On 09/27/2010 10:03 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
If anything I would expect the 32bit Desktop Live torrent download
activity to be lower because of the promotion of the direct download
link of that particular iso. The splits in 32bit and 64bit download
activity in the torrent server is very
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/27/2010 10:03 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
If anything I would expect the 32bit Desktop Live torrent download
activity to be lower because of the promotion of the direct download
link of that particular iso. The splits in
On 09/28/2010 12:06 PM, mike cloaked wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/27/2010 10:03 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
If anything I would expect the 32bit Desktop Live torrent download
activity to be lower because of the promotion of the direct download
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/28/2010 12:06 PM, mike cloaked wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/27/2010 10:03 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
If anything I would expect the 32bit Desktop Live torrent download
On 09/28/2010 03:58 PM, mike cloaked wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/28/2010 12:06 PM, mike cloaked wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/27/2010 10:03 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On 09/28/2010 01:58 PM, mike cloaked wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/28/2010 12:06 PM, mike cloaked wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/27/2010 10:03 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
If anything I would
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 8:58 AM, mike cloaked mike.cloa...@gmail.com wrote:
Huh? Sure they are.
Some people use nightlies for example -
Here there are no 64 bit versions that I am aware of?
I do this when the stock version is somewhat behind even the stable
release from mozilla. eg in f12
Jan Kratochvil wrote:
F14+ livecd-tools have now /usr/bin/mkbiarch for live images automatically
choosing x86_64/i686. I was told it is too late for F14 biarch spin but
for F15+ that one should be the best default.
Doubling the live image size just to support the obsolete 32-bit-only
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 09:37:06AM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 09/27/2010 10:03 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
If anything I would expect the 32bit Desktop Live torrent download
activity to be lower because of the promotion of the direct download
link of that particular iso. The splits in
seth vidal wrote:
i686 will run on x86_64 and i686 machines and on the overwhelming
majority of hw someone will happen to have.
x86_64 will not.
x86_64 will also work on an overwhelming majority of hardware around.
Basically all non-netbook x86 hardware made in the last few years is 64-bit!
On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 17:32 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
seth vidal wrote:
i686 will run on x86_64 and i686 machines and on the overwhelming
majority of hw someone will happen to have.
x86_64 will not.
x86_64 will also work on an overwhelming majority of hardware around.
Basically all
Adam Williamson wrote:
Why do you think it's a good idea to except netbooks? And why do you
assume running Fedora on a three year old machine isn't a fairly common
case?
(I have both 3+ year old 32-bit only machines and netbooks running Linux
right here at home).
The compromise is that the
On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 11:05 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
Why do you think it's a good idea to except netbooks? And why do you
assume running Fedora on a three year old machine isn't a fairly common
case?
(I have both 3+ year old 32-bit only machines and
mike cloaked wrote:
May I chip in another thought here? Although in principle it is
better if 64 bit versions are used on capable hardware there still
remains a series of issues with some code - eg firefox and thunderbird
are not always built for 64 bit
In Fedora it is, in Remi Collet's
Adam Williamson wrote:
Why do you think it's a good idea to except netbooks?
The netbook issue can be solved by a simple Download Netbook Version link
(along with a clear warning on the default download that it's only for
desktop/laptop computers and that netbook users must use the netbook
Adam Williamson wrote:
That's a neat idea, but presupposes the machine you're downloading with
is the only one you intend to use the image on.
It also presupposes it's running a 64-bit kernel if it's 64-bit capable. The
browser isn't going to tell you the CPU's LM flag.
Kevin Kofler
Richard Zidlicky wrote:
One issue - many people have a mix of systems not all 64 bit capable. As
long as the advantages are not overwhelming many of those will stick to a
single variant for practical reasons and obviously that can only be 32
bit.
I have a 32-bit and a 64-bit machine, I run
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Richard Zidlicky wrote:
One issue - many people have a mix of systems not all 64 bit capable. As
long as the advantages are not overwhelming many of those will stick to a
single variant for practical reasons and obviously that can only be 32
bit.
Adam Williamson wrote:
That's a neat idea, but presupposes the machine you're downloading with
is the only one you intend to use the image on.
Yet, many web sites I frequent use what I proposed.
http://www.mozilla.com
http://www.pidgin.im
Two examples for you to chew on.
They have a nice
On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 13:10 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
That's a neat idea, but presupposes the machine you're downloading with
is the only one you intend to use the image on.
Yet, many web sites I frequent use what I proposed.
http://www.mozilla.com
Adam Williamson wrote:
Which really aren't the same, because they're*software application*
download sites which are detecting the OS you currently have installed
in the assumption that that's likely what you want to install the
software on.
