Re: architecture kernel problems

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 20:58 +0000, James Wilkinson wrote:
> Les wrote:
> > 	I didn't know that the 686 stuff would run OK on the celeron, thus my
> > choice of the 386 pkg.  Since I see so much about the issues of 64 bit
> > still being not quite fully implemented, I will probably stay where I am
> > until 64 bit is fully running (I am assuming that 686 is 64 bit).
> 
> No. Definitely not. Completely different stuff.
> 
> Erm -- as a result of an adverse decision in a lawsuit with AMD, Intel
> branded their P5 processor as the Pentium and the P6 as the Pentium Pro,
> since they could trademark those names. Precisely *because* those names
> were trademarked, they can't be used as generic names. So people
> continued the i?86 sequence, using i586 to refer to Pentium-compatible
> processors and i686 to refer to Pentium Pro-compatible processors.
> 
> (Later, Intel branded different versions of the Pentium Pro under other
> names, including Pentium II, Pentium III, and Celeron. But not all
> Celerons are P6-based).
> 
> Intel's preferred 64 bit architecture was the Itanium -- the 64 bit
> architecture implemented on Athlon 64, Opteron, later Pentium 4 and
> Intel Core 2 processors was designed by AMD (and cloned by Intel).
>  
> > 	I have mucked up my installation a bit already and a reinstall may be
> > imminent if I can't figure this out today.  My ultimate goal is to drive
> > a dual processor dual core system with 64 bit capability for some
> > software I had been working on (I need more flops to make it useful).
> 
> Moving to 64 bit really implies a fresh install anyway.
> 
> > I
> > really like the opterons and have been following the progress people are
> > making with those systems.  I hope one of them will summarize their work
> > soon, and the state of the whole system would be helpful.
> 
> Well, I've been working on a (single core) Athlon 64 for a couple of
> years now, and this e-mail is written on one.
> 
> As far as Fedora software is concerned, it looks and feels almost
> indistinguishable from the 32 bit version. The whole distribution is
> polished and well integrated. There are a few issues remaining with the
> multiarch setup (having i386 and x86-64 versions of the same package at
> once) which you don't get in 32 bit installs, and closed source software
> support is often not nearly as good -- some people find that a problem.
> At the moment, this mainly affects Web browser plugins and media codecs.
> 
> Intel's new Core 2 Duo architecture is very well regarded, and quad-core
> processors are beginning to come out. You may find they do what you
> need.
> 
> > ... I am a bit of a lightweight on system install and
> > config stuff.  So for me, a step by step install guide will get me where
> > I need to be, and that appears rare.
> 
> 1. Download an x86_64 version of Fedora Core.
> 
> 2. Burn it to CD / DVD as you would the 32 bit version.
> 
> 3. Place the disc inside a 64-bit capable computer.
> 
> 4. Install as you would a 32 bit version of Fedora.
> 
> > Also I was surprised to find
> > packages installed in the "lib" directory.  I have expected them to be
> > in a /usr/local directory or something like that.  I am a bit of a
> > structure nut when it comes to systems, although you would not guess it
> > when you see my computer room (messy is too polite).
> 
> http://www.pathname.com/fhs/ : the Linux File Hierarchy Standard. It
> specifies where everything goes on a Linux (or other Unix-like)
> system.[1] You might also like to check
> http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-6.1-Manual/ref-guide/ch-sysadmin.html
> which is still basically accurate.
> 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> James.
> 
> [1] Having said that, by no means all Unix-like OSes claim to follow the
> FHS
Thanks, James, 
I realized the 64 bit blunder when I thought about it a bit.  As I said
in another post I have a really bad cold and it seems to have affected
my overall performance, gray matter and gray hair considered.  And
thanks very much for the catch and information.

Regards,
Les H

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
[Index of Archives]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [Fedora Magazine]     [Fedora News]     [Fedora Summer Coding]     [Fedora Laptop]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [SSH]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Fedora Universal Network Connector]     [Libvirt Users]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux