Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fedora 34 To Proceed With An AArch64 KDE Plasma Desktop Spin

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by polarathene View Post

    What makes ARM64 better than AArch64? ARM officially uses AArch64, or A64 for the instruction set. If you're a dev, you've got a variety of targets, modern ARM 64-bit Cortex-A processors are going to be aarch64, makes sense to not complicate things further. Not like the audience of these images will be average joe consumer who wouldn't care either way as both AArch64 or ARM64, or even ARM 64-bit is going to sound too technical, they'd just see the device as a device and not want to think about technical shit like that.

    Perhaps you get someone who buys a RPi and wants to run a different linux distro than Raspbian, they have an interest in Fedora, so they look for ARM support, or just "Fedora Raspberry Pi", or some article or community discussion that mentions/links the spin. Chances that they care or even recognize ARM64 as a consistent branding across other OS is still probably low for that type of user. It's like trying to argue about GNU/Linux or whatever.
    It's just a really bad naming scheme?

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by aspen View Post

      It's just a really bad naming scheme?
      And x86 was better how? Distro images would be i386, i686, for 32-bit and amd64 for 64-bit I think? Which got confusing as a user because you'd be like "but I'm running Intel not AMD CPU, what?" (I know why it's amd64). Not like that every changed, but I think you'd usually see it referred to as 32-bit and 64-bit x86 (or the x86 bit was omitted), which is more user friendly.

      You'll probably see it handled the same as ARM becomes more common for mainstream devices that can install the various distros, they might not even bother with 64-bit (as I doubt you'd see any 32-bit ARM on such devices), nor ARMv8 or whatever we're at now, just ARM. For technical usage though, it's still useful to stick to the aarch64 when relevant, being explicit makes it easier to identify what it works on, rather than generic "arm" implies, matters for devs/IT, not so much users.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by polarathene View Post

        And x86 was better how? Distro images would be i386, i686, for 32-bit and amd64 for 64-bit I think? Which got confusing as a user because you'd be like "but I'm running Intel not AMD CPU, what?" (I know why it's amd64). Not like that every changed, but I think you'd usually see it referred to as 32-bit and 64-bit x86 (or the x86 bit was omitted), which is more user friendly.

        You'll probably see it handled the same as ARM becomes more common for mainstream devices that can install the various distros, they might not even bother with 64-bit (as I doubt you'd see any 32-bit ARM on such devices), nor ARMv8 or whatever we're at now, just ARM. For technical usage though, it's still useful to stick to the aarch64 when relevant, being explicit makes it easier to identify what it works on, rather than generic "arm" implies, matters for devs/IT, not so much users.
        I never said x86 was better. ARM and ARM64 is not confusing. "Aarch64" does not imply "ARM" at first glance, however.

        Comment

        Working...
        X