Re: Why are still not at 64 bits [was Can't figure out Firefox
"Ken D'Ambrosio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 1) 32-bit is "good enough," since the single largest impact it'll have on > most applications at this particular time is simply address space... and > most people are content with <4 GB at this particular juncture. My question is "Why has this remained so for so long?" There's this theory of "Build it and they will come". We see this in so many other market segments, why not here? For example, buy a new file server today with 1TB of useable space, doubling the amount of space you already have, and within 6 months to a year, it'll be full. Simply *announce* you'll have phone on the market in 6 months or so that doesn't completely suck and half the world is ready to ditch what they have and switch to a different provider they probably have been avoiding for all sorts of reasons up until now. The Atari 2600 was "good enough", but we've obviously moved quite a bit passed that :) So, we have 64-bit technology, why don't we need it? Why aren't we coming up with applications to take advantage of it? Why isn't the marketing creating the demand? > 2) Eh-hem. It may be double the number of address bits, but it > is woo more than double the address space. Exactly how much more than double is a woo? I'm well aware of that. But I also mentioned MS in that sentence implying that they'd market such an "advance in technology" using an idea non-uber-geeks would think they comprehended :) -- Seeya, Paul -- Key fingerprint = 1660 FECC 5D21 D286 F853 E808 BB07 9239 53F1 28EE A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email? ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits
Jon 'maddog' Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think there is a strong analogy between why we do not have 64 bits > everyplace, and why we still suffer with IPv4 instead of IPv6 Interesting, let's investigate that analogy further, keeping in mind please, that I know next to nothing about software interactions with hardware at this level :) We still have IPv4 over IPv5 because: - IPv4 provides plenty of space once everyone realizes that all 5000 of their internal systems do not need to be reachable by an actual, internet-routed IP address. (i.e. NAT has "saved the day") - IPv6 has taken forever and a day to get properly defined - IPv4 is intuitive and "makes sense" vs. IPv6 which is neither - It's a lot of effort to switch to a new addressing scheme. So, what's keeping us from moving to 64 bits? - There is no NAT equivalent, nor is any really necessary, is there? Won't 32-bit apps continue to work on a 64-bit platform? - We don't have to wait for the technology to stabilize, it's been around for 20+ years (I'm assuming it was being researched for quite some time before DEC released the Alpha as a commercial product) - From an end-user perspective, do they need to care or know? I guess if you define end-user to be application developer in this case, then the answer is yes. Not being such a person, how much more difficult is it to develop a 64-bit app vs a 32? (I'm *not* talking about porting it, mind you). - Is it a lot of effort to switch to a new addressing scheme in this case? What's to be done? All major OSes have been ported and run on 64-bit platforms. I guess my argument or rather confusion is this. 64-bits is here, has been for a while, and is stable. So why don't we see more of it? It can't be just a matter of "32 bits is good enough". -- Seeya, Paul -- Key fingerprint = 1660 FECC 5D21 D286 F853 E808 BB07 9239 53F1 28EE A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email? ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits
Let's see what I can answer here, since I've been using FC5 & 6 on an x64_64 (Intel) box at work for about 6 months, and my home machine runs FC6 off-and-on with an AMD chip. On 02/15/2007 12:55 AM, Bill McGonigle wrote: > On Feb 14, 2007, at 22:22, Paul Lussier wrote: > >> I find it mind-boggling that the Alpha came out what, 16-18 years ago >> with 64 bit technology and it *still* hasn't caught on in the >> mainstream. Why is that? > > I remember porting povray to the alpha back when they still called it > OSF/1, and it was a minor bitch to get done and didn't really provide > any benefit (other than it would compile). I did learn how to bring > the entire cs cluster to a crawl, though with my hacked up distributed > computing system :) (Wayne, thanks for showing me 'nice'). > > x86-64 actually has one additional benefit - in 64 bit mode you > actually have enough registers on the chip such that the compiler can > behave in a civilized manner and you don't have to keep storing > addresses in main memory (or more likely its cache). So, typical > program execution gets faster on this one particular architecture - > none of the others have this problem in 32-bit space. > > Things I don't know: > * are there outstanding driver issues on x86-64 with linux? Not that I can see. Each are pretty standard machines and all the hardware that's in them is working. > * are there any gotchas with running 32-bit apps under a linux > that's native to x86-64? For FC, I haven't noticed. Debian, on the other hand, has a different way of handling 32 bit libraries that makes it a lot harder to work with. They recommend you create a full chroot environment to run 32 bit apps. The only problems I really have are using Flash and Java under Firefox. Since my employer probably doesn't like me starting at youtube all day, I don't really miss it all that much, and I have Windows XP running in VMWare that I can use in case I do need to go to a flash site for whatever reason. Other than the novelty of running a 64-bit OS, I haven't really noticed anything different about this system over others. I don't make use of large memory applications (though I do have 4GB of RAM, so I could), I don't notice a large performance boost. OTOH, the cluster nodes I'm working with (dual core/dual CPU with 8GB RAM) will see a benefit with a 64-bit OS. Running an app like BLAST can very quickly take up more than 2GB of RAM. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
GPG and Sylpheed-Claws Question
Trying to use PGP plugin for Sylpheed-Claws with two keys and it does not appear to provide a way of selecting which key to use for signing a given mail nor to allow the assignment of a key to a specific account. Anyone using Sylpheed-claws found a way to do this? TIA Ed Lawson signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits
