Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
Hi, On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 12:25:48PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: On Sun, 09 Sep 2012, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Sat, 2012-09-08 at 22:46 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: On Sun, 09 Sep 2012, Russell Coker wrote: On Sat, 8 Sep 2012, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org wrote: If 64-bit PC is too vague, the alternative designator for the amd64 arch is the vendor neutral x86-64. The vendor-neutral designator for all of i386, i486, i586, i686, amd64 and x32 is x86 (i.e. it is for both 32-bit and 64-bit). i286, i186 and 8086 are too old to bother with :-) FYI: Despite the architecture name i386, support for actual 80386 processors (and their clones) was dropped with the Sarge. * http://www.debian.org/releases/testing/i386/ch02s01.html.en Why should we be vendor-neutral? AMD invented the AMD64 instruction set. Intel invented the 386 instruction set and we call it i386. Why be vendor-neutral for things that AMD invents when we aren't vendor- neutral for things that Intel invents? I don't know, and I don't care either way. I am fine with amd64. But I object to 32-bit PC and 64-bit PC. i686, amd64, x86-32, x86-64... at least those are correct. But none of them are widely understood. 32-bit PC and 64-bit PC mean nothing, I think a lot more people know which of those they have. Yeah, and it can be fixed by 32-bit PC (i386/i686) and 64-bit PC (amd64/x86-64). Why make things more complicated. What is the rationale to pick i686 over others now. Why change to x86-64 which is AMD origin. If slashed to listing are list of vender released names, it should be (AMD64/Intel 64). We picked one archive identifier at one point of history. Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120910134440.GC5890@goofy.localdomain
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
On 09/10/2012 09:44 PM, Osamu Aoki wrote: Why make things more complicated. What is the rationale to pick i686 over others now. Why change to x86-64 which is AMD origin. If slashed to listing are list of vender released names, it should be (AMD64/Intel 64). We picked one archive identifier at one point of history. Osamu Strictly speaking, and because nobody wrote about it, Intel calls it EM64T. A nice way to write it by the publicity team would be: amd64 arch [1] [1] Intel supports this arch in most of its recent processors, and brands / references it as the EM64T feature set This would help avoiding reactions like the one of W. Anderson, and should be enough. Just my 2 cents... Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/504e220e.1020...@debian.org
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 09/10/2012 09:44 PM, Osamu Aoki wrote: Why make things more complicated. What is the rationale to pick i686 over others now. Why change to x86-64 which is AMD origin. If slashed to listing are list of vender released names, it should be (AMD64/Intel 64). We picked one archive identifier at one point of history. Osamu Strictly speaking, and because nobody wrote about it, Intel calls it EM64T. Not anymore, and yes, I checked. That's why I wrote Intel 64. The marketroids strike again. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120910212638.gb2...@khazad-dum.debian.net
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
On Sat, 2012-09-08 at 22:46 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: On Sun, 09 Sep 2012, Russell Coker wrote: On Sat, 8 Sep 2012, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org wrote: If 64-bit PC is too vague, the alternative designator for the amd64 arch is the vendor neutral x86-64. The vendor-neutral designator for all of i386, i486, i586, i686, amd64 and x32 is x86 (i.e. it is for both 32-bit and 64-bit). i286, i186 and 8086 are too old to bother with :-) Why should we be vendor-neutral? AMD invented the AMD64 instruction set. Intel invented the 386 instruction set and we call it i386. Why be vendor-neutral for things that AMD invents when we aren't vendor- neutral for things that Intel invents? I don't know, and I don't care either way. I am fine with amd64. But I object to 32-bit PC and 64-bit PC. i686, amd64, x86-32, x86-64... at least those are correct. But none of them are widely understood. 32-bit PC and 64-bit PC mean nothing, I think a lot more people know which of those they have. and it will make the mess worse when we start shipping x32. If, not when, x32 is in the archive, it can only be a partial architecture, and will be of no interest to the regular Debian user. So I don't expect any mess there. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Time is nature's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen at once. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
