Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

wantilles · 2010-06-19 11:33:50

Arch x86_64 has been mainstream for more than 3 years now.

And for at least more than the last two years, it's even more mainstream than i686.

Then why do we keep a specific Arch64 subforum?

And we have it together with some other architectures (i586, ppc) that not even a handful of people use them?

sprince09 · 2010-06-19 13:18:25

Perhaps rename it to something like "Other Architectures" and just have all non-mainstream architecture discussion there?

Misfit138 · 2010-06-19 13:43:32

wantilles wrote:

Arch x86_64 has been mainstream for more than 3 years now.
And for at least more than the last two years, it's even more mainstream than i686.
Then why do we keep a specific Arch64 subforum?
And we have it together with some other architectures (i586, ppc) that not even a handful of people use them?

Interesting take, though I disagree that it is more mainstream than i686.
I'd like to hear more from the community on this.

Kosmonavt · 2010-06-19 13:50:30

Really this forum is needed as long as wine and skype aren't fully 64-bit. IMO, renaming is not the solution, since x86_64 is the only really supported and architecure for Arch, also "other architectures" words are present in its name.

AngryKoala · 2010-06-19 13:51:00

Misfit138 wrote:

wantilles wrote:
Arch x86_64 has been mainstream for more than 3 years now.
And for at least more than the last two years, it's even more mainstream than i686.
Then why do we keep a specific Arch64 subforum?
And we have it together with some other architectures (i586, ppc) that not even a handful of people use them?
Interesting take, though I disagree that it is more mainstream than i686.
I'd like to hear more from the community on this.

I got the impression from the forums that x86_64 was the norm, which is why I first installed it.

anonymous_user · 2010-06-19 14:09:53

I think it makes sense to have a separate forum for "other architectures" but not for AMD64.

AMD64 Arch has been out for a few years now and except for a few packages like wine and skype, it has most of the same packages as i686.

faelar · 2010-06-19 15:22:10

I think it makes sens to keep it for that exact reason :

except for a few packages like wine and skype

Maybe x86_64 is the norm in the Arch community (maybe not), but one sure thing is that it isn't for all those people with Windows XP/Vista (don't know for Seven). That means some company won't bother making a 64Bits version of their software (Skype I'm looking at you !).

So yes, there are really few differences between x86_64 and i686, and that few is enough for the forum to still be relevant.

Last edited by faelar (2010-06-19 15:22:37)

wantilles · 2010-06-19 15:47:20

anonymous_user wrote:

I think it makes sense to have a separate forum for "other architectures" but not for AMD64.
AMD64 Arch has been out for a few years now and except for a few packages like wine and skype, it has most of the same packages as i686.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

dcc24 · 2010-06-19 15:59:19

Add flash plugin to the list of 32bit only packages, since Adobe (and hence Arch) recently dropped support for it.

Skripka · 2010-06-19 16:04:00

dcc24 wrote:

Add flash plugin to the list of 32bit only packages, since Adobe (and hence Arch) recently dropped support for it.

It seems odd to me, maintaining a forum for an entirely separate architecture simply because of 3 proprietary packages.

I'd be curious what the norm is architecture wise. I remember the Arch April Fool of dropping i686...and LOTS of people suddenly realized that they had 64bit hardware that they were not using as such.

wantilles · 2010-06-19 17:12:01

Skripka wrote:

dcc24 wrote:
Add flash plugin to the list of 32bit only packages, since Adobe (and hence Arch) recently dropped support for it.
It seems odd to me, maintaining a forum for an entirely separate architecture simply because of 3 proprietary packages.

It is not that they are proprietary.

It is that they are either-or/and buggy, unreliable, do not respect personal data and privacy, and for more than a year now have extremely well-behaved replacements.

For example:
- wine
----> buggy
----> unreliable
----> has excellent replacement -> VirtualBox

- skype
----> buggy
----> unreliable
----> no respect for personal data
----> no respect for privacy
----> all your calls are being monitored-recorded
----> the same for all your file transfers
----> the same for all your chats

Why?

