Last of my 32bit mobos died the other week, so no problem for me if you
drop drop support for x86 32bit
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> So, x86_64 is more than 10 years old now, and it's time to think again
> about the i686 architecture.
> I am proposing to gradually dr
Well, hardening x86 made it pretty performance-leaking. Judging by the fact
that the intention is to drop x86, there are all the reasons to harden the
x86 to not improve performance of the 32bit architecture. Thus, logically,
people get to buy 64bit as soon as possible because of that saying "Oh...
I see that a decision was made already but I just want to put in my 2 cents.
Its about the numbers to make an educated decision. How many downloads
where there of the x86_64 vs i686 the last few releases. Architecture wise
what does it look like from the equo side how many unique pc's are updating
Yepp, I still need 32Bit.
So dropping this support would make me either upgrade (students
haven't much money) or looking for another distro.
Andre
2013/4/30 Fabio Erculiani :
> All the development repositories have been moved to GitHub [1].
> If you want to contribute to the development of Sabayon, you don't need to be
> a "trusted" developer anymore, but just send pull requests ;-)
>
> Have fun!
>
> [1] https://github.com/Sabayon
Excellent
It looks like there are still a lot of people using i686.
So, I'd rather postpone the decision for one more year, sigh.
--
Fabio Erculiani
> So, x86_64 is more than 10 years old now, and it's time to think again
> about the i686 architecture.
> I am proposing to gradually drop support for x86 32bit by the end of
> 2013 (the "how" would deserve a separate discussion).
> Is there any serious reason not to kill 32bit? Maintaining it take
I will still maintain it on my repositories no matter the costs, I still
have some friends which maintain old servers and old desktops.
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Danilo Pianini wrote:
> Still using it on several systems: three servers and a Minimac (I'm
> using it for building a smart per
No we are talking about removing the x86 entropy tree.
On 1 May 2013 11:15, Vojtěch Pszczólka wrote:
> We are talking about i686 vs i386, not about AMD64. i686 has almost every
> x86 processor since 1996 I think. Thats why I am asking...
> For example, ArchLinux is using i686 without andy problem
I'm not sure I would ever has said that a Pentium 4 has decent performance.
If you are still relying on chips from earlier than 2005 to do any
serious work you should consider an upgrade (save power and better
performance from even an i3) or virtualising the workload onto one
hypervisor.
On 1 May
We are talking about i686 vs i386, not about AMD64. i686 has almost
every x86 processor since 1996 I think. Thats why I am asking...
For example, ArchLinux is using i686 without andy problems.
Dne 1.5.2013 11:44, Danilo Pianini napsal(a):
Still using it on several systems: three servers and a M
Still using it on several systems: three servers and a Minimac (I'm
using it for building a smart pervasive screen).
Don't forget that many systems still exist with decent performance and
no amd64 support, Pentium 4 for instance.
Moreover, I can see many users still download the x86 version (I'm
s
Despite of i'm not developing Sabayon, i can't see any reason for maintaining
i386. How looks typical i386 user :-D ?
Wolfden napsal/a:
>I for killing it off too
>
>
>On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 1:42 AM, Ian Whyman wrote:
>
>> As always I am very much pro this.
>> On 1 May 2013 07:30, "Fabio Erculia
I for killing it off too
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 1:42 AM, Ian Whyman wrote:
> As always I am very much pro this.
> On 1 May 2013 07:30, "Fabio Erculiani" wrote:
>
>> So, x86_64 is more than 10 years old now, and it's time to think again
>> about the i686 architecture.
>> I am proposing to gradu
14 matches
Mail list logo
