Comment 80 for bug 1025555

Is is important to point out a couple things with content of this actual bug report:

* Bay Trail Atom SOCs are NOT 32-bit. They are 64-bit with a 32-bit UEFI implementation.
* Intel has contributed an enormous amount of effort to the 3.17 kernel and has specifically aided in comprehensive support of the Bay Trail Atom product line.
* Atom is not special architecture and doesn't have particularly complex hardware, nor is it a nonstandard component in consumer hardware - with that in mind, why are the Ubuntu developers considering forking or porting Ubuntu? The improved support in the 3.17 Linux kernel should be a very strong indicator that Ubuntu's mainline release should be able to support Atom-based devices.

I very much appreciate that the developers are finally researching adding proper support for Atom (and, more importantly, 32-bit UEFI), but I think it's absolutely critical that the appropriate information and semantics be included in this bug report and any other documentation regarding this hardware.