For me, the focus of the problem is why Sun, which is supposedly 64-bit savvy (discounting their late[r] arrival in the 64-bit market than my alma mater DEC), hasn't released a Java plugin to which I can create a symlink from, in the case of my SuSE 10.2 system, /usr/lib64/firefox/plugins. I haven't seen one (as of a couple of weeks ago) anything in the Sun Java V1.6 development site, either... I don't care about applications per se - just about all of them, from what I can tell, will run properly in 32-bit mode in a putatively 64-bit environment. The java plugin for Firefox won't. Now, this begs a couple of interesting, quasi-political questions: 1.) Is Sun, for some peculiar reason, deliberately stalling the deployment of a 64-bit plugin for Linux/Firefox until after they get it running for Windows (64bit XP or Vista) or, more particularly, Internet Exploiter? 2.) Is there some sort of design issue/trade-off that makes it difficult for 64 bit Firefox to use 32 bit plugins in some sort of compatibility mode? For those of you who don't me, please try to understand that I Was There for the Alpha launch, and while I'm not a coding guru, I know/knew many of the folks who wrote the compilers and other tools to port DEC's U***X product du jour to the Alpha architecture, so I'm somewhat familiar with the issues, at least in a general sense. Which is why I'm feeling a bit annoyed, discouraged, and suspicious about this 64bit Java plugin issue. (I'm not interested in downgrading to Blackdown 1.4, either, BTW - I'd like to see Sun Do The Right Thing ASAP) Bayard - It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits [was Can't figure out Firefox
Paul Lussier wrote: "Ken D'Ambrosio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: 1) 32-bit is "good enough," since the single largest impact it'll have on most applications at this particular time is simply address space... and most people are content with <4 GB at this particular juncture. My question is "Why has this remained so for so long?" There's this theory of "Build it and they will come". We see this in so many other market segments, why not here? For example, buy a new file server today with 1TB of useable space, doubling the amount of space you already have, and within 6 months to a year, it'll be full. Some thoughts on this topic by Eric Raymond here, in the broader context of "What will be the dominant 64-bit OS": http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/world-domination/world-domination-201.html Kent ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Nevermind-GPG and Sylpheed-Claws Question
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:42:40 -0500 Ed Lawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Trying to use PGP plugin for Sylpheed-Claws with two keys and it does > not appear to provide a way of selecting which key to use for signing > a given mail nor to allow the assignment of a key to a specific > account. Anyone using Sylpheed-claws found a way to do this? Nevermind. I rely on docs instead of just playing around due to time limitations. Always a bad idea. Started playing and found answer. Sylpheed does have all the options one could ask for. Ed Lawson signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits
On 02/15/2007 09:07 AM, Paul Lussier wrote: > I guess my argument or rather confusion is this. 64-bits is here, has > been for a while, and is stable. So why don't we see more of it? > It can't be just a matter of "32 bits is good enough". > For a majority of cases, 32 bits is good enough. What are the advantages of 64 bit: - higher memory address space - so what? most desktops only have 1-2GB memory to begin with. - faster than 32 bit - again, so what? You can get a faster CPU by overclocking your existing or buy a new CPU in a few months. - access bigger files - here again, so what? Windows and Linux have been able to do this for many years on 32 bit BTW, the biggest answer to why we haven't upgraded to IPv6 is because the major ISPs haven't implemented it yet. All the routers have to be upgraded to handle it. It'll be a massive undertaking, and mostly outside my control. I can upgrade my system to 64 bit without having to talk to my networking group or Comcast. Unless there's some easy way to start using IPv6 without that, in which case I'll start. I'll admit to not really having looked at IPv6 for at least 5 years, maybe something has changed in the meantime? -Mark ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits [was Can't figure out Firefox
Are we starting from the assumption that this is a meritocracy where the "best" (insert your definition of "best" here) design/implementation wins? If so, how do you explain X? (replace X with "Microsoft" or whatever else suits your mood). I just bought a system based on a 64bit AMD chip because I hope it positions me to take advantage of 64bitness should it ever become as ubiquitous as 32bitness, but I'm not holding my breath... ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits [was Can't figure out Firefox
On 2/15/07, Paul Lussier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2) Eh-hem. It may be double the number of address bits, but it > is woo more than double the address space. Exactly how much more than double is a woo? Quite specifically, it's one metric assload. -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits
> > We still have IPv4 over IPv5 because: > > - IPv4 provides plenty of space once everyone realizes that all 5000 > of their internal systems do not need to be reachable by an actual, > internet-routed IP address. (i.e. NAT has "saved the day") > > - IPv6 has taken forever and a day to get properly defined > > - IPv4 is intuitive and "makes sense" vs. IPv6 which is neither > > - It's a lot of effort to switch to a new addressing scheme. I will replace all of this with two reasons: o most people do not understand the value of IPv6, particularly in VOIP and P2P areas. o most people (and some VERY large companies) have a nested investment in IPv4 technology that did not justify jettisoning that technology until it wore out o Some companies profited from requiring a Peer-to-Server-to-Peer connection in order to traverse the NATwork > > So, what's keeping us from moving to 64 bits? > > - There is no NAT equivalent, nor is any really necessary, is there? > Won't 32-bit apps continue to work on a 64-bit platform? Yes, if written "correctly". I have seen well-written code, even binaries, work without change > > - We don't have to wait for the technology to stabilize, it's been > around for 20+ years (I'm assuming it was being researched for > quite some time before DEC released the Alpha as a commercial > product) And many people are using 64-bit native today and benefiting from it > > - From an end-user perspective, do they need to care or know? I > guess if you define end-user to be application developer in this > case, then the answer is yes. Not being such a person, how much > more difficult is it to develop a 64-bit app vs a 32? (I'm *not* > talking about porting it, mind you). They would care if they knew what it would do for them. > > - Is it a lot of effort to switch to a new addressing scheme in this > case? What's to be done? All major OSes have been ported and run > on 64-bit platforms. A, here is the catch. It depends on whether you consider Microsoft's products to be "major OS". Only in Vista have they actually used a 64-bit ADDRESS SPACE. Their claims to "64-bit" before have been limited to data types, and (perhaps) data flow through cache and other pipelines. Without Microsoft's support of ADDRESS SPACE, a lot of software vendors would not take the time or effort to re-design their applications to utilize that space. > > I guess my argument or rather confusion is