you can separate the kernel and give the space back to the app
Yeah, you can, but it's a hassle every time the machine insists you take the application floppy out of the drive and put in the DOS disk to reload command.com.
The right wingers are calling them Freedom Fries now to be anti-French.
The French, however, don't hold any claim at all on the food product Americans call the French Fry. I would predict they'd be offended if you called a french fry 'French cuisine'.
intel should turn transmeta into their server line of CPU's, and specifically design them around linux.
And they should use Transmeta parts because their 'server line' should be extremely low power? Are you talking about wireless servers duct taped under the seats on city busses or what??
Microsoft can provide a Server OS for Itanium and x86-64. They can balk on providing a desktop OS for either architecture.
Doing so, they can let the market shake out which processor, or both, is best. However, most people seem to agree (I am NO expert to have an opinon on the matter) that Itanium will be better than x86-64 as a server CPU. Why drag along the legacy x86 stuff for Server platforms where compatability with Fred's ancient shareware crap isn't needed? 'Legacy support' is largely a Desktop issue for Microsoft. Cuz they don't have a hell of a lot of a server legacy.
Hell, I ran multiuser with five users on my Altos 586 (not a pentium, it was an 8086 machine that had five terminal ports). It was an 8086 machine with 512K of RAM and (get this) Microsoft Xenix (from before SCO).
The machines that were on win95 which is no longer supported (pentium 75-266) will run just fine with linux, especially if mainly terminals, and now you have another small unix lab worth of computers.
There are lots of those old machines around, but it's not an idea that I have seen take hold.
My uncle-in-law is pastor at a church that has an associated K-12 school, and I am thinking of proposing to set them up with a Linux or BSD computer lab. There's a auction site (a 'real world' auction site with real people bidding, etc.) that I go to weekly, and not long ago there were pallet lots of Dell machines, about 50 per pallet, and they went for $120 per pallet. I scarfed up the two good machines out of the bunch (a dual PPRO-200 box and an IBM RS/6000 workstation) for $40 for the pair. I am not sure what the salvage guy buying the rest of them had in mind, but they sure went cheap.
Why would you want to cling forever to the same motherboard?
If you do, there are always kludges you can install. Hell, you can probably run a Pentium on a crippled 8088 XT system with the right expensive upgrade part.
I view the processor and motherboard as a married pair. When I upgrade one, I upgrade the other. Doing anything else would leave me with a drawer full of worthless processor chips. As it stands, each upgrade means I have an old motherboard to make into a server or router, or give to a nephew.
just like the old LIM (Lotus intel Microsoft) Expanded Memory boards for the old IBM PCs of yore : basically segmentation and paging. Anyone who can remember those days will concur.
There are a few important distinctions. LIM was a horrible kludge in part because it stuck all that extra memory on the 8 MHz AT bus on an ISA slot. You could actually tell when a machine had that kind of memory in it because it would dramatically slow down as enough data and software got loaded that it started working in that memory.
New 'hacks' to work around the 4 GB limit will not do ANYTHING that horrible.
Also: It is far easier to add a UNIX compatibility layer to some more-elegant-than-UNIX OS than it is to add a fast x86 compatibility layer to a non-x86 chip.
Yes, that is true. There's even a robust POSIX subsystem that will run on the NT core kernal. It's called Interix, and was developed as 'Open NT' by a company called Softway Systems. Microsoft has purchased it and have pretty much embraced and stifled it, but it's there and available. It is a true POSIX layer, certified even, and comes bundled with all the GNU tools. It makes cygwin look like the Win32-hack that it is (cygwin just runs as a POSIX layer on top of Win32, Interix runs as a whole seperate subsystem beside the Win32 subsystem.)
I bought my first Interix license before Microsoft swallowed it up. The Interix guys, right before the acquisition by Microsoft, openly asked the market if it wanted Interix open sourced. Almost nobody said anything about it. It's turned into a real shame.
I bought my second Interix License after the Microsoft product came out. They'd issued me a $100 'buying certificate' for some sort of Microsoft Frequent Customer award thing, and I figured instead of using it to buy more Microsoft dreck, I'd buy another POSIX subsystem and GNU toolchain from them.
If you're running Java code, why does it matter if it's 'x86 or not? It will be a totally new replacement machine wether it's x86 or Itanium or what-not. If the market won't realize 8 gig desktops (Intel is betting on it, others are not), you won't get your 8 gig environment anywhere.
If Intel is wrong here, Intel-haters should be rejoicing. Intel will be out of business. You can buy your 'little company' processors in the newly opened market. Instead there's all this 'conspiracy theory' stuff.
their 64-bit solution requires a completely different instruction set. It's painful to switch to an Itanium from an x86 platform. On the other hand, AMD's 64-bit solution(x86-64) should be about as painless a transition as the move from 16-bit to 32-bit processors.
It's great watching people turn from opposing to advocating the x86 legacy (one of the foundation blocks of the Wintel monopoly) as a Good Thing because somebody-other-than-Intel is championing it.