On Sun, 09 Sep 2012, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Sat, 2012-09-08 at 22:46 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: On Sun, 09 Sep 2012, Russell Coker wrote: On Sat, 8 Sep 2012, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org wrote: If 64-bit PC is too vague, the alternative designator for the amd64 arch is the vendor neutral x86-64. The vendor-neutral designator for all of i386, i486, i586, i686, amd64 and x32 is x86 (i.e. it is for both 32-bit and 64-bit). i286, i186 and 8086 are too old to bother with :-) Why should we be vendor-neutral? AMD invented the AMD64 instruction set. Intel invented the 386 instruction set and we call it i386. Why be vendor-neutral for things that AMD invents when we aren't vendor- neutral for things that Intel invents? I don't know, and I don't care either way. I am fine with amd64. But I object to 32-bit PC and 64-bit PC. i686, amd64, x86-32, x86-64... at least those are correct. But none of them are widely understood. 32-bit PC and 64-bit PC mean nothing, I think a lot more people know which of those they have. Yeah, and it can be fixed by 32-bit PC (i386/i686) and 64-bit PC (amd64/x86-64). and it will make the mess worse when we start shipping x32. If, not when, x32 is in the archive, it can only be a partial architecture, and will be of no interest to the regular Debian user. So I don't expect any mess there. I hope you're right. And yes, x32 as a partial arch would be fine. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120909152547.ga23...@khazad-dum.debian.net
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
On 9 September 2012 16:49, Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk wrote: On Sat, 2012-09-08 at 22:46 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: But I object to 32-bit PC and 64-bit PC. i686, amd64, x86-32, x86-64... at least those are correct. But none of them are widely understood. But they are googleable, whereas 32-bit PC matches stuff not directly relevant. 32-bit PC and 64-bit PC mean nothing, I think a lot more people know which of those they have. Do they, I wonder? Anyway, while it seems a nice idea to try and collapse the entire distinction between the two architectures into a single number, I'm not really sure who is helped here. The current architecture names are well established, also outside Debian. They're everywhere, in the output of gcc, packages names, library names, etc. Then there's the assumption that no other architecture can be a PC? I'd say, a single unambiguous label is better than a vague label for marketing purposes. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout klep...@gmail.com http://svana.org/kleptog/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cadwg95t+5gfrivw4-+crk04cqwyanl9vkpcyxcy5sbpvhxj...@mail.gmail.com
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
On Sun, 2012-09-09 at 23:06 +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: On 9 September 2012 16:49, Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk wrote: On Sat, 2012-09-08 at 22:46 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: But I object to 32-bit PC and 64-bit PC. i686, amd64, x86-32, x86-64... at least those are correct. But none of them are widely understood. But they are googleable, whereas 32-bit PC matches stuff not directly relevant. I don't suggest to remove the dpkg architecture names from documentation; that really would be unhelpful. In some places it would be appropriate to use both. But press material and introductory material shouldn't assume familiarity with those names. 32-bit PC and 64-bit PC mean nothing, I think a lot more people know which of those they have. Do they, I wonder? Anyway, while it seems a nice idea to try and collapse the entire distinction between the two architectures into a single number, I'm not really sure who is helped here. See #575760. The current architecture names are well established, also outside Debian. They're everywhere, in the output of gcc, packages names, library names, etc. There are many alternate strings used: amd64/x86_64/x64 and i386/i486/i586/i686/x86_32/x86. Then there's the assumption that no other architecture can be a PC? 'PC' long since ceased to mean 'personal computer'. Servers with x86 processors are called 'PC servers' while personal computers with cellular networking are called 'smartphones'. I'd say, a single unambiguous label is better than a vague label for marketing purposes. Ambiguity depends on the context and knowledge of the recipients. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Time is nature's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen at once. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 11:06:17PM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: 32-bit PC and 64-bit PC mean nothing, I think a lot more people know which of those they have. Do they, I wonder? Anyway, while it seems a nice idea to try and No, they do not. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120910014153.ga24...@scru.org