this. 64-bits is here, has > been for a while, and is stable. So why don't we see more of it? > It can't be just a matter of "32 bits is good enough". > No, it is "what percentage of the market are you going to sell to?" What market does Nvidea sell to? What market does any of your "CompuHUT" software market sell to? But on the other hand, what systems are the scientists at the National Labs using that need to process a terabyte of data a day? It is not Windows. And they aren't using 32-bit processors. This is why all the large database vendors went to 64-bit servers long ago. Of course they wrote their software "right", so they can say: o "build crappy 32-bit version" OR o "build much better 64-bit version" Ask THEM which type of system you should buy. You will not hear anything with "32-bit" in the name. Many, MANY years ago we did a little trial at Digital with the help of our friends at Oracle. Same 64-bit Alpha machine, same amount of main memory, same amount of disk, etc. We had them run Oracle in 32-bit mode and in 64-bit mode doing a 6-way join. The 64-bit version was 200 TIMES faster, due to algorithm changes which allowed them to have all the data in memory, fewer levels of indices, etc. etc. Why didn't the world just jump on 64-bits after that? Oracle saw no need to publicize this, and Digital could not market. Thus we have it. md ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Nevermind-GPG and Sylpheed-Claws Question
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:57:32 -0500 Ed Lawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nevermind. I rely on docs instead of just playing around due to time > limitations. Always a bad idea. Started playing and found answer. > Sylpheed does have all the options one could ask for. And more. Also be advised that it is now called claws-mail not Sylpheed-claws. -- Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: GPG Question
On 2/15/07, Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... they'd rather not have the employees explicitly aware that the employer could read their e-mail ... This may be preaching to the choir, but... Be aware that such a policy (not telling employees of snooping) is outright illegal in some jurisdictions, and is a legal minefield in others. Or so I'm told. Based on the disclaimers I and others have been required to employ, the prevailing thought appears to be employees should be explicitly informed that they should have no expectation of privacy. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits [was Can't figure out Firefox Plugin Requirement ]
On 2/14/07, Paul Lussier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I find it mind-boggling that the Alpha came out what, 16-18 years ago with 64 bit technology and it *still* hasn't caught on in the mainstream. Why is that? Well, AMD64 (64-bit address space only became available on "mainstream" hardware a year or two ago. So there isn't that much hardware out there. That alone discourages closed-source vendors from building 64-bit binaries. Next, 64-bit support with Microsoft Windows absolutely sucks. For Win XP, you have to get a special build of the OS, which is available only by buying a new PC, and is supported only though the PC OEM -- call Microsoft, and they tell you to drop dead. The situation is little better with the "server" flavors of Windows. With Windows, 64-bit drivers are very hard to find. Most hardware not made in the past few years does not have drivers and never will. Even newer stuff is poorly supported. This is partly because nobody wants to write drivers for an OS with almost no support. However, there's also the fact that the 64-bit versions of Windows will not permit an "unsigned" driver to be loaded. Period. I guess you have to submit everything to Microsoft for an expensive certification process. Microsoft "innovation" at work again. AMD64 (and Intel's clone) doesn't support Virtual Mode (running old so-called "16-bit code") when switched into Long Mode (64-bit mode). So anyone running old DOS or Win16 crap (and there's still a lot of that) cannot even use the AMD64 stuff. Then there's the fact that every moron programmer in the world (and there are legions of moron programmers) assume integers and pointers are 32-bits, and their code breaks horribly if recompiled for a 64-bit architecture. So even if you have source, it's not just a matter of recompiling, in most cases. I suspect Microsoft still has a lot of 64-bit unclean code. Linux has been dealing with this since 1995 on the Alpha, and most good Linux programs (and quite a few bad ones) are 64-bit clean these days. Think how bad the average Windows program is, and then realize that half of them are worse. (With apologies to George Carlin.) In the 'doze world, it's a horror show. Meanwhile, most programs don't need a 64-bit address space at all. They rarely need more than 24 bits of address space. Sure, the additional registers can yield a speed improvement for some code, but not enough to make it overwhelmingly compelling. So there's little benefit, and lots of problems. This affects Linux mainly because there's a lot of stuff that isn't really Linux software, but rather, 'doze software shoehorned into 'nix. Adobe (nee Macromedia) Flash is "supported", but only as a closed-source, somewhat buggy, 32-bit binary. Then there are things like mplayer, which rip 32-bit binaries from the 'doze land and hook them into Linux. (Things like this are one of the many reasons closed data formats are even worse than closed code.) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits [was Can't figure out Firefox Plugin Requirement ]
On 2/15/07, Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: * are there any gotchas with running 32-bit apps under a linux that's native to x86-64? Source or binary? With source, well-written code just needs to be recompiled. Of course, we all know that a lot, if not most, code is *NOT* well-written. See my other message in this thread WRT "moron programmers" for more. Binary: My understanding is that a 32-bit binary can be run under a 64-bit kernel, but you need a 32-bit environment to do so. So any libraries the binary depends on also need to be built (for x86-32) and installed in parallel with their x86-64 counterparts. I could be wrong on this; I haven't verified the information's authenticity, and I certainly haven't tried it. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits [was Can't figure out Firefox Plugin Requirement ]
Binary: My understanding is that a 32-bit binary can be run under a 64-bit kernel, but you need a 32-bit environment to do so. So any libraries the binary depends on also need to be built (for x86-32) and installed in parallel with their x86-64 counterparts. I could be wrong on this; I haven't verified the information's authenticity, and I certainly haven't tried it. This is correct. I've recently dealt with this at work. I've also seen a decent amount of traffic regarding this issue on the CentOS mailing list. -Shawn ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits [was Can't figure out Firefox Plugin Requirement ]
