On 07/12/2017 01:39 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 12.07.2017 um 13:24 schrieb Ralf Corsepius:
On 07/12/2017 11:57 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 at 02:06, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
Considering that SSE2 was introduced by Intel in 2001 and AMD caught up with it in 2003, I'd be +1 (with my FESCo hat on) to requiring SSE2, regardless of whether the above change is accepted.
If you require SSE2, you limit the usefulness of the i686 kernel to basically just a single generation of CPUs, the next generation introduced x86_64.
Right. It probably makes sense to abandon i686 kernels altogether, then.
If you intend to kill Fedora, and furtherly emphasize the impression of Fedora not being community driven distro :(
that is FUD and polemic
Well, I of course have disagree. The course Fedora has taken is obvious: Servers and containers.
And the course Fedora i686 has taken leads users directly to Ubuntu, Debian, Windows or the trash bin.
i strongly doubt a relevant usebase is on i686 kernels at all for reasons mutilple times explained - why would anybody run a bleeding edge distribution seriously on ages old hardware
Like I said before, I doubt the arm, powerpc etc. to have a user-base which is magnitudes smaller than the i686.
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 02:36:22PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
that is FUD and polemic
Well, I of course have disagree. The course Fedora has taken is obvious: Servers and containers.
I don't understand this perception. Yes, servers and containers are important. But we pretty clearly have a prominent top-level desktop-focused edition (Workstation, of course) plus *seven* other desktop spins plus several desktop-focused labs. A large portion of the articles we publish on Fedora Magazine are desktop-focused. And a huge number of Fedora contributors are interested in Linux on the desktop.
Our strategy is and has been to make Fedora relevant in three major areas: the server room, the cloud, *and* desktops.