<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Personally, I think it'd almost be perfectly safe to offer just 32bit
by default. It'll be almost guaranteed to run. Someone wanting 64bit
will know enough to click a little bit more and find the 64bit version.
Only exception to these thoughts would be the PowerPC ones which I'm
not the most familiar with.<br>
<br>
Juan Camilo Prada wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:1210366131.13364.1.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Fri, 2008-05-09 at 15:04 -0500, Ian Weller wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Fri, 9 May 2008, Patrik Cevela wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I think the platform identification by "i386", "x86_64" and "ppc" is incomprehensible for newbees.
It would be better call it "Desktop, 32bit version", "Desktop, 64bit" and "PowerPC".
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Why not have both? -- ian
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Because we want to avoid ambiguity.
the idea is to provide an easy link for the most common installation
media
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
~Michael
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://ridleytx.structed.net">http://ridleytx.structed.net</a> (for now)
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://michaelbox.net">http://michaelbox.net</a> (eventually) </pre>
</body>
</html>