On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 17:44, Jon Stanley <jonstanley@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 1:34 PM, drago01 <drago01@xxxxxxxxx> 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 OS... 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. Regards, ---------- Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