What's more likely to happen is Intel will finally wrest themselves free of the x86 legacy that everybody has claimed for years mires their architecture. AMD will grab onto that legacy like your dumb uncle who buys every 8-track tape he can get ahold of at garage sales. Because it's lil' AMD doing it, YAY x86!!
OH, and expect some dirty tricks, we know AMD is gonna be ready to sell you 64 bit way before us, so, well... you'll just see;)
I am not expecting 'dirty tricks.' What I'm expecting is the eventual 'conspiracy theories' from the usual fanboys about why AMD is languishing in the market. As AMD steams ahead to a 64 bit desktop line that only a tiny slice of the market needs, their 'because we can do it, not because people will buy it' rollout will cost them bigtime. It might put them out of the business. Two years from now the whine will be 'Intel put AMD out of business by not moving ahead on the 64 bit desktop' when the truth will be, AMD were idiots for doing it, Intel held back for what made sense, etc. etc.
At a National Press Club function that I heard over the radio (NPR) back in that era (I think it was probably in 1985 or 6) Steve Jobs boasted of how the Macintosh was 'hacker proof.' A sealed box 'for the rest of us' whoever that means...
I'm sure there's no record of that speech anywhere that we'll ever find it, of course.
Venture Capital is not the only way of capitalizing research and development. It never has been. Much of the technology we have wouldn't exist if it were the only, or even an important, source of capital for r&D.
That makes as much sense as saying a turtle needs to 'escape' from it's shell.
If and when some of us do leave earth permanently, it will be with big tanks of artificial earth with us. Just like a goldfish would have to bring up a big mobile tank of water to live on land.
Re:I use Wine to compile but not for porting
on
Compiling Under Wine
·
· Score: 1
Shouldn't you be using DOSEMU instead of Wine? Wine seems like overkill for a PIC assembler.
Slashdot Mirror
Heck, the cheap Linksys Cable/DSL router I just bought has a nice friendly dialogue in advanced setup to enter any MAC address you want.
Any football player could figure out how to forge a MAC address with this thing, and use the NAT to do whatever he wanted on the other side.
you can separate the kernel and give the space back to the app
Yeah, you can, but it's a hassle every time the machine insists you take the application floppy out of the drive and put in the DOS disk to reload command.com.
1. The CPU's are insanely expensive.
I have a box of 8087, 80287, and 80387 chips in my collection of old parts.
They were all insanely expensive at one time.
Every chip is insanely expensive when it first comes out.
1. the chip comes out
2. some people use it
3. the price drops some
4. some more people use it
5. goto 3
(Yeah, I know. grep 'goto' in the Linux kernal source tree sometime....)
The right wingers are calling them Freedom Fries now to be anti-French.
The French, however, don't hold any claim at all on the food product Americans call the French Fry. I would predict they'd be offended if you called a french fry 'French cuisine'.
It's a somewhat humorous situation.
intel should turn transmeta into their server line of CPU's, and specifically design them around linux.
And they should use Transmeta parts because their 'server line' should be extremely low power? Are you talking about wireless servers duct taped under the seats on city busses or what??
How many of the older crofty device drivers will matter?
Is there going to be Sound Blaster 16 support in the Linux Itanium kernal?
Microsoft can provide a Server OS for Itanium and x86-64. They can balk on providing a desktop OS for either architecture.
Doing so, they can let the market shake out which processor, or both, is best. However, most people seem to agree (I am NO expert to have an opinon on the matter) that Itanium will be better than x86-64 as a server CPU. Why drag along the legacy x86 stuff for Server platforms where compatability with Fred's ancient shareware crap isn't needed? 'Legacy support' is largely a Desktop issue for Microsoft. Cuz they don't have a hell of a lot of a server legacy.
We'd all be singing, "It's a Mac world after all.."
Now you're sounding like a horror flick made in Disneyland.
What was that about Mickey??
Ummm, so you're buying a machine and you insist that it not have Solaris on it, or something like that?
Hell, I ran multiuser with five users on my Altos 586 (not a pentium, it was an 8086 machine that had five terminal ports). It was an 8086 machine with 512K of RAM and (get this) Microsoft Xenix (from before SCO).
There are lots of those old machines around, but it's not an idea that I have seen take hold.
My uncle-in-law is pastor at a church that has an associated K-12 school, and I am thinking of proposing to set them up with a Linux or BSD computer lab. There's a auction site (a 'real world' auction site with real people bidding, etc.) that I go to weekly, and not long ago there were pallet lots of Dell machines, about 50 per pallet, and they went for $120 per pallet. I scarfed up the two good machines out of the bunch (a dual PPRO-200 box and an IBM RS/6000 workstation) for $40 for the pair. I am not sure what the salvage guy buying the rest of them had in mind, but they sure went cheap.
I guess I don't get it.
Why would you want to cling forever to the same motherboard?