> Binary: My understanding is that a 32-bit binary can be run under > a 64-bit kernel, but you need a 32-bit environment to do so. > So any libraries the binary depends on also need to be built (for > x86-32) and installed in parallel with their x86-64 counterparts. > I could be wrong on this; I haven't verified the information's > authenticity, and I certainly haven't tried it. IIRC, a while back there was much gnashing of teeth about how they hadn't quite dealt w/all the places where a 32bit app (along w/its various 32bit libs) and the 64bit kernel might disagree on the layout of various data structures, which is important since a number of syscalls involve pointers to structures in the caller's address space. I assume (hope) this is old news by now... ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits
On 2/15/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From an end-user perspective, do they need to care or know? They would care if they knew what it would do for them. What would AMD64 (or even the Alpha's feature set) do for the typical end-user? I'm talking about the people browsing the web and writing email and downloading music and looking at porn. These people aren't doing 6-way SQL JOIN's or loading the entire US phone book into RAM. Their PC is plenty fast enough, so long as you clean out all the adware and viruses and other badware. Only in Vista have they actually used a 64-bit ADDRESS SPACE. Their claims to "64-bit" before have been limited to data types, and (perhaps) data flow through cache and other pipelines. Correction: Windows 2003 R2 x64 supports a full 64-bit address space, and I'm pretty sure Win XP Pro x64 does as well. See my other message in this thread about how support for those sucks, though. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits
On 2/15/07, Bayard Coolidge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: For me, the focus of the problem is why Sun, which is supposedly 64-bit savvy ...hasn't released a Java plugin to which I can create a symlink from ... I suspect Sun's Java division is completely separate from their SPARC hardware division, to the point where they might as well be separate companies. So even though the left hand has twice as many fingers, the right hand still only has five. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits [was Can't figure out Firefox Plugin Requirement ]
> > Binary: My understanding is that a 32-bit binary can be run under a > 64-bit kernel, but you need a 32-bit environment to do so. So any > libraries the binary depends on also need to be built (for x86-32) and > installed in parallel with their x86-64 counterparts. I could be > wrong on this; I haven't verified the information's authenticity, and > I certainly haven't tried it. > In theory this is true. Assuming that the instruction set of the 64-bit processor supports the instruction set of the 32-bit processor, or has a mode that it can enter when it does a context switch that is completely compatible, then this can be done. You "simply" make sure that all programs are loaded into a virtual space that is in the lower 32 bits of virtual address space. The 32-bit libraries have to be written to maintain the 32-bit interfaces, and supply the 64-bit addresses to the kernel, OR the kernel has modes/interfaces to accept both 32 and 64 bit addresses. The bigger problem is with currently stored data and current programming languages. A very popular programming language in Unix did not define what size an "int" was very well. It kind of wobbled and said that it was "the natural size" or something like that. It also did not specify what endianism the program should use. This was done so the compiler could make decisions to get good integer performance. So if I plopped down an array of "ints" on the disk, how big are they REALLY? And what endian format were they when I read them? Worse yet, if I plop it down with a 32-bit machine and try to read it with a 64-bit machine, what am I getting? Changes to this language in relatively recent years have made this easier to control, but there is a LOT of legacy code out there that does not change so well*. Now there is a lot of legacy data. I actually had a talk with Dennis Ritchie at a conference one time, telling him about the problem, and suggesting a good solution. He told me to tell Steve Johnson, who was maintaining the AT&T compilers then, as Dennis had moved on. I told Steve, but nothing ever came of it until MUCH later when issues forced it. Now if you used programming language that defines this very well, or a database engine to store and receive your data, with its paranoid data dictionary making you define everything about the data (size, endianism, etc., etc.) or you have network engineers defining your interfaces so they know what type of system you are coming from, what type you are going to, and what type of "network neutral data" you are going to have, then everything is peachy. Unfortunately, as Ben has noted, there are crappy programmers out there in the world, and tons of legacy, binary-only software. We no longer even know what language they were written in, much less have the sources so we can change them. Heck probably a good percentage of those programs the people don't even know what the program does, they just run them.** In 1989 as we were trying to create a version of Ultrix that ran on MIPS. "Most UNIX systems" (AIX, HP/UX, SunOS/Solaris) were big-endian. Ultrix was little-endian. So was SCO, but who cared about them, because they were running on that slow, crappy Intel processor. But we were trying to become "compatible" with the rest of the industry, so we created a kernel that could either use big endian or little-endian applications at the same time. Just a matter of engineering and code. But most of our customers had tons of little-endian data. And we realized that if we started down this path we would have customers buying big-endian applications to treat little-endian data. So we never released the functionality. maddog *Do not even get me started on "Unions" in "C", "Equivalence" in Fortran, and "Linkage Sections" in Cobol. I get really ugly fast. **If you do not believe this statement, I can tell you HOURs of examples. Maybe I will do that tonight at Martha'sbut it always makes me so depressed. ***There are no statements above that relate to this footnote, but this is simply a warning not to even SAY THE WORD "Itanium" to me. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits [was Can't figure out Firefox
On 2/15/07, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... It may be double the number of address bits, but it is woo more than double the address space. ... Exactly how much more than double is a woo? Quite specifically, it's one metric assload. What's that in imperial assloads? -- Ben (stolen from ASR) ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits [was Can't figure out Firefox
