Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Tuesday 12 February 2008, Wael Nasreddine wrote:
This One Time, at Band Camp, Alan McKinnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said, On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 03:05:20PM +0200:
On Tuesday 12 February 2008, Wael Nasreddine wrote:
The x86_64 name is used by Red Hat and other distros. There are all
the same thing really, but using the wrong name in the wrong
context clouds the issues and leads to vast side-threads asking
question that have no answers and that accomplish nothing.
I'm sorry but I'm just used to call it this way, most of distros I
have tried in the past call it this way, anyway I'll try to memorize
it.
Cool. Nothing worse than composing a decent post, only to then have to
explain that you weren't using THIS definition but rather THAT one.
It's an easy enough error to make (do it myself too) so no worries
sorry for the question:
why does
#ls /usr/src/linux/arch/
show
alpha/ blackfin/ h8300/ m32r/ mips/ ppc/
sh64/ um/ xtensa/
arm/ cris/ i386/ m68k/ parisc/ s390/
sparc/ v850/
avr32/ frv/ ia64/ m68knommu/ powerpc/ sh/
sparc64/ x86_64/
but not amd64?
kh
So, the only good reason to move to amd64 is when you buy a 64 bit
machine
I have 1G RAM and it's a laptop doesn't serve huge databases so I
guess despite if my CPU is 64 or 32 bits, I'll just stick with the 32
version, works great...
Agreed. You have no obvious benefits from a 64 bit arch. You also get to
not have to struggle with flash wondering if it will work this time or
not ;-)
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