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org wrote: If 64-bit PC is too vague, the alternative designator for the amd64 arch is the vendor neutral x86-64. The vendor-neutral designator for all of i386, i486, i586, i686, amd64 and x32 is x86 (i.e. it is for both 32-bit and 64-bit). i286, i186 and 8086 are too old to bother with :-) Why should we be vendor-neutral? AMD invented the AMD64 instruction set. Intel invented the 386 instruction set and we call it i386. Why be vendor-neutral for things that AMD invents when we aren't vendor- neutral for things that Intel invents? -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Bloghttp://doc.coker.com.au/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201209091016.07379.russ...@coker.com.au
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
On Sun, 09 Sep 2012, Russell Coker wrote: On Sat, 8 Sep 2012, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org wrote: If 64-bit PC is too vague, the alternative designator for the amd64 arch is the vendor neutral x86-64. The vendor-neutral designator for all of i386, i486, i586, i686, amd64 and x32 is x86 (i.e. it is for both 32-bit and 64-bit). i286, i186 and 8086 are too old to bother with :-) Why should we be vendor-neutral? AMD invented the AMD64 instruction set. Intel invented the 386 instruction set and we call it i386. Why be vendor-neutral for things that AMD invents when we aren't vendor- neutral for things that Intel invents? I don't know, and I don't care either way. I am fine with amd64. But I object to 32-bit PC and 64-bit PC. i686, amd64, x86-32, x86-64... at least those are correct. 32-bit PC and 64-bit PC mean nothing, and it will make the mess worse when we start shipping x32. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120909014645.ga1...@khazad-dum.debian.net
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
Hi Ben, On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 07:17:52PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: I've previously requested that various user-facing references to 'i386' and 'amd64' should be changed to the hopefully more understandable '32-bit PC' and '64-bit PC', with some success. Please could the publicity team try to follow this convention in future press/publicity material? Sure! I've just fixed the web version of DPN accordingly: changes will be visible in few hours. Cheers, Francesca -- Nostra patria è il mondo intero e nostra legge è la libertà ed un pensiero ribelle in cor ci sta. P.Gori signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012, Francesca Ciceri wrote: On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 07:17:52PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: I've previously requested that various user-facing references to 'i386' and 'amd64' should be changed to the hopefully more understandable '32-bit PC' and '64-bit PC', with some success. Please could the publicity team try to follow this convention in future press/publicity material? Sure! I've just fixed the web version of DPN accordingly: changes will be visible in few hours. If 64-bit PC is too vague, the alternative designator for the amd64 arch is the vendor neutral x86-64. The vendor-neutral designator for all of i386, i486, i586, i686, amd64 and x32 is x86 (i.e. it is for both 32-bit and 64-bit). i286, i186 and 8086 are too old to bother with :-) AFAIK, x86-32 is seldom used. x64, which is the same as x86-64, is very rarely used (in fact, I've never seen anyone use it in Linux-centric communities and workplaces). AFAIK, the full x86 arch list, with vendor-neutral names is: (non-vendor-neutral/explanation): vendor neutral IA32,ix86,i386..i686: x86-32 amd64/EM64T, 64-bit ABI x86-64 32-bit ABI for amd64/EM64T: x32 any of those: x86 Notes: 1. x32 is very different from x86-32. x32 requires the x86-64 instruction set and register set, and a x86-64 64-bit kernel with x32 support. There is no non-vendor-neutral name for x32, fortunately :-) 2. A x86-64 processor can run code for any x86 arch/ABI. 3. A recent x86-64 linux kernel, properly configured, is supposed to support all three arches/ABIs (x32, x86-32 and x86-64) concurrently. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120907184610.gd5...@khazad-dum.debian.net
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
On 09/06/2012 05:37 AM, Patrick Matthäi wrote: Am 05.09.2012 23:24, schrieb martin f krafft: I said fglrx — because its binary-only version caused regular crashes and headaches for Linux users. Which is ATM more useful as nvidia prop. ones. And AMD (not the ATI in the past) is in general interested (and already legaly checked) in opening fglrx, but it fails with third party foo... Anyway AMD in general is doing quite much for the OSS community, why it is IMO fud. Would you then advise for an AMD card over Nvidia? Is it better supported, and integrate with the standard desktop screen switcher(s), like xrandr and friends? Just curious, and willing to know what to buy... Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50485805.3010...@debian.org
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