If you do, there are always kludges you can install. Hell, you can probably run a Pentium on a crippled 8088 XT system with the right expensive upgrade part.
I view the processor and motherboard as a married pair. When I upgrade one, I upgrade the other. Doing anything else would leave me with a drawer full of worthless processor chips. As it stands, each upgrade means I have an old motherboard to make into a server or router, or give to a nephew.
My father has a word processor from maybe 1987 (WriteNow) that's just fine
I still regret, and probably always will, that I didn't buy a complete boxed copy of XyWrite that I saw for sale at a used bookstore years ago.
You'll have to replace the replacing pc long before you have to replace a terminal.
You know, you're right. There are still Wyse 50's and VT-100's out there in daily use.
By pissed off employees, of course, but they're still in use.
"Where did that document you were working on go?"
"The mainframe crashed again."
just like the old LIM (Lotus intel Microsoft) Expanded Memory boards for the old IBM PCs of yore : basically segmentation and paging. Anyone who can remember those days will concur.
There are a few important distinctions. LIM was a horrible kludge in part because it stuck all that extra memory on the 8 MHz AT bus on an ISA slot. You could actually tell when a machine had that kind of memory in it because it would dramatically slow down as enough data and software got loaded that it started working in that memory.
New 'hacks' to work around the 4 GB limit will not do ANYTHING that horrible.
Yes, that is true. There's even a robust POSIX subsystem that will run on the NT core kernal. It's called Interix, and was developed as 'Open NT' by a company called Softway Systems. Microsoft has purchased it and have pretty much embraced and stifled it, but it's there and available. It is a true POSIX layer, certified even, and comes bundled with all the GNU tools. It makes cygwin look like the Win32-hack that it is (cygwin just runs as a POSIX layer on top of Win32, Interix runs as a whole seperate subsystem beside the Win32 subsystem.)
I bought my first Interix license before Microsoft swallowed it up. The Interix guys, right before the acquisition by Microsoft, openly asked the market if it wanted Interix open sourced. Almost nobody said anything about it. It's turned into a real shame.
I bought my second Interix License after the Microsoft product came out. They'd issued me a $100 'buying certificate' for some sort of Microsoft Frequent Customer award thing, and I figured instead of using it to buy more Microsoft dreck, I'd buy another POSIX subsystem and GNU toolchain from them.
I want to run 8 gig Java VMs in x86 world.
If you're running Java code, why does it matter if it's 'x86 or not? It will be a totally new replacement machine wether it's x86 or Itanium or what-not. If the market won't realize 8 gig desktops (Intel is betting on it, others are not), you won't get your 8 gig environment anywhere.
If Intel is wrong here, Intel-haters should be rejoicing. Intel will be out of business. You can buy your 'little company' processors in the newly opened market. Instead there's all this 'conspiracy theory' stuff.
It's great watching people turn from opposing to advocating the x86 legacy (one of the foundation blocks of the Wintel monopoly) as a Good Thing because somebody-other-than-Intel is championing it.
What's more likely to happen is Intel will finally wrest themselves free of the x86 legacy that everybody has claimed for years mires their architecture. AMD will grab onto that legacy like your dumb uncle who buys every 8-track tape he can get ahold of at garage sales. Because it's lil' AMD doing it, YAY x86!!
Believe me, trying to use a 256MB PC for real work is painful.
Just use vi, instead of emacs.
It will be a shocking day when a video encoding application needs to 'swallow' all 18 GB of a video stream at once in order to encode it.
OH, and expect some dirty tricks, we know AMD is gonna be ready to sell you 64 bit way before us, so, well ... you'll just see ;)
I am not expecting 'dirty tricks.' What I'm expecting is the eventual 'conspiracy theories' from the usual fanboys about why AMD is languishing in the market. As AMD steams ahead to a 64 bit desktop line that only a tiny slice of the market needs, their 'because we can do it, not because people will buy it' rollout will cost them bigtime. It might put them out of the business. Two years from now the whine will be 'Intel put AMD out of business by not moving ahead on the 64 bit desktop' when the truth will be, AMD were idiots for doing it, Intel held back for what made sense, etc. etc.
At a National Press Club function that I heard over the radio (NPR) back in that era (I think it was probably in 1985 or 6) Steve Jobs boasted of how the Macintosh was 'hacker proof.' A sealed box 'for the rest of us' whoever that means...
I'm sure there's no record of that speech anywhere that we'll ever find it, of course.
Venture Capital is not the only way of capitalizing research and development. It never has been. Much of the technology we have wouldn't exist if it were the only, or even an important, source of capital for r&D.
we all have to escape from Earth in the end!
That makes as much sense as saying a turtle needs to 'escape' from it's shell.
If and when some of us do leave earth permanently, it will be with big tanks of artificial earth with us. Just like a goldfish would have to bring up a big mobile tank of water to live on land.
Shouldn't you be using DOSEMU instead of Wine? Wine seems like overkill for a PIC assembler.