What's up with 64 bit Linux

[Darrin Chandler]

On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 08:16:00AM -0700, Craig White wrote:
> I know that I was pretty clear that I started into x86_64 on these Dell
> systems because of less hassles with installation/operation and for the
> most part, they've been running well.

Ok, so hardware came first and you're just finding what runs best?

> There has been some regression on the 2.6.23 kernel but I suspect that
> this is the price that I pay for trying to run software that is close to
> the current development edge but considering the nature of release early
> and often, I have confidence that these things get worked out over time
> and view my participation in bug reporting and feedback as the necessary
> part of participation.

Bug reports and feedback are awesome. How would the coders know things
aren't right otherwise? There's just no way they can lay their hands on
enough different systems to do regression testing on everything. You're
one of the few people who bothers. It's valuable, so keep it up! :)

FWIW, this should end up helping 32-bit. Multiple arch development can
shake out difficult to find bugs that may remain hidden in a single arch
development.

> Obviously Intel is a late comer to 64 bit processing but they are the
> 800 pound gorilla so they're kind of hard to ignore and given their
> exceptional support of the open source community, I have no problem with
> this.

I'd substitue "growing support" for "exceptional support" above. It's a
good thing, but they're also a late comer in this area, too. I hope they
keep it up.

On the desktop they are the 800 pound gorilla. For servers they're only
a 500 pound gorilla. Or maybe a 400 pound gorilla. There are servers
options that completely wipe the floor with Intel.

-- 
Darrin Chandler            |  Phoenix BSD User Group  |  MetaBUG
dwchandler at stilyagin.com   |  http://phxbug.org/      |  http://metabug.org/
http://www.stilyagin.com/  |  Daemons in the Desert   |  Global BUG Federation