Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

Skripka · 2010-06-19 20:57:26

.:B:. wrote:

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

How many people changed architecture when y'all scared i686 users with that April Fool?

There were LOTS of skeered people that day, I will say.

wantilles · 2010-06-19 21:09:52

Skripka wrote:

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.

I agree.

I would say the vast majority of issues, is architecture-independent.

And this is not by chance.

Linux amd64 has been around since at least the fall of 2004 (we're talking more than 5.5, almost 6, years now).

skottish · 2010-06-19 21:17:03

I'm as guilty as anyone for letting this is thread drift off topic. It's a useful discussion and we should bring it back. So, to summarize a bit of information when this came up in the super-secret-moderator area of the forums a while back that parallels some of the posts in this thread:

There are other things going on than just 64 bit in that sub-forum. ArchPPC seems to be getting some traction of late, a community port to ARM is in the works, the GNU/Hurd port has development, the various 586 ports come and go, there's a bit of pacman to BSD work happening, etc. None of these things are getting a lot of posts, but it does fit into the 'other architectures' category.

Back to the original question then: does there need to be a x86_64 sub-forum?

Misfit138 · 2010-06-19 22:00:53

Perhaps rather than dissolving the entire subforum, it could simply be renamed something reminiscent of "Other Architectures", which would discourage any posts regarding systemic x86_64 issues (which would be neatly organized elsewhere). The "How to Post" section of the forum etiquette could then be amended to include a request for members to include the architecture they are running, if relevant. A sticky for the Newbie Corner containing similar information may also be appropriate.

Seem reasonable?

skottish · 2010-06-19 22:02:04

Misfit138 wrote:

Perhaps rather than dissolving the entire subforum, it could simply be renamed something reminiscent of "Other Architectures", which would discourage any posts regarding systemic x86_64 issues (which would be neatly organized elsewhere). The "How to Post" section of the forum etiquette could then be amended to include a request for members to include the architecture they are running, if relevant. A sticky for the Newbie Corner containing similar information may also be appropriate.
Seem reasonable?

Groovy.

anonymous_user · 2010-06-19 23:07:49

Misfit138 wrote:

Seem reasonable?

Yes very much so.

skottish · 2010-06-19 23:27:18

It would be helpful, as mentioned earlier in this thread, to have a place for multi-lib questions to go. Of course, changing the current situation may not be helpful at all...

Labello · 2010-06-20 08:21:01

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.

öhhm... u missed the fact that steam is coming to linux right?

litemotiv · 2010-06-20 08:22:14

skottish wrote:

It would be helpful, as mentioned earlier in this thread, to have a place for multi-lib questions to go. Of course, changing the current situation may not be helpful at all...

looking at the topic titles in the x64 forum, doesn't it usually speak for itself?

bin32-wine no alsa option [solved]
running 32 bit stuff on 64bit arch
Building 32bit wine from source
[SOVED] Thunderbird doesn't start on arch 64

these could all go into 'workstation user' without much trouble.

as a fallback people can choose to tag their threads if it's platform specific?

[x64] flashplugin displays text in chinese and i can't read chinese

hatten · 2010-06-20 08:28:29

litemotiv wrote:

[x64] flashplugin displays text in chinese and i can't read chinese

That's not platform specific, that's language specific!

Ontopic: sounds like a good solution, but I still want to know what is downloaded the most, 32- or 64-bit.

AngryKoala · 2010-06-20 08:44:49

skottish wrote:

It would be helpful, as mentioned earlier in this thread, to have a place for multi-lib questions to go. Of course, changing the current situation may not be helpful at all...

Wouldn't multi-lib questions go in the pacman or workstation sub-forums for installation or configuration?

litemotiv · 2010-06-20 08:49:09

hatten wrote:

Ontopic: sounds like a good solution, but I still want to know what is downloaded the most, 32- or 64-bit.

https://www.archlinux.de/?page=PackageStatistics

[i686] 52.61 %
[x86_64] 47.39 %

in february 2009 this was still roughly 75% / 25%

mangus · 2010-06-20 09:57:02

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.

www.heroesofnewerth.com

best native game I ever played

Inxsible · 2010-06-20 16:31:28

I have to agree with the OP, that there is no specific need for a separate sub-forum for x64. I have both machines 32 bit and 64 bit. But all the issues that I have ever run into, are mostly because of some particular app or configuration. About bin-32-skype and such software, i think having a separate forum for 5, 10 even 20 packages is an additional hassle. The OP of any of those types of threads can just as easily mention that he/she is using a 64 bit Arch install.

I don't game (does that show my age?), so I, personally could care less if 32 bit is better at gaming than 64 bit. So, as long as my machine can support a 64-bit OS, I am always going to install a 64 bit OS. I also then install only 64 bit software on those machines. or create a chroot to install 32 bit software that i just have to have

Last edited by Inxsible (2010-06-20 20:25:46)

wantilles · 2010-06-20 19:03:34

Misfit138 wrote:

Perhaps rather than dissolving the entire subforum, it could simply be renamed something reminiscent of "Other Architectures", which would discourage any posts regarding systemic x86_64 issues (which would be neatly organized elsewhere). The "How to Post" section of the forum etiquette could then be amended to include a request for members to include the architecture they are running, if relevant. A sticky for the Newbie Corner containing similar information may also be appropriate.
Seem reasonable?

