Talk:List of Linux-supported computer architectures

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

is RS/6000 correct?[edit]

I own a RS/6000 Model P43 and the latest kernel I was able to run is from the 2.4 series. 2.6 kernels don't work, the architecture support has been removed as far as I can tell. Should this be added as a note like with the Sun-4 architecture? --79.196.62.130 (talk) 11:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

contested statements removed[edit]

  • Sun Microsystems 3-series workstations (experimental, uses Sun-3 MMU) {{Fact|date=December 2006}}
  • Clones made by the Tatung Company and others{{Fact|date=December 2006}}
  • NEC v850e {{Fact|date=December 2006}}

Please do not reinsert this information into the article without a citation.--BirgitteSB 18:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

some (newer) versions are unstable on certain architectures[edit]

Aside from being "masked" for ARM architecture in Gentoo Linux (deamed unsuitable for the systems based on the arm architecture), it seems that gentoo portage tree "ebuild" notes for unpatched / vanilla / kernel.org 2.6.23.17 source are correct in otherwise NOT masking 2.6.23.17 (unlike the "bleeding edge" (higher than 2.6.23.17) kernel versions as they have well-known stability issues or even introduce bugs on several non-x86 architectectures)

  • 2.6.24.5 and higher kernels Note: some confusion potentially occurs when the the specific Instruction set the distribution was intended for is for simply labeled "x86-64" but really means AMD 64-bit (this is not truly identical to the Itanium instruction set found on many 64-bit capable Intel Core 2 architecture systems which have an instruction set shared with the Itanium server-model processors)

"Linux can run on Windows"[edit]

That caption is misleading. Linux can be run on Windows, yes, but you need extra software to do it. 74.211.15.99 (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that caption should be improved... any ideas? SF007 (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the discussion on Talk:Linux#Constant removal of Linux on Windows image, some IMO very good reasons have been given why this non-free image should not be used to give undue weight to a single port of Linux. Let's see, there's VMWare, Parallels on Mac OS X, etc. Are we going to add screenshots of those? Screenshots of Linux running on Alpha? Sun machines? Plus the citations for this have been lacking. I've seen citation to the company website, which isn't a third party source, and to an unreliable wiki. I'd say it doesn't belong here at all. Certainly not at the top of the article or as the only image. Yworo (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not supported list[edit]

The list is long. Would it be informative to add a list of architectures that are not supported? Andries (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. The lack of support for 8-bit and 16-bit architectures is fairly well known. Unless there was some reason that Linux should be able to run on a given architecture, but can't, it's not worth listing. inclusivedisjunction (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Formerly-supported architectures[edit]

I support adding a section titled Formerly-supported architectures -- i.e., supported by older versions of Linux but not by the latest version.

Take the case of 80386. The article currently has an inline comment saying 80386 was "abandoned in version 3.8." The article will eventually become peppered with dozens of such comments, barring a new "formerly-supported" section.

A "formerly-supported" section will eventually grow to be lengthy; 30 years from now, the majority of currently-supported architectures will have become unsupported. 204.245.56.3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ubiquity image again[edit]

As with the discussions here and here, this image is not appropriate in this article, especially replacing the lede image. This image is being spammed across any article marginally related to Linux, and it's inappropriate at most of them. This article is a list article about computer architectures that support Linux, and a generic image vaguely illustrating that the human input interacts with the hardware does not aid in furthering the understanding of this article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I agree. What can I say? I normally try to comment on the contribution instead of the contributor, unless it becomes apparent that the contributor is the issue. Unfortunately, that seems to be the case here. ScotXW seems to have a history of resorting to edit war instead of collegial behavior. (Not just discussion; we do have forms of collegial redoing as well.) Nevertheless, any time he decided to change his modus operandi, I'll welcome him to the team.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunway[edit]

Sunway (processor) seems unlikely, given that "precise details of the instruction set are unknown" (from the article). I don't see it in the source tree. I suspect there is an fork of the kernel that has this support, but it's not part of the official tree. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Linux-supported_computer_architectures&oldid=1208257838"