On 2/15/07, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 2/15/07, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> ... It may be double the number of address bits, but it >>> is woo more than double the address space. ... >> Exactly how much more than double is a woo? > Quite specifically, it's one metric assload. What's that in imperial assloads? Imperial ass's arse specifically twice as large as metric asses, so you do the math. Proof of this measure is how big of asses we are/have in the US. -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits [was Can't figure out Firefox
On 2/14/07, Ken D'Ambrosio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 1a) Though, of course, there will be one other 64-bit application to become of considerable importance to the *nix community by, oh, 2038. Hopefully 32-bit will be mooter than moot by then. Depending on the situation, it may be possible to work around problem of time_t being implemented as a 32-bit signed integer in ways other than changing it to a 64-bit signed integer. (Just like it was often possible to fix Y2K issues without switching to four-digit year storage.) In particular, if the code never looks at dates before 1 Jan 1970, switching to a 32-bit UNsigned integer should gain an additional 68 years with only code patching (no data changes). Yah, I know, nobody cares. But it's do this or work. :) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits
> > Correction: Windows 2003 R2 x64 supports a full 64-bit address > space, and I'm pretty sure Win XP Pro x64 does as well. See my other > message in this thread about how support for those sucks, though. Right. I think you actually made my case, didn't you? Microsoft did not support 64-bit virtual address space until Vista. > What would AMD64 (or even the Alpha's feature set) do for the > typical end-user? I'm talking about the people browsing the web and > writing email and downloading music and looking at porn. These people > aren't doing 6-way SQL JOIN's or loading the entire US phone book into > RAM. Their PC is plenty fast enough, so long as you clean out all the > adware and viruses and other badware. > I agree with what you have said, but unfortunately the acceptance on non-acceptance of 64-bits depends on all of the things that we have stated here. In stages. Stages sometimes take very long to happen, and depend on lots of legacy infrastructure being retired, customer demand, etc. And I stand by my assertion that 64-bit programs will not become prevalent until Microsoft give 64-bits to everyone, not just "Win XP PROs" who happen to buy 64-bit capable machines. Other things also affect it, such as the cost of RAM. The 64-bit Translation Look-aside Buffers (wow, it has been a long time since I thought about those) for the Alpha were bigger than most main memories of desktops in the 1980s. And that 64 KB memory cost 100K dollars in 1968. Even in the last versions of the Alpha they did not implement the entire 64-bit address space, since there was no one who could afford to buy that much disk, much less that much RAM.* The Alpha was a RISC processor, and so could afford the trade-off of address bits and cache for micro-code store on the die. The Alpha was a space heater. It took no bones about sucking down electricity. Lots of economics also go into how fast 64-bits comes into the marketplace. But our software tools and software practices go a long way to slowing it down. In stead of coding so code "goes everywhere", we are lazy and tired and ignorant, so we write stuff that depends on endianism, address size and machine type. We also try to shoehorn existing code and design for 19" monitors and desktop machines into PDAs, but don't get me started on that. Warmest regards, maddog *I did a calculation once that if you filled a one GigaByte disk for every second of the day, every day of the year, it would take over 5,386 years to fill those disks with 2^64 bytes of data.** **Yes, I did take into account leap years, and unlike Microsoft, I know that every four hundred years we skip one. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits
On 2/15/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Correction: Windows 2003 R2 x64 supports a full 64-bit address > space, and I'm pretty sure Win XP Pro x64 does as well. See my other > message in this thread about how support for those sucks, though. Right. I think you actually made my case, didn't you? Microsoft did not support 64-bit virtual address space until Vista. Negative. XP 64 bit supported pretty much everything that Vista 64 bit supports. But no one uses it, unless their applications are specifically written for it, such as Pro/Engineer. > What would AMD64 (or even the Alpha's feature set) do for the > typical end-user? I'm talking about the people browsing the web and > writing email and downloading music and looking at porn. These people > aren't doing 6-way SQL JOIN's or loading the entire US phone book into > RAM. Their PC is plenty fast enough, so long as you clean out all the > adware and viruses and other badware. I agree with what you have said, but unfortunately the acceptance on non-acceptance of 64-bits depends on all of the things that we have stated here. In stages. Stages sometimes take very long to happen, and depend on lots of legacy infrastructure being retired, customer demand, etc. And I stand by my assertion that 64-bit programs will not become prevalent until Microsoft give 64-bits to everyone, not just "Win XP PROs" who happen to buy 64-bit capable machines. *nod* That's why no one runs XP 64. No driver support, no application support. I don't even believe you could BUY XP 64, you had to get it OEM. Lots of economics also go into how fast 64-bits comes into the marketplace. ONE key that is now met is all modern x86 chips ARE x86-64 chips, now that Intel chips are at EM64 and AMDs are AMD64. -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits
On 2/15/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: **Yes, I did take into account leap years, and unlike Microsoft, I know that every four hundred years we skip one. You might only skip one every four hundred years, but the Internet (Gregorian Calendar) skips 3 - it only adds one if the century is divisible by 400. (ref RFC 3339, page 2 - definition of leap year, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3339.txt) jeff ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits
From: "Jon 'maddog' Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> What would AMD64 (or even the Alpha's feature set) do for the >> typical end-user? I'm talking about the people browsing the web and >> writing email and downloading music and looking at porn. These people >> aren't doing 6-way SQL JOIN's or loading the entire US phone book into >> RAM. Their PC is plenty fast enough, so long as you clean out all the >> adware and viruses and other badware. I've never looked at the AMD64 instruction set, but 64 bit pointers bring a lot of overhead to code. I used an Intel i860 at Alliant, which was a 32 bit RISC chip. I could load a pointer with two instructions. On Alpha, which also has 32 bit instructions, the convention is to access the data by accessing the pointer from a block of memory set aside for stuff like that. That requires maintaining a register with the address of the block and restoring it after library calls and other whatnot. Pretty ugly, I've always thought. Also having a 64 bit address space means winding through more levels of page maps. All in all, I don't think there's anything inherently faster about a 64 bit CPU unless you need more than a 32 bit address space. (There were a lot of reasons to dislike the i860 and Intel's support for it has parallels with the CPU-that-must-not-be-named.) >Other things also affect it, such as the cost of RAM. The 64-bit >Translation Look-aside Buffers (wow, it has been a long time since I >thought about those) for the Alpha were bigger than most main memories >of desktops in the 1980s. And that 64 KB memory cost 100K dollars in >1968. A dollar a byte of core memory was a good deal in 69/70. Easy price point to remember. Can you imagine holding 1 GB DDR or USB memory back then? >The Alpha was a space heater. It took no bones about sucking down >electricity. Yeah, but at trade shows I heard people would leave the CPU board exposed and invite people to touch the heat sink. 40 watts was a lot then, but didn't require heat pipes or on-CPU fans. I recently upgraded my Compaq Deskpro (1 Ghz Pentium III) to an adequate "current" AMD 3500+ system. My Deskpro idled at 50W, this beast is 150W or so. I may go back to the Deskpro eventually for 24/7 tasks and use this system only when I need it. OTOH, it is my only Windows (2000) box and can't handle 1600x1200 graphics, so I may stay here. Someone at DEC/Compaq/HP had a dual CPU CPU-that-must-not-be-named system in his office. We got tired of him talking about how hot it was every day a lunch. > *I did a calculation once that if you filled a one GigaByte disk for > every second of the day, every day of the year, it would take over 5,386 > years to fill those disks with 2^64 bytes of data.** TeraByte disks are coming! TB disks that take one second to fill will take a while longer > **Yes, I did take into account leap years, and unlike Microsoft, I know > that every four hundred years we skip one. Umm, every 400 years we _observe_ one instead of skipping one every 100 years. It might have something to do with global warming. -Ric Werme ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits [was Can't figure out Firefox
On 2/15/07, Kent Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Some thoughts on this topic by Eric Raymond here, in the broader context of "What will be the dominant 64-bit OS": http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/world-domination/world-domination-201.html Everyone writing in this(these) thread(s) should go read this. I might not agree with everything said (and who does anyways?) but he examines the issue of 64 bitness thoroughly. Someone mentioned endianess here too. Jon Bently(sp?) in Programming Pearls says that storing his numerical results as ASCII meant he didn't have to worry about the transition from VAX to SPARC to intel as he would've with binary. Personally, I think the 64 bit transition will happen when applications that people want get there. The history of video game consoles is a decent example. Computers have the addition of worrying about legacy applications. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits
On 2/15/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Correction: Windows 2003 R2 x64 supports a full 64-bit address space, and I'm pretty sure Win XP Pro x64 does as well. See my other message in this thread about how support for those sucks, though. Right. I think you actually made my case, didn't you? Microsoft did not support 64-bit virtual address space until Vista. Well, as far as *that* goes, I still don't think they "support" it well, even with Vista. Sure, you can install something that supports a 64-bit address space, but you're still crippled by a lack of software that uses/needs it, a scarcity of drivers, and the inability to develop drivers without Microsoft's permission and fee. I'm not sure what the Vista-itself support picture is like (i.e., will Microsoft talk to you if you're running x86-64 Vista?). I know some features of Vista are not working in the 64-bit version. So, Microsoft doesn't "support" a 64-bit address space, even today, in Vista. Hey, it's only been like, what, 14 years since the Alpha came out? Don't rush them... As far as the rest of it, interesting, but it doesn't really answer the question of "What practical benefit will the end-user reap from 64-bit computing?" "Computers keep getting faster" might be true, but it doesn't really answer that question. There might be more of a press to provide good 64-bit capable software if there an actual reason to do so, ya know? ;-) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits [was Can't figure out Firefox Plugin Requirement ]
Ben Scott writes: > Then there's the fact that every moron programmer in the world (and > there are legions of moron programmers) assume integers and pointers > are 32-bits, and their code breaks horribly if recompiled for a 64-bit > architecture. So even if you have source, it's not just a matter of > recompiling, in most cases. The reason why we find ourselves in this mess is because we treat programming as a task (or, some would even say, an "art") instead of what it actually is: engineering. Code that causes the compiler to emit warnings, doesn't contain reasonable asserts, contains lots of casts and "cute" union tricks, was "designed" with nary a thought about endian/sizeof issues, and is uncommented reminds me of carpentry jobs in which I've seen windows installed without flashing, doors that are crooked, and joists are just sawed through haphazardly. Would you pay a carpenter for such work? Nope. Do programmers produce such work? Frequently, yes. What is this attributable to?: market forces, time-to-market pressure, ignorance, apathy, etc. I was pretty happy the day that somebody took a network protocol stack that I had written, compiled it on a 64-bit system that I did not have access to, whereupon it compiled without warnings and WORKED CORRECTLY. Regards, --kevin -- GnuPG ID: B280F24E Never could stand that dog. alumni.unh.edu!kdc -- Tom Waits ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits
On 2/15/07, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So, Microsoft doesn't "support" a 64-bit address space, even today, in Vista. Hey, it's only been like, what, 14 years since the Alpha came out? Don't rush them... 64 bit OSen: Alpha OSF/1 1993 SGI Irix 6.0 in 1994 Alpha OpenVMS 1995 Sun Solaris 2.7 in 1995 AS/400 1995 Nintendo 64 1996 IBM z/OS 2000 Xbox 360 2005 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits
On 2/15/07, Tom Buskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 2/15/07, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, Microsoft doesn't "support" a 64-bit address space, even today, > in Vista. Hey, it's only been like, what, 14 years since the Alpha > came out? Don't rush them... 64 bit OSen: Alpha OSF/1 1993 SGI Irix 6.0 in 1994 Alpha OpenVMS 1995 Sun Solaris 2.7 in 1995 AS/400 1995 Nintendo 64 1996 IBM z/OS 2000 Xbox 360 2005 OMG, no Linux! :-) TRAITOR! :-D -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: [GNHLUG] MerriLUG Nashua, Thurs 15 Feb, Linux Saves Windows Server - Bill Gates Delighted!
