Re: architecture kernel problems
- From: Les <hlhowell@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:37:18 -0800
On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 20:58 +0000, James Wilkinson wrote:
Les wrote:Thanks, James,
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.
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
... 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. You might also like to check
which is still basically accurate.
Hope this helps,
 Having said that, by no means all Unix-like OSes claim to follow the
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.
fedora-list mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
- Prev by Date: Re: Backup and Restore MBR
- Next by Date: Re: FC6 Madwifi and NM
- Previous by thread: Re: architecture kernel problems
- Next by thread: Re: architecture kernel problems