On 09/27/2010 01:23 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.
>
Why not use the browser user agent to recomend the best option to the
user for the machine being used to download it?, with some way to w
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> 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/
On 09/28/2010 11:57 AM, drago01 wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 8:49 PM, John Reiser 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 99% of the t
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Stephen Gallagher 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 the big
downl
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 8:49 PM, John Reiser wrote:
> On 09/28/2010 11:37 AM, drago01 wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Mike McGrath 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
-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 wrote:
>
>>> We run 32 bit vms in Fedora Infrastructure a lot for purposes of memory
>>> density, we do it based on w
On 09/28/2010 11:37 AM, drago01 wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Mike McGrath 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 worked out ver
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
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Mike McGrath 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
>> > single var
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, 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
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, 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
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 ru
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
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
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 r
mike cloaked wrote:
> Some people use nightlies for example -
> http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/thunderbird/nightly/latest-
comm-1.9.2/
> 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
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
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
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.
> Ba
On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 17:03 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> 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
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-b
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 spli
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
machi
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 8:58 AM, mike cloaked 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 the current th
On 09/28/2010 01:58 PM, mike cloaked wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 09/28/2010 12:06 PM, mike cloaked wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 09/27/2010 10:03 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
>
> If anything I would expect the 32
On 09/28/2010 03:58 PM, mike cloaked wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>> On 09/28/2010 12:06 PM, mike cloaked wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>
On 09/27/2010 10:03 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> I
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 09/28/2010 12:06 PM, mike cloaked wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 9:37 AM, 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
On 09/28/2010 12:06 PM, mike cloaked wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 9:37 AM, 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
>>>
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 9:37 AM, 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 32bit a
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 Mon, 2010-09-27 at 15:12 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Stephen John Smoogen
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 13:48, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> >> The Fedora web resources (e.g. http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora )
> >> continue to promote i686 installs ov
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 23:35:43 +0200,
drago01 wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 23:00:45 +0200,
> > drago01 wrote:
> >>
> >> The x86_64 vs. i686 thing aside ... IMO the CD size limit does more
> >> harm than good and should have be
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 23:00:45 +0200,
> drago01 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 Sp
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 23:00:45 +0200,
drago01 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 a Spins SIG rul
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Gregory Maxwell 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 of "promotion" out
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 22:15:48 +0200,
> Jan Kratochvil 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
>> > wrote:
>> > > F14+ livecd-tools have now /us
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 22:15:48 +0200,
Jan Kratochvil 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
> > wrote:
> > > F14+ livecd-tools have now /usr/bin/mkbiarch for live images automatically
> > > choosing x86_6
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 port
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Mike McGrath 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 today but a
no
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
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
> 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+ tha
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
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 27/09/10 20:12, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
>>
>> 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 s
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 21:50:21 +0200,
Jan Kratochvil 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 relevant hardware?
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 15:12, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Stephen John Smoogen
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 13:48, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>>> The Fedora web resources (e.g. http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora )
>>> continue to promote i686 installs over x86
On 27/09/10 20:12, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
> 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 1:58 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 13:48, 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
2010/9/27 Athmane Madjoudj :
> 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
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
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 13:48, 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_
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
54 matches
Mail list logo
