On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) <bochecha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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... Yeah and the installed arch does not really mean much considering how our download page is designed. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