I should be there tonight, hopefully around 5:30 or so. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Boston Linux Meeting Wednesday, February 21, 2007
When: February 21, 2006 7:00PM (6:30 for Q&A) Topic: Virtual Storage in a VMWare Server Environment Moderator: Rob Li of 3ParData, Inc. Location: MIT Building E51 Room 376 (next door to last month's room) Note: This location has changed since last month. Rob discusses virtual storage in a VMWare server environment. http://www.3par.com/ For more information, parking and directions go to the BLU main site. http://www.blu.org. -- Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits
On 2/15/07, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: OMG, no Linux! :-) TRAITOR! :-D Being a Linux fan, you should already have memorized the year of its 64bittenness :-) ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits and a bit of Linux History
On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 15:43 -0500, Thomas Charron wrote:
> On 2/15/07, Tom Buskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 2/15/07, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So, Microsoft doesn't "support" a 64-bit address space, even today,
> > > in Vista. Hey, it's only been like, what, 14 years since the Alpha
> > > came out? Don't rush them...
> > 64 bit OSen:
> > Alpha OSF/1 1993
> > SGI Irix 6.0 in 1994
> > Alpha OpenVMS 1995
> > Sun Solaris 2.7 in 1995
> > AS/400 1995
> > Nintendo 64 1996
> > IBM z/OS 2000
> > Xbox 360 2005
>
> OMG, no Linux! :-) TRAITOR! :-D
>
I actually thought that VMS was 64-bit right from the get-go on Alpha
(1993), but I could be wrong on that
Alpha Linux was 64-bit in November of 1995.
Timeline:
May, 1994 - Met Linus Torvalds at DECUS in New Orleans after funding his
trip to speak on Lyenooks. Saw Leenooks for the first time.*
Instantly fell in love. Suggested to Linus while on board the Nachez
Riverboat that a port to the Alpha would be "interesting". 64-bit, and
get rid of the "Intelisms". He told me that he wanted to do that, but
the Helsinki office of Digital was having problems getting an Alpha, and
that he "might have to do the PowerPC instead." I do not remember
screaming, but I do remember dropping my drink on the deck of the boat.
I told him not to do anything foolish (such as support the PowerPC), but
to give me a week.
May 1994 + 1 week - Alpha processor was on the way to Finland***
June 1994 - Linus signed "Loan of Products (LOP) form" while at
conference in Boston. "Will I ever have to return this?" he asked,
while holding a hot dog. I assured him that no "loan of products thing"
that Digital sent out was ever returned. His system never was.**
June, 1994 - Helsinki office of Digital released Alpha processor to
Linus after receiving "LOP" and paying almost as much duty as the
processor was worth. ("Why are you complaining, I paid the shipping,"
said maddog.)
June 1994 and three weeks: PowerPC shows up at Linus' house. Linus does
not turn it on for few years. Finally turns it on so he can tell IBM
that he did. By this time he is committed to Alpha processor, and
throughout the life of the project he stated several times how he liked
it so much. This is without any prompting from DEC.
June-December, 1994 - Linus studied Alpha documentation while bringing
out next version of kernel, planning the strategy for source tree.
Maddog found the Alpha technology group in Hudson who were also trying
to create a Linux "project" albeit a 32-bit port. Maddog showed them
why this was wrong and un-necessary, and they switched to 64-bit port.
January, 1994 - Linus started project in earnest
November, 1994 - Red Hat released an Alpha Linux distribution. Maddog
talks them into a joint project of putting out an "Alpha" distribution
that ran on Intel, so he could spread them like Johnny Appleseed
throughout the world. "If you like this, you will like the Alpha
version better," was the story told. And it was true.
Sometime after that Linus visits Durham, New Hampshire for what was the
largest GNHLUG meeting ever. We gave away signed copies of the
Red Hat/Alpha celebration CD, some of which I still have.
Warmest regards,
maddog
*Actually it was the second time I saw it. I first ordered "A Unix
Operating System with all its source code" from a small company called
Yggdrasil in March of 1994. I could not run it, since I did not own a
PC. I did mount the CD-ROM on my Ultrix system and look at the man
pages though. I remember thinking that "This might be interesting"
before putting it back in my filing cabinet. I still have that today.
**Later in 1995 David Mossberger-Tang, a pretty brilliant Linux
programmer, also received an LOP system to do work on the Linux
Libraries. Ten years later he called me to tell me that he wanted to
return the system. It turns out that David was working for HP on the
porting of Linux to the Itanium. I told him to just give the system to
his boss at HP, since it was already "returned". To my knowledge, this
was the only LOP thing ever "returned".