Le jeudi 06 septembre 2012 à 16:00 +0800, Thomas Goirand a écrit : Would you then advise for an AMD card over Nvidia? Is it better supported, and integrate with the standard desktop screen switcher(s), like xrandr and friends? Yes AMD is better supported, but for some models the performance is atrocious. You can’t even run a fullscreen video in a 3D WM if your hardware is not recent enough. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1346919048.5038.60.camel@pi0307572
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
Am 06.09.2012 10:10, schrieb Josselin Mouette: Le jeudi 06 septembre 2012 à 16:00 +0800, Thomas Goirand a écrit : Would you then advise for an AMD card over Nvidia? Is it better supported, and integrate with the standard desktop screen switcher(s), like xrandr and friends? Yes AMD is better supported, but for some models the performance is atrocious. You can’t even run a fullscreen video in a 3D WM if your hardware is not recent enough. A little bit offtopic. I didn't wanted to advertise to buy AMD GPUs (where the topic itself is about the CPU architecture), just wanted to argument against random old rants. Cheers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50485cdf.3030...@debian.org
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 05.09.2012 19:36, W. Anderson wrote: It is somewhat surprising and a little disappointing that Debian, or any other GNU/Linux distribution would be making statements that, in effect, give great public support to AMD in regard Linux, when the company has for many years been decidedly ambivalent and generally uncooperative towards the Linux community, particularly in cooperation with Microsoft in their negative attitudes and /_actions _/toward Free/Open Source Software communities. AMD64 is only the name of the architecture. It is also used by other manufacturers and doesn't advertise AMD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amd64 - -- Mika Suomalainen -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Public key: http://mkaysi.github.com/PGP/0x82A46728.txt Comment: gpg --fetch-keys http://mkaysi.github.com/PGP/0x82A46728.txt Comment: Fingerprint = 24BC 1573 B8EE D666 D10A AA65 4DB5 3CFE 82A4 6728 Comment: I have personal problem with PGP/MIME... Comment: ...so signature *IS* long. See http://git.io/6FLzWg Comment: Please remove PGP lines in replies. http://git.io/nvHrDg Comment: Charset of this message should be UTF-8. Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJQSM0YAAoJEE21PP6CpGcoJpwQAKOlTh9V/1JYq3xUOKZTu3xy Mj4uUfTW0gR7GmGecUXF4/ayR3TVytUPMStP5kdkEIeBQsgnNx9ys04wVSWh9fkt uSPOt2YJTq8ApLfDhNVhzmb8uy6TE5NSLHQweJEYmqfO9r7xdNqvmSudvik5nQ9+ suLsI9jGFT1H/I7TlMiI58MrZnBR3MP2IN/NtlAvK7zEhdIKdJNfARdmp+KwOhIH R6k3pZfrax9zTDcotk930D1BPbx22R+mUhEP3idNlNc2aVMWF/vhZ/IWq1W2x0SE BaW/MG/WkROmagKVXg+BPOSxttjXIjDhfMOXk28qcqVeR6tk0fBKoH7DWIHFi/nl x1BAayJPIFAnZ7BbPqo7TPmHq12pOf2GBi7UZQp9UhQqPa2wQ6OrDMcog1f1+ogf J8Gd/pRKETn2wEU0zQIirlOPSi+jdyn/FwbI4q1v2P9FCKBDxCAJhHA3X5ujDNAC NFZUOJZQFB3Pve5JVe7B+rSRLhf4f/WMw2CVqrCa5Zg581hn+2/V1v4l/rG5lw/K p1ZKDweAwFWrmpRVCgVqGbm0OJ3zBWoTXs0bghlHrlimjSY9vnSehwpWGDq4kU3m Y4joQ36drkwLlXX54szaPS11jXieXBBFBwtuhEhZGRUnjw7U9WKxff7zui067tKV gUd+S054deswH06Fc/tm =HGHC -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5048cd1b.9010...@users.sourceforge.net
greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
It is somewhat surprising and a little disappointing that Debian, or any other GNU/Linux distribution would be making statements that, in effect, give great public support to AMD in regard Linux, when the company has for many years been decidedly ambivalent and generally uncooperative towards the Linux community, particularly in cooperation with Microsoft in their negative attitudes and /_actions _/toward Free/Open Source Software communities. Wendell Anderson wander...@kimalcorp.org
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 12:36:36PM -0400, W. Anderson wrote: It is somewhat surprising and a little disappointing that Debian, or any other GNU/Linux distribution would be making statements that, in effect, give great public support to AMD in regard Linux, when the company has for many years been decidedly ambivalent and generally uncooperative towards the Linux community, particularly in cooperation with Microsoft in their negative attitudes and /_actions _/toward Free/Open Source Software communities. Hi Wendell, Please see http://www.debian.org/ports/amd64/ - amd64 refers to the architecture which includes both AMD and Intel. Neil signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
also sprach W. Anderson kimalc...@nac.net [2012.09.05.1836 +0200]: It is somewhat surprising and a little disappointing that Debian, or any other GNU/Linux distribution would be making statements that, in effect, give great public support to AMD in regard Linux, The statement was not about AMD but about the architecture amd64, which is also used by other processor manufacturers, namely Intel. For years, Intel had their 'i' in i386. They missed the wagon on consumer 64-bit architectures and only jumped on after amd64 had been well established. But I agree, to the uwashed masses, the statement might sound a little too much in favour of AMD. Nothing we can do about it now. -- .''`. martin f. krafft madduck@d.o Related projects: : :' : proud Debian developer http://debiansystem.info `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduckhttp://vcs-pkg.org `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems lessing was a heretics' heretic -- walter kaufmann digital_signature_gpg.asc Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
