2009/1/21 Avi Kivity <avi(a)redhat.com>:
Christopher Brown wrote:
>
> May I point out that those that care enough to want PAE usually know
> how to go about getting it enabled whereas those that have install
> failure because they're running non-PAE hardware probably wont know
> how to go about getting it disabled.
>
You mean, ordinary users don't care about security? Because that's one of
the advantages that PAE brings.
No, I meant ordinary users don't care about anything over 2GB.
You're right, they don't care, we have to care for them.
They do care about security but want it to be easy. Or simply don't
want to have to care.
> The fall-out from this going onto the livecd makes me shudder.
>
You're pushing out a development problem to the users.
Um, no. I'm simply against cutting out a tranche of people because of
the needs of the few. We have x86_64 Live anyway.
> The original argument that many machines have 4GB of memory is
simply
> false.
My ~3yo home box has 4GB. I'm not an ordinary user (or it would be a
computer, not a "box"), but I don't think you can claim 4GB is rare.
Rare for this use case, yes.
> Manufacturers aren't shipping anything more than 2GB on
> desktops at most unless you have oodles of money to throw at a
> Alienware box or something. Sure, servers come with more but Fedora is
> not really a reality for a long term server O.S
Servers should use x86_64 anyway. But I strongly disagree about penalizing
the future to cater for the past.
I'm not sure you're penalizing the past, I think this is penalizing the present.
--
Christopher Brown