Inaccuracy of smolt i586 count - was 586 kernels.

[Axel Thimm]

On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 11:22:02AM +0100, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> 
> On 6/21/07, Alan Cox <alan at redhat.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 05:42:24PM -0700, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> >>I'm thinking about getting a new box anyway (it's an old
> >>not-quite-C3 with some odd Biblean-sounding codename, chugging
> >>along at 800MHz).  With less than 40 users, it's just not worth
> >>it. I'm surprised though, I thought VIA was more popular than
> >>that.
> 
> >It is a good deal more popular than that (although the 686
> >compatible but not gcc 686 compatible ones are the older ones
> >generally)
> 
> >Unless Dave can publish data sets and a methodology for his count
> >(and given even the big marketing companies can't do it I want to
> >see this) we should assume he made up a number to justify killing it
> >cos he finds it a hassle to maintain.
> 
> Having watched from the sidelines I updated my VIA mini-ITX system
> yesterday. Its an original 800 MHz model.
> 
> Fedora installs for an i586 on it - 586 kernel etc. However, at least
> post F7 upgrade (meaning I didn't check beforehand) uname -m and arch
> report i686. Smolt also sees this as an i686 - in fact the complete
> profile is at

> However it will not boot a current i686 kernel - resets immediately.
> 
> There are 264 (0.4%) CentaurHauls CPUs in Smolt right now (and obviously
> upgraders like me would not appear there unless we make the effort). Its
> not much of a proportion, but there are more users than the i586 figures
> suggest.

I also wonder what the 2.1% i386 are. These can't be true i386, or if
they are they can't be 30x as many as i586.

And even though ppc is not expected to be a frontline arch, only 378
boxes? Makes me feel like having a big share of ppc boxes.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20070701/172db39f/attachment.sig>