyhow, the concerns that I have about this is as Paul noted in the
> ticket, what happens if someone  downloads this now more visible
> x86_64 release and finds that it doesn't boot their computer?  I sense
> a lot of "man, this Fedora thing SUCKS!".
> Moreover, with the new architecture support feature in F11, we're now
> supposedly defaulting to an x86_64 kernel on an i686 install if the
> processor supports it (note that I say supposedly because I've not
> personally tested it).  Thus you have an x86_64 kernel, and all of the
> goodness that brings, but you still have an i686 userspace.
> Also, keep in mind that while x86_64 hardware is quite common in the
> US and Western Europe (perhaps to a lesser extent there than the US,
> even), there are many parts of the world where that is not common, and
> folks would have to go find the i686 version to download.

Wouldn't smolt be a good way to know the rates of 64 bits processors
versus 32 bits ones ?

The « arch » tab says :
i686  	200890  	75.2 %
x86_64 	64931 	24.3 %

But if I understood it right, that's actually the installed arch, not
the capability of the CPU, so many of those i686 installs might come
from 64 bits CPUs and user not knowing/willing to move to 64 bits

The « CPU » tab doesn't say whether the CPU is 32 or 64 bits though
(or maybe I didn't look close enough).

Knowing how many 64 bits CPUs are out there using Fedora could provide
good input for this issue IMHO.



Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]