Bug#198158: architecture i386 isn't i386 anymore
Adam Borowski <kilobyte@mimuw.edu.pl> a tapoté :
> > In any case we need to make clear if we allow 486 optimisation that
> > are not i386 compatible or not.
> What about perusing the INT 6 idea, and going all the way up to i686?
> As i686 is already like ten(?) years old, I would say 99.9% [1] machines
> that run sarge are 686 and higher -- thus, moving to i686-specific
> optimizations would be good for the vast majority of users (this comes
> from someone who set up two servers on P MMX two weeks ago :p)
>
> If speed on archaic machines is an issue, you can always use the
> wonderful piece of software called apt-build.
You said that "if speed on archaic machines is an issue, you can
always use the wonderful piece of software called apt-build.". You
replied to a message that asked "if we allow 486 optimisation that
are not i386 are not i386 compatible or not".
It's not a matter of harmless optimisation (nobody will object about
that) but of incompatible optimisation. Are you proposing to make
Debian for i*86 a distribution incompatible with < i686?
If so, are you kidding? The Pentium classic (i586) was still available
in 1997.
I know a lot of person who use a Pentium classic as mini-server, with
is really enough to run a local network.
Also P MMX seems meaningless to me. MMX was, I think, introduced in
Pentium Pro (which is still a i586 according to uname) and nowadays
computers still got MMX (so what is the meaning of P MMX? PPro? PII?
PIII? PIV?).
And, what do you mean by higher than i686? i64?
Skipping 386 for 486 seems acceptable because nowadays, a distro
requires more HD space and RAM than it's possible to add with usual
386 motherboards, but dropping all Pentiums until Pentium II
generation seems completely foolish. I hope I misunderstood your
message.
> [1] 90% of statistics are made up on the spot.
90% of meaningless statistics, you mean?
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Reply to: