Re: Installer: 32 vs. 64 bit
- Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 13:40:59 +0100
- From: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Installer: 32 vs. 64 bit
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 11:36:36AM +0000, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 10:41:32PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > Or an user error. In either case, I don't get what a 32-bit _x86_ virtual
> > machine would be good for. Are you teaching some code archeology? Do you
> > want to prepare 32-bit images for something deeply embedded? Neither sounds
> > an activity fit for your students.
> I'm not sure we are necessarily the experts in what is a fit activity
> for this teacher's students.
If his students were doing code archaeology or deep embedded, such areas
require enough base skills that getting spooked by 32 vs 64 bits would be
Less variants -> less confusion -> less pain for the teacher. There are
architectures where running a 32-bit VM might be a worthy use of your time,
but it's not the case here.
> > For anything else, you want an amd64 kernel, possibly running i386 or x32
> > code.
> IMHO there are a remarkably small number of situations where x32 would be a
> sensible suggestion.
As a lapsed x32 porter, I agree. But it's still more sensible than i386.
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Have you heard of the Amber Road? For thousands of years, the
⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ Romans and co valued amber, hauled through the Europe over the
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ mountains and along the Vistula, from Gdańsk. To where it came
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ together with silk (judging by today's amber stalls).