That's exactly the proposal I had in mind, when I started this thread.

flamelab · 2010-06-20 20:11:58

64bit is mainstream, at least ... on Arch, since almost 50% of the users use the x86_64 version.

ngoonee · 2010-06-20 22:42:18

I still think 32-bit chroot/lib32 questions need a home...

wantilles · 2010-06-21 09:40:24

ngoonee wrote:

I still think 32-bit chroot/lib32 questions need a home...

Even then, the forum should not be named Arch64.

But rather something like lib32.

So a user running a fully amd64 native installation, posts in the "normal" "stock" sub-forums, because that's the way it should be.

ngoonee · 2010-06-21 10:05:47

wantilles wrote:

ngoonee wrote:
I still think 32-bit chroot/lib32 questions need a home...
Even then, the forum should not be named Arch64.
But rather something like lib32.
So a user running a fully amd64 native installation, posts in the "normal" "stock" sub-forums, because that's the way it should be.

Yes, sounds about right.

nixpunk · 2010-06-21 13:58:09

Misfit138 wrote:

Perhaps rather than dissolving the entire subforum, it could simply be renamed something reminiscent of "Other Architectures", which would discourage any posts regarding systemic x86_64 issues (which would be neatly organized elsewhere). The "How to Post" section of the forum etiquette could then be amended to include a request for members to include the architecture they are running, if relevant. A sticky for the Newbie Corner containing similar information may also be appropriate.
Seem reasonable?

Seems reasonable here. The statistics also seem to support the merge/change.

v.blackwood · 2010-06-28 07:34:39

I wonder that too. 64-bit is THE architecture now. 32-bit processors are in the past. Neither AMD nor Intel even manufactures one to my knowledge, and virtually everything coded for 32-bit can be compiled for 64 with no extra arguments ... 32 bit OSes are mostly bought(windows) or used (32-bit linux) for legacy support. Arch x86_64 is essentially the 'main,' considering anyone with a modern processor and 4GB of RAM will be using it.

Skripka · 2010-06-28 12:54:47

v.blackwood wrote:

I wonder that too. 64-bit is THE architecture now. 32-bit processors are in the past. Neither AMD nor Intel even manufactures one to my knowledge, and virtually everything coded for 32-bit can be compiled for 64 with no extra arguments ... 32 bit OSes are mostly bought(windows) or used (32-bit linux) for legacy support. Arch x86_64 is essentially the 'main,' considering anyone with a modern processor and 4GB of RAM will be using it.

You're thinking new machines. LOTS of Archers and Linux users still run what is considered "obsolete" hardware.

akurei · 2010-06-30 22:43:53

There's still a lot of 32 bit CPU sold in netbooks.

skottish · 2010-07-25 00:23:17

I still feel that some change needs to made in regards to this. We're still receiving questions in that forum that are there only because a user has 64 bit and isn't familiar with the depth of this forum. I'm also still in support of using that sub-forum as a multi-lib discussion area. Maybe "Other Architectures & Multi-lib"?

Skripka · 2010-07-25 00:49:35

skottish wrote:

I still feel that some change needs to made in regards to this. We're still receiving questions in that forum that are there only because a user has 64 bit and isn't familiar with the depth of this forum. I'm also still in support of using that sub-forum as a multi-lib discussion area. Maybe "Other Architectures & Multi-lib"?

You got my vote still.

Do all the threads in the amd64 forums contain a reference to the fact they were architecture specific? If y'all go changing forums names/moving threads, make sure we can still easily find old stuff...say by adding an "amd64:" prefix to those older thread headers if needed.

Arch Linux

#26 2010-06-19 20:57:26

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#27 2010-06-19 21:09:52

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#28 2010-06-19 21:17:03

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#29 2010-06-19 22:00:53

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#30 2010-06-19 22:02:04

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#31 2010-06-19 23:07:49

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#32 2010-06-19 23:27:18

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#33 2010-06-20 08:21:01

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#34 2010-06-20 08:22:14

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#35 2010-06-20 08:28:29

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#36 2010-06-20 08:44:49

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#37 2010-06-20 08:49:09

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#38 2010-06-20 09:57:02

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#39 2010-06-20 16:31:28

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#40 2010-06-20 19:03:34

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#41 2010-06-20 20:11:58

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#42 2010-06-20 22:42:18

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#43 2010-06-21 09:40:24

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#44 2010-06-21 10:05:47

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#45 2010-06-21 13:58:09

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#46 2010-06-28 07:34:39

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#47 2010-06-28 12:54:47

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#48 2010-06-30 22:43:53

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#49 2010-07-25 00:23:17

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

#50 2010-07-25 00:49:35

Re: Why do we keep a specific Arch64 subform?

Board footer