OK, I think I've pinpointed where the conflict of
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Mike McGrath mmcgr...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Richard Zidlicky wrote:
One issue - many people have a mix of systems not all 64 bit capable. As
long as the advantages are not overwhelming many of those will stick to a
On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 13:37 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
Which really aren't the same, because they're*software application*
download sites which are detecting the OS you currently have installed
in the assumption that that's likely what you want to install the
On 09/28/2010 11:37 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Mike McGrath mmcgr...@redhat.com wrote:
We run 32 bit vms in Fedora Infrastructure a lot for purposes of memory
density, we do it based on what will be running on the host as it doesn't
always make sense to do so. It's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/28/2010 02:49 PM, John Reiser wrote:
On 09/28/2010 11:37 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Mike McGrath mmcgr...@redhat.com wrote:
We run 32 bit vms in Fedora Infrastructure a lot for purposes of memory
density, we do it
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 8:49 PM, John Reiser jrei...@bitwagon.com wrote:
On 09/28/2010 11:37 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Mike McGrath mmcgr...@redhat.com wrote:
We run 32 bit vms in Fedora Infrastructure a lot for purposes of memory
density, we do it based on what will
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
Or just have the download page provide a link to List all download
options
this exists now in multiple forms on the
http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora page
In the central frame More download options... right under
On 09/28/2010 11:57 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 8:49 PM, John Reiser jrei...@bitwagon.com wrote:
A x86_64 kernel with everything else i686 [no 64-bit apps] can be good
non-virtually, too, particularly when it avoids 32-bit PAE for more than
3.3GB of RAM.
No it is pointless in
On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 13:48 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
The Fedora web resources (e.g. http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora )
continue to promote i686 installs over x86_64, the result being that
only a third of fedora users are on x86_64.
When will the Fedora project begin recommending
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 13:48, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
The Fedora web resources (e.g. http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora )
continue to promote i686 installs over x86_64, the result being that
only a third of fedora users are on x86_64.
When will the Fedora project begin
On 09/27/2010 06:53 PM, seth vidal wrote:
i686 will run on x86_64 and i686 machines and on the overwhelming
majority of hw someone will happen to have.
x86_64 will not.
until i686 is uncommon (which is still not yet) I think we should keep
the default i686.
Most (if not all) Atom-based
2010/9/27 Athmane Madjoudj athma...@gmail.com:
On 09/27/2010 06:53 PM, seth vidal wrote:
i686 will run on x86_64 and i686 machines and on the overwhelming
majority of hw someone will happen to have.
x86_64 will not.
until i686 is uncommon (which is still not yet) I think we should keep
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Stephen John Smoogen smo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 13:48, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
The Fedora web resources (e.g. http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora )
continue to promote i686 installs over x86_64, the result being that
only
On 27/09/10 20:12, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
snip
If you're not swapping x86_64 bringing increased performance is easily
demonstrated, and has been previously demonstrated here... if there is
any doubt on this point I'd be glad to run some more benchmarks to
demonstrate it.
For me inept brain.
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 15:12, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Stephen John Smoogen smo...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 13:48, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
The Fedora web resources (e.g. http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora )
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 19:53:09 +0200, seth vidal wrote:
On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 13:48 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
When will the Fedora project begin recommending x86_64 as the
preferred option on the relevant hardware?
i686 will run on x86_64 and i686 machines and on the overwhelming
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 21:50:21 +0200,
Jan Kratochvil jan.kratoch...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 19:53:09 +0200, seth vidal wrote:
On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 13:48 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
When will the Fedora project begin recommending x86_64 as the
preferred option on the
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/09/10 20:12, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
snip
If you're not swapping x86_64 bringing increased performance is easily
demonstrated, and has been previously demonstrated here... if there is
any doubt on this point I'd be
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
The Fedora web resources (e.g. http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora )
continue to promote i686 installs over x86_64, the result being that
only a third of fedora users are on x86_64.
When will the Fedora project begin recommending x86_64 as the
Mike McGrath (mmcgr...@redhat.com) said:
The Fedora web resources (e.g. http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora )
continue to promote i686 installs over x86_64, the result being that
only a third of fedora users are on x86_64.
When will the Fedora project begin recommending x86_64 as the
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Mike McGrath mmcgr...@redhat.com wrote:
FWIW, we have two measurements of x86_64 vs i686.
Smolt:
65% i686
35% x86_64
mirrors.fedoraproject.org:
70% i686
30% x86_64
Right— it's clear that i686 is far more commonly installed
On 09/27/2010 09:30 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Right— it's clear that i686 is far more commonly installed today but a
non-trivial part of that must be due to the fact that the x86_64 links
are hidden. The smolt cpu stats (mhz, number of cores, vendors)
suggests that a significant portion
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 22:15:48 +0200,
Jan Kratochvil jan.kratoch...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 21:58:26 +0200, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 21:50:21 +0200, Jan Kratochvil
jan.kratoch...@redhat.com wrote:
F14+ livecd-tools have now /usr/bin/mkbiarch for
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 22:15:48 +0200,
Jan Kratochvil jan.kratoch...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 21:58:26 +0200, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 21:50:21 +0200, Jan Kratochvil
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
I would expect that the i686 install will remain the most common so
long as that is what the Fedora project promotes.
I wouldn't. We can actually look a little deeper at some of the
download stats and take the concept
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 23:00:45 +0200,
drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
The x86_64 vs. i686 thing aside ... IMO the CD size limit does more
harm than good and should have been lifted a while ago.
The CD size limit is self imposed by the Spins that choose to do so.
The 4 GiB size limit is
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 23:00:45 +0200,
drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
The x86_64 vs. i686 thing aside ... IMO the CD size limit does more
harm than good and should have been lifted a while ago.
The CD size limit is
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 23:35:43 +0200,
drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 23:00:45 +0200,
drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
The x86_64 vs. i686 thing aside ... IMO the CD size limit does more
48 matches
Mail list logo
