WHOOPS! Time for Vacation. It's not my K^, it's my Pentium 200MHz I need it for. <smacks forehead> Shesh! On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 13:19 -0400, William L. Maltby wrote: > On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 11:22 -0500, Steve wrote: > > William L. Maltby wrote: > > > > >I have the problem that I almost never throw anything away that can > > >still be useful. In itself, not bad. Combined with the "World We Live > > >In" (TM), a "Less Than Optimal Behavior" (SM). > > > > > >I need some of the features in CentOSPlus kernels for my 586 (K6-III). > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that the 686 kernel is compiled with the 586 or 486 > > instruction set but optimized for i686. (There is almost no benefit > > from using the few new i686 instructions, though a few people still moan > > about it.) A 586 kernel I believe would use the 586 instruction set and > > be optimized for an Intel Pentium 1. I'm not sure how much the K6-III > > would benefit from the Intel optimizations. The K6-III was a superior > > chip. (I really liked my 450, and you gotta love the 3 levels of cache.) > > > > If I were you, I'd just use yum the prebuilt one. > > Umm... I was led to believe that I might need a 586-specific one by the > fact that the base system must provide one for installs to succeed, IIRC > and RH made a point of saying they no longer support 586. Is that just > install-time incompatibility and RH problem resolution support? If the > kernel in Plus is suffixed with -686, what's that mean to me? > > Thanks for taking the time, regardless. > > > > -Steve > > <snip sig stuff> > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- Bill
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
