Re: [gentoo-user] Which arch do I have ?

[KH]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 February 2008, Wael Nasreddine wrote:
>
>> This One Time, at Band Camp, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com>
>>
> said, On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 03:05:20PM +0200:
>
>>> On Tuesday 12 February 2008, Wael Nasreddine wrote:
>>>
>
>
>>> The x86_64 name is used by Red Hat and other distros. There are all
>>> the same thing really, but using the wrong name in the wrong
>>> context clouds the issues and leads to vast side-threads asking
>>> question that have no answers and that accomplish nothing.
>>>
>> I'm sorry but I'm just used to call it this way, most of distros I
>> have tried in the past call it this way, anyway I'll try to memorize
>> it.
>>
>
> Cool. Nothing worse than composing a decent post, only to then have to
> explain that you weren't using THIS definition but rather THAT one.
> It's an easy enough error to make (do it myself too) so no worries
>
sorry for the question:
why does

#ls /usr/src/linux/arch/

show

alpha/     blackfin/  h8300/     m32r/      mips/      ppc/       
sh64/      um/        xtensa/   
arm/       cris/      i386/      m68k/      parisc/    s390/      
sparc/     v850/     
avr32/     frv/       ia64/      m68knommu/ powerpc/   sh/        
sparc64/   x86_64/  

but not amd64?

kh
>
>>> So, the only good reason to move to amd64 is when you buy a 64 bit
>>> machine
>>>
>> I have 1G RAM and it's a laptop doesn't serve huge databases so I
>> guess despite if my CPU is 64 or 32 bits, I'll just stick with the 32
>> version, works great...
>>
>
> Agreed. You have no obvious benefits from a 64 bit arch. You also get to
> not have to struggle with flash wondering if it will work this time or
> not ;-)
>
>

-- 
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list