A Proposal To Go 64-bit Only With Fedora 23

[duby229]

You had THIS CPU then.

That's a Galatin core, which also has the PNI extensions for 64bit support, but as I said PNI is missing a few instructions from amd64.

[The Walking Glitch]

You had THIS CPU then.

No, what I had was branded as Pentium 4. It had the Prescott core. And quit top posting. It's annoying on mailing lists but it's just plain wrong on forums.

[Mat2]

That guy who proposed the change claims that it was a joke:

http://smoogespace.blogspot.com/2015/01/mea-maxima-culpa.html

Mea Maxima Culpa
I would like to apologize for my last blog post. My original intention was to make an absurd point by proposing to drop 32 bit architectures from being primary in Fedora. I didn't communicate clearly that this was meant to be absurd. It also did not clearly state that the problem I am worried about is that with many core developers only focusing on x86_64 and hardware that is less than 4 years old that people using x86_32 and ARM32 are in effect on borrowed time.

I made things worse by then trying to defend why I was making the absurd proposal in the first place. In doing so, I muddled things further and pissed off people versus making things better.

There may have been the Poe's law involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

[duby229]

???
Intel knew, BSDude will claim the last 32bit processor made by Intel was of the Netburst Architecture in 2004? So the wrong claim of BSDude is Intel's fault?

BTW: I can't exchange the mainboard of a netbook for a modern one with 64 bit CPU.

No, what I'm saying is that it's Intel's fault for releasing that junk. They knew folks just like you would have problems when this day arrived. But, they did what they did anyway. Besides Atom should be boycotted anyway due to other terrible decisions that Intel made.

[drSeehas]

That's Intel's fault. They knew this would happen. ...

???
Intel knew, BSDude will claim the last 32bit processor made by Intel was of the Netburst Architecture in 2004? So the wrong claim of BSDude is Intel's fault?

BTW: I can't exchange the mainboard of a netbook for a modern one with 64 bit CPU.

[chithanh]

@drSeehas
The initial netbook craze happened mostly on Intel Atom N270 CPUs, which are 32-bit only. But the Diamondville silicon itself is 64-bit capable, just Intel decided to fuse it off.

So you can thank Intel for intentionally gimping your netbook. They continue this practice to this day, which you may want to keep in mind next time you buy a computer.

[silakka]

I hope they do scrap 32-bit platforms. We gotta get rid of them some day.

[duby229]

Hm, my Intel Atom based netbook manufactured June 2009 is 32 bit only.

That's Intel's fault. They knew this would happen. And by 2009 I'm damn sure they knew it would be sooner than later.

[drSeehas]

... the last 32bit processor made by Intel was of the Netburst Architecture in 2004. ...

Hm, my Intel Atom based netbook manufactured June 2009 is 32 bit only.

[grok]

*cough* $80 Acer K202HQL 1600x900 http://pcpartpicker.com/part/acer-monitor-umiw3aa008 */cough*
*wheeze* $66 Hannspree HL161ABB 1366x768 http://pcpartpicker.com/part/hannspree-monitor-hl161abb */wheeze*

A more decent replacement would be an LCD with IPS panel, that about doubles the price.