Because your consumer habits-preferences are worth billions of euros to the content-making companies (ie RIAA music studios and MPAA movie studios) so that they can produce more target-oriented material.

----> has excellent replacements -> pidgin, kmess, amsn etc.

gtklocker · 2010-06-19 17:18:06

wantilles wrote:

----> has excellent replacements -> pidgin, kmess, amsn etc.

Data still goes to Microsoft, though, since these programs are contacting to her servers, and support these features.

litemotiv · 2010-06-19 18:03:58

Misfit138 wrote:

Interesting take, though I disagree that it is more mainstream than i686.
I'd like to hear more from the community on this.

i'd say kill it, i personally find it confusing since almost all topics can be placed both in x86_64 and in the other forums.

hatten · 2010-06-19 18:15:46

What is the download stats for i686 vs 64? That way we at least won't have to fight over what's the most popular.

I'm atm sitting in the same room as 5 i686 arch computers, one i586 (unfortunately not arch) and a few more i686 in the house. Not a single 64bit. So I may be biased when I think that i686 is the more popular one.

skottish · 2010-06-19 18:15:58

One argument that I can think of in favor of leaving the x86_64 part is that Arch is not a multi-lib distro. I feel that that sub-forum may help in not polluting the others with what amounts to be nothing more than installed library issues. Ideally, I'd like to see more users taking the time to find out what the differences between 64 and 32 bit are before they install so that those types of threads don't need to be here. Regardless if 64 bit "is the future", far too many people install 64 bit Linux unnecessarily.

With that being said, I really don't care if that sub-forum is there or not.

dcc24 · 2010-06-19 18:16:49

Agreed. Most of the problems mentioned in the forums are architecture independent and a separate 64bit forum is unnecessary.

moose jaw · 2010-06-19 18:24:24

Perhaps it would be better to have a sub-forum devoted to "Architecture-specific issues": this would include things like getting 32-bit-only apps to work on Arch64, etc. It might not include anything i686-specific (are there any relevant i686-specific issues?) for now, but it could in the future if they come up. And it would be a natural place for, say, ARM-specific issues, if the Arch on ARM port goes mainstream at some point in the future. (though of course there could also just be a dedicated "ARM issues" sub-forum in that case, depending on what users/moderators think is better)

wantilles · 2010-06-19 18:27:41

hatten wrote:

What is the download stats for i686 vs 64? That way we at least won't have to fight over what's the most popular.
I'm atm sitting in the same room as 5 i686 arch computers, one i586 (unfortunately not arch) and a few more i686 in the house. Not a single 64bit. So I may be biased when I think that i686 is the more popular one.

Not quite.

If you have an amd64 CPU:

- from AMD K8 and afterwards
- from Intel Core2 and afterwards (I am not including Prescott PentiumDs because they had incompatibilities and partial amd64 implementation)

then there is absolutely NO REASON for you to run a x86 Linux distro, and not a native amd64 Linux distro, that is faster, takes full advantage of your hardware, and does not have a 4GB RAM (literally 2GB) limitation.

hatten · 2010-06-19 18:30:51

wantilles wrote:

hatten wrote:
What is the download stats for i686 vs 64? That way we at least won't have to fight over what's the most popular.
I'm atm sitting in the same room as 5 i686 arch computers, one i586 (unfortunately not arch) and a few more i686 in the house. Not a single 64bit. So I may be biased when I think that i686 is the more popular one.
Not quite.
If you have an amd64 CPU:
- from AMD K8 and afterwards
- from Intel Core2 and afterwards (I am not including Prescott PentiumDs because they had incompatibilities and partial amd64 implementation)
then there is absolutely NO REASON for you to run a x86 Linux distro, and not a native amd64 Linux distro, that is faster, takes full advantage of your hardware, and does not have a 4GB RAM (literally 2GB) limitation.

You quoted me faulty, right? I bet you wanted to quote skottish...

dcc24 · 2010-06-19 18:32:28

wantilles wrote:

then there is absolutely NO REASON for you to run a x86 Linux distro, and not a native amd64 Linux distro, that is faster, takes full advantage of your hardware, and does not have a 4GB RAM (literally 2GB) limitation.

