FESco meeting summary for 20090507

[drago01]

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Jon Stanley <jonstanley at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 1:34 PM, drago01 <drago01 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What happened to this https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/142 ?
>
> Sorry about that, as I mentioned in the ticket, entirely my fault this
> didn't get brought up :(

OK, np.

> Anyhow, the concerns that I have about this is as Paul noted in the
> ticket, what happens if someone  downloads this now more visible
> x86_64 release and finds that it doesn't boot their computer?  I sense
> a lot of "man, this Fedora thing SUCKS!".

Yeah true, we have to present in a way where this is unlikely to
happen, but hiding the x86_64 version to be only visible for people
that know that it exist isn't any better either.
Fedora's mission is to provide the new technologies to the user and
x86_64 is definitely the way forward.

> Moreover, with the new architecture support feature in F11, we're now
> supposedly defaulting to an x86_64 kernel on an i686 install if the
> processor supports it (note that I say supposedly because I've not
> personally tested it).  Thus you have an x86_64 kernel, and all of the
> goodness that brings, but you still have an i686 userspace.

Which is not really worth doing, if your hardware supports it you
should be using x86_64 for userspace too.
The only reason people prefer to run i686 even on x86_64 is because
"apps do not work", which is nothing but a myth.
Ever 32bit app should work just fine unless it ships with a (binary)
kernel module. But all popular binary kernel modules (nvidia, fglrx,
vmware, vbox) do ship 64bit builds.

> Also, keep in mind that while x86_64 hardware is quite common in the
> US and Western Europe (perhaps to a lesser extent there than the US,
> even), there are many parts of the world where that is not common, and
> folks would have to go find the i686 version to download.

True, but everything not a netbook sold in the last couple of years is
x86_64 capable.