Re: Changing the default 32-bit x86 arch for Fedora 12 (#2)
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:28 PM, James Hubbard wrote: >> Trying to berate people into using x86_64 as I've seen in this and >> other threads has gotten annoying. > > Berate? I'm not trying to berate anyone. What I am trying to do is get > a handle on how to potentially mitigate as much as possible avoidable > impact associated with an architecture policy change if and when it > happens. If running 32bit Fedora on 64bit hardware is widespread, any > substantial change in policy with regard to 32bit maybe more > disruptive than we originally realize. Hmm, I wonder does smolt give > any relevant info as to my question. Can smolt tell give me an > indication of the percentage of 64bit capable systems which are > running 32bit Fedora? Hmm. Sorry, I'm not saying you specifically. There have a been a far number of messages in which tone has seemed to be that you have to use x86_64 if you have hardware. My apologies. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Changing the default 32-bit x86 arch for Fedora 12 (#2)
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > Just as an aside, can we do anything to help people identify whether > their hardware is 64bit capable? grep lm /proc/cpuinfo Fedora doesn't even indicate what video card that they're using why should it provide a way to discover the 64bit capability. > I'm thinking specifically with people with "Centrino" stickered > laptops of unclear vintage who may not realize that they have a 64bit > capable machine even when they do. The Centrino branding doesn't > exactly make it obvious as Intel pushed 64bit capability into the > brand at some point (2006 ?). > > How many people are running 32bit Fedora on 64bit capable hardware > without realizing its 64bit capable laptop hardware? I think that those that care probably know and are running x86_64. If they're like me, they stick the x86_64 cd into their wife's computer and discover that it's got one of older processors when it gives the error message. Trying to berate people into using x86_64 as I've seen in this and other threads has gotten annoying. People that run i386 on x86_64 capable hardware usually have a reason. On my work laptop, I run i386 simply because it makes my life easier. I have to work with proprietary software that is mostly 32bit. I don't want to deal with having to make sure that I've got the various 32bit libraries installed. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Gilboa Davara wrote: > I apologize in advance, for the overly harsh language. (Not specifically > directed at you, Kevin). I don't believe that you're being overly harsh. I've been surprised in general in the amount of "whining" that I've been reading in this thread. Phoronix is the only one that's doing benchmarks of the various distributions and major parts. I suppose that I should use the Anandtech and Tom's Hardware reviews that are all done using Windows to see how well the competing hardware stacks up against each another. As far as I can tell, the code for the Phoronix benchmark suite is open source so it's open for others to look at for methodology and potential improvement. Someone could use the existing Phoronix suite to create a benchmark that's specific to fedora that has the seal of approval from the community. The complaint about comparing the opensource video drivers versus the proprietary ones baffles me. It's the only place that I can go to see what's happening from a perforamance perspective. While the opensource driver is usable on some hardware, the performance/capabilities for newer hardware still doesn't match the proprietary. That does matter for those that need it. I'm just waiting for someone to request permission to change the user agreement to disallow the usage of the Fedora name in benchmarks. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > IOW: a lot of those phoronix articles that contain benchmarks could be > half as long or even shorter if you rip out the results that are of no > value and replace them by "No unexpected side effects could be found > when running tests foo, bar, baz, foobar, ...; We thus didn't publish > the results to not confuse and bore you". You mean like clicking the link to the last page and reading the summary there? I do that for every review that I read. I always read the summary at the end after getting through the introductory material. I don't even look at the graphs unless they mention some issue at the end. The better sites don't require you to read the all of material between the beginning and the end of a review. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