This is wrong on so many levels. There are some widely used 32bit only software mentioned on this thread. So, people install both 32 and 64bit versions of stuff (everything bin32-* and lib32-*). I think this is a dirty solution, consumes more disk space and is just plain wrong. So there ARE reasons to stick with i686.

skottish · 2010-06-19 18:43:52

dcc24 wrote:

wantilles wrote:
then there is absolutely NO REASON for you to run a x86 Linux distro, and not a native amd64 Linux distro, that is faster, takes full advantage of your hardware, and does not have a 4GB RAM (literally 2GB) limitation.
This is wrong on so many levels. There are some widely used 32bit only software mentioned on this thread. So, people install both 32 and 64bit versions of stuff (everything bin32-* and lib32-*). I think this is a dirty solution, consumes more disk space and is just plain wrong. So there ARE reasons to stick with i686.

Of course. Games are almost universally faster under 32 bit. Video encoding and databases are almost universally faster under 64 bit. The overhead of swapping memory on 64 bit is far greater than 32 bit (up until a point).

wantilles · 2010-06-19 19:26:47

skottish wrote:

Games are almost universally faster under 32 bit.

Virtually, there are no quality games for GNU/Linux.

You want to play games?

Stick with Windows.

dcc24 · 2010-06-19 20:36:23

wantilles wrote:

skottish wrote:
Games are almost universally faster under 32 bit.
Virtually, there are no quality games for GNU/Linux.
You want to play games?
Stick with Windows.

Really??? Not this again...

OK, let me explain this: "Quality" is subjective and is measured by the enjoyment that the player gets from playing a particular game. If someone enjoys Frozen Bubble more than, say Assassins Creed 2, then, for that person Frozen Bubble is better in terms of quality than Assassins Creed 2.
So there are indeed A LOT of quality games for Linux. If they are not "quality" for you, that's your problem.

Last edited by dcc24 (2010-06-19 20:37:16)

.:B:. · 2010-06-19 20:43:22

wantilles wrote:

skottish wrote:
Games are almost universally faster under 32 bit.
Virtually, there are no quality games for GNU/Linux.
You want to play games?
Stick with Windows.

Don't pull Windows into this debate because it suits your position on this 'issue'. It looks just wrong (almost trollish). Just recognise x86_64 has its benefits and drawbacks, and play fair.

I think the argument of x86_64 being 'more' mainstream is up for discussion too .

Skripka · 2010-06-19 20:56:06

hatten wrote:

What is the download stats for i686 vs 64? That way we at least won't have to fight over what's the most popular.
I'm atm sitting in the same room as 5 i686 arch computers, one i586 (unfortunately not arch) and a few more i686 in the house. Not a single 64bit. So I may be biased when I think that i686 is the more popular one.

What would be more telling and important, would be how many issues are x86_64 specific, and how many are cross-architecture (32 and 64bit).

Granted I have no idea, but I'd bet a majority of issues are cross architecture.

Arch Linux

#1 2010-06-19 11:33:50

Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#2 2010-06-19 13:18:25

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#3 2010-06-19 13:43:32

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#4 2010-06-19 13:50:30

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#5 2010-06-19 13:51:00

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#6 2010-06-19 14:09:53

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#7 2010-06-19 15:22:10

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#8 2010-06-19 15:47:20

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#9 2010-06-19 15:59:19

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#10 2010-06-19 16:04:00

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#11 2010-06-19 17:12:01

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#12 2010-06-19 17:18:06

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#13 2010-06-19 18:03:58

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#14 2010-06-19 18:15:46

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#15 2010-06-19 18:15:58

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#16 2010-06-19 18:16:49

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#17 2010-06-19 18:24:24

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#18 2010-06-19 18:27:41

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#19 2010-06-19 18:30:51

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#20 2010-06-19 18:32:28

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#21 2010-06-19 18:43:52

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#22 2010-06-19 19:26:47

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#23 2010-06-19 20:36:23

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#24 2010-06-19 20:43:22

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#25 2010-06-19 20:56:06

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

Board footer