Am 05.09.2012 18:36, schrieb W. Anderson: It is somewhat surprising and a little disappointing that Debian, or any other GNU/Linux distribution would be making statements that, in effect, give great public support to AMD in regard Linux, when the company has for many years been decidedly ambivalent and generally uncooperative towards the Linux community, particularly in cooperation with Microsoft in their negative attitudes and /_actions _/toward Free/Open Source Software communities. amd64 is the name of the x64 CPU architecture and also with my fglrx hat on I think you do not know about what you are speaking (just have got a look at radeon).. -- /* Mit freundlichem Gruß / With kind regards, Patrick Matthäi GNU/Linux Debian Developer Blog: http://www.linux-dev.org/ E-Mail: pmatth...@debian.org patr...@linux-dev.org */ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/05/2012 02:10 PM, martin f krafft wrote: Nothing we can do about it now. The news posting at http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2012/17/#amd64 could be edited to change the first reference to amd64 in the text to link to http://www.debian.org/ports/amd64/ and the first reference to i386 to link to http://www.debian.org/ports/i386/ which at least somewhat increases the chance of someone not knowing the difference discovering it on their own by clicking through the links. Just a thought ... Ben -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAlBHi6gACgkQWpTzygsnE8jBRwCffzvj5aP1CoHq/BEg+y+ePN2X oKcAoKdKNFNYQetvig++iPbINWW4Gw9Y =qa1Y -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50478bab.2000...@sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:36 AM, W. Anderson kimalc...@nac.net wrote: It is somewhat surprising and a little disappointing that Debian, or any other GNU/Linux distribution would be making statements that, in effect, give great public support to AMD in regard Linux, when the company has for many years been decidedly ambivalent and generally uncooperative towards the Linux community, particularly in cooperation with Microsoft in their negative attitudes and actions toward Free/Open Source Software communities. I fail to see how the DPN is making a statement that gives great public support to AMD; it is merely a statement of fact. A high popcon rating for an architecture or a set of packages does not mean that Debian endorses the use of said architecture/packages. Regards, Vincent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caczd_tc66vbhoqcsota1st643eik1gy0aovkylt-x758rio...@mail.gmail.com
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 06:04:00PM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote: On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 12:36:36PM -0400, W. Anderson wrote: It is somewhat surprising and a little disappointing that Debian, or any other GNU/Linux distribution would be making statements that, in effect, give great public support to AMD in regard Linux, when the company has for many years been decidedly ambivalent and generally uncooperative towards the Linux community, particularly in cooperation with Microsoft in their negative attitudes and /_actions _/toward Free/Open Source Software communities. Hi Wendell, Please see http://www.debian.org/ports/amd64/ - amd64 refers to the architecture which includes both AMD and Intel. I've previously requested that various user-facing references to 'i386' and 'amd64' should be changed to the hopefully more understandable '32-bit PC' and '64-bit PC', with some success. Please could the publicity team try to follow this convention in future press/publicity material? (amd64 can run on current Macs, which are marketed as not-a-PC, but I don't think there's much point mentioning that until we make it easier to install on them.) Ben. -- Ben Hutchings We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking. - Albert Camus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120905181752.gu29...@decadent.org.uk
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
also sprach Patrick Matthäi pmatth...@debian.org [2012.09.05.1902 +0200]: amd64 is the name of the x64 CPU architecture and also with my fglrx hat on I think you do not know about what you are speaking (just have got a look at radeon).. Radeon being owned by AMD and fglrx not having the best reputation, I don't quite understand your point. -- .''`. martin f. krafft madduck@d.o Related projects: : :' : proud Debian developer http://debiansystem.info `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduckhttp://vcs-pkg.org `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems i always choose my friends for their good looks and my enemies for their good intellects. man cannot be too careful in his choice of enemies. -- oscar wilde digital_signature_gpg.asc Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 20:57 +0200, martin f krafft wrote: also sprach Patrick Matthäi pmatth...@debian.org [2012.09.05.1902 +0200]: amd64 is the name of the x64 CPU architecture and also with my fglrx hat on I think you do not know about what you are speaking (just have got a look at radeon).. Radeon being owned by AMD and fglrx not having the best reputation, I don't quite understand your point. AMD helped the development of (free software) radeon drivers for their graphics cards by people supporting the work and by publishing documents: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=17071788 Intel did too: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=18469079 However for the development of coreboot AMD has been very supportive, http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2008-December/042783.html and Intel not at all, http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2011-January/062775.html So YMWV ;-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1346875820.5479.34.ca...@hp.my.own.domain
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
Am 05.09.2012 20:57, schrieb martin f krafft: also sprach Patrick Matthäi pmatth...@debian.org [2012.09.05.1902 +0200]: amd64 is the name of the x64 CPU architecture and also with my fglrx hat on I think you do not know about what you are speaking (just have got a look at radeon).. Radeon being owned by AMD and fglrx not having the best reputation, I don't quite understand your point. Forget the past where GPUs were owned by ATI, they s When AMD took over ATI they first began to work with the OSS community, seriously checked if they could open fglrx-driver, hire full time people to work on the radeon driver, released 2D/3D/board/Video specifications of their cards and so on.. AMD also supports Debian (just now with an special point release for Wheezy). I do not think that AMD (not the past ATI) is evil and such foo should stop here. And why hasn't got radeon a good reputation? It is the fastest and most supported OSS Xorg driver and also quite stable.. Yeah intel has got a good OSS driver, but they are to lame for complex 2D/3D scenarious.. -- /* Mit freundlichem Gruß / With kind regards, Patrick Matthäi GNU/Linux Debian Developer Blog: http://www.linux-dev.org/ E-Mail: pmatth...@debian.org patr...@linux-dev.org */ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
also sprach Patrick Matthäi pmatth...@debian.org [2012.09.05.2231 +0200]: AMD also supports Debian (just now with an special point release for Wheezy). I do not think that AMD (not the past ATI) is evil and such foo should stop here. Good thing I asked… And why hasn't got radeon a good reputation? I said fglrx — because its binary-only version caused regular crashes and headaches for Linux users. -- .''`. martin f. krafft madduck@d.o Related projects: : :' : proud Debian developer http://debiansystem.info `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduckhttp://vcs-pkg.org `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems love is a grave mental disease. -- platon digital_signature_gpg.asc Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
Am 05.09.2012 23:24, schrieb martin f krafft: I said fglrx — because its binary-only version caused regular crashes and headaches for Linux users. Which is ATM more useful as nvidia prop. ones. And AMD (not the ATI in the past) is in general interested (and already legaly checked) in opening fglrx, but it fails with third party foo... Anyway AMD in general is doing quite much for the OSS community, why it is IMO fud. -- /* Mit freundlichem Gruß / With kind regards, Patrick Matthäi GNU/Linux Debian Developer Blog: http://www.linux-dev.org/ E-Mail: pmatth...@debian.org patr...@linux-dev.org */ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: greater popularity of Debian on AMD64?
On 05/09/12 18:10, W. Anderson wrote: It is somewhat surprising and a little disappointing that Debian, or any other GNU/Linux distribution would be making statements that, in effect, give great public support to AMD in regard Linux, when the company has for many years been decidedly ambivalent and generally uncooperative towards the Linux community, particularly in cooperation with Microsoft in their negative attitudes and /_actions _/toward Free/Open Source Software communities. As the only significant competition to Intel in the PC market, AMD need all the help they can get. The more people that run free software on AMD equipment, the more likely they are to look favourably upon free software developers. But, as has already been pointed out, the statement doesn't give support to AMD anyway. Roger -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/vhskh9-0u3@silverstone.rilynn.me.uk
