On Sat, 2012-05-19 at 19:44 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 03:16:15AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > Most new PCs have an Intel or AMD 64-bit processor, and
> > popcon.debian.org shows amd64 numbers almost matching i386.
>
> > So in wheezy I would like to see:
> > 1. Default architecture (top of the list for installation media/manual)
> > being amd64 ('64-bit PC').
> > 2. Users of the amd64 kernel flavour on i386 encouraged to add amd64 as
> > a secondary architecture (debconf note?).
>
> My biggest concern with this is the same that prevented Ubuntu from
> switching to amd64 as a default for 12.04 - namely, that even though almost
> all new hardware coming out would benefit from a 64-bit OS, there's a
> sizeable fraction of users for whom a 64-bit CD would be nothing more than a
> coaster.
I certainly don't propose to have any pages where amd64 is the only
option. But where we have lists of multiple architectures, I would like
to see '64-bit PC' first.
Quite a few such lists sorted alphabetically by Debian architecture
name, which means that 'amd64' comes first. However, 'amd64' confuses
many people, and sorting by descriptive name puts '32-bit PC' first.
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2012-April/035088.html
>
> Now perhaps it's easier for Debian to switch this default than it is for
> Ubuntu, since Debian's choice of default arch doesn't have quite the same
> "all or nothing" impact on pressed CDs and the like. But IMHO it's better
> for our users to choose a default that's safe, at the cost of some users not
> getting the most out of their hardware if they use the default.
Actually, the default Debian installation medium - in so far as it's
linked from the front of www.debian.org - is an amd64/i386 netinst
image, which encourages use of amd64 while still being 'safe'.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
All extremists should be taken out and shot.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part