***The story of this sales job is a talk it itself
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits and a bit of Linux History
On 2/15/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Timeline: May, 1994 - Met Linus Torvalds at DECUS in New Orleans after funding his trip to speak on Lyenooks. Saw Leenooks for the first time.* *SNIP* < maddog, that's an awesome little writeup. :-D Note next reply below, however.. Sometime after that Linus visits Durham, New Hampshire for what was the largest GNHLUG meeting ever. We gave away signed copies of the Red Hat/Alpha celebration CD, some of which I still have. Now it's time to get him back up here! :-D 2007 - Linus comes back to Durham for the reunion tour.. Warmest regards, But are they as warm as the Alpha processors? *runs, hides* -- -- Thomas ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits [was Can't figure out Firefox Plugin Requirement ]
On 2/15/07, Kevin D. Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The reason why we find ourselves in this mess is because we treat programming as a task (or, some would even say, an "art") instead of what it actually is: engineering. And the choir will now sing back the chorus... ;-) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits and a bit of Linux History
> > maddog, that's an awesome little writeup. :-D > Actually, the story was much stranger and more unbelievable than that. If I told you the whole story, you would probably think I was lying, or at least making it up in some places. That is what is so amazing about this project and this community. "What a long, strange trip it's been" - Jerry Garcia maddog -- Jon "maddog" Hall Executive Director Linux International(R) email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 80 Amherst St. Voice: +1.603.672.4557 Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A. WWW: http://www.li.org Board Member: Uniforum Association Board Member Emeritus: USENIX Association (2000-2006) (R)Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in several countries. (R)Linux International is a registered trademark in the USA used pursuant to a license from Linux Mark Institute, authorized licensor of Linus Torvalds, owner of the Linux trademark on a worldwide basis (R)UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the USA and other countries. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits and a bit of Linux History
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:56:15 -0500 "Jon 'maddog' Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I actually thought that VMS was 64-bit right from the get-go on Alpha > (1993), but I could be wrong on that No. It was 32-bits on the Alpha and still is. I followed up on that last year at the IDF in Houston. It was one of the things I specifically asked one of the VMS developers. -- Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits and a bit of Linux History
On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 17:25 -0500, Jerry Feldman wrote: > On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:56:15 -0500 > "Jon 'maddog' Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I actually thought that VMS was 64-bit right from the get-go on Alpha > > (1993), but I could be wrong on that > No. It was 32-bits on the Alpha and still is. I followed up on that > last year at the IDF in Houston. It was one of the things I > specifically asked one of the VMS developers. Hmmm, you seem to have someone else disagree with you, since earlier they stated that "OpenVMS" was 64-bit in 1995, but I did not pay that much attention to the "VMS stuff". :-) Of course having VMS only 32-bit on the VAX made sense, as you could not get the architecture to be 64-bit. If Alpha VMS was only 32-bit, I would think that would have been another classic mistake by Digital. If there was one OS that could have taken advantage of 64-bits, it was VMS. (sigh) md ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits and a bit of Linux History
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:35:23 -0500 Jon 'maddog' Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Of course having VMS only 32-bit on the VAX made sense, as you could not > get the architecture to be 64-bit. > > If Alpha VMS was only 32-bit, I would think that would have been another > classic mistake by Digital. If there was one OS that could have taken > advantage of 64-bits, it was VMS. No disagreement there, but at the IDFs, all the OpenVMS slots fill up very quickly. I just tried to log into td183.testdrive.hp.com, but Im getting a validation error. I have a valid testdrive account. I have email in to Tim Regan, but he is gone by now. I can follow up in the morning just to make sure. I'll post an email tomorrow once I can factually verify the bitedness. -- Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Why are still not at 64 bits [was Can't figure out Firefox
Ben Scott wrote: On 2/15/07, Thomas Charron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... It may be double the number of address bits, but it is woo more than double the address space. ... Exactly how much more than double is a woo? Quite specifically, it's one metric assload. What's that in imperial assloads? I believe it would 1 butt of sherry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butt_(unit) ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
[GNHLUG] PySIG next Thursday, 22 February, Manchester -- Django
---
Django, presented by Dave Rowell 22 February 2007
---
o One week from today! Next Thursday. The 22nd.
o Milk & cookies as usual. (Cookies are on order -- have we a
volunteer for milk?)
___
PySIG -- New Hampshire Python Special Interest Group
Amoskeag Business Incubator, Manchester, NH
22 February 2007 (4th Thursday) 7:00PM
The monthly meeting of PySIG, the NH Python Special Interest Group,
takes place fourth Thursdays, starting at 7:00 PM. Beginners'
session precedes at 6:30 PM. (Bring a Python question!)
---
Django, presented by Dave Rowell, Appropriate Solutions Inc.
---
"Django is a high-level Python Web framework that encourages
rapid development and clean, pragmatic design.
"Developed and used over two years by a fast-moving online-news
operation, Django was designed to handle two challenges: the
intensive deadlines of a newsroom and the stringent requirements
of the experienced Web developers who wrote it. It lets you
build high-performing, elegant Web applications quickly.
"Django focuses on automating as much as possible and adhering
to the DRY(*) principle."
http://www.djangoproject.com/
(*) DRY: Don't Repeat Yourself
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?DontRepeatYourself
---
o Kent's Korner (Module of the Month), maybe even by Kent himself!
o Our usual roundtable of introductions, happenings, and
announcements.
* A special treat this month... *
And of course, milk & cookies...
Many thanks to Ben Scott, who generously made last month's milk run
---
6:30 Beginners' Q&A
7:00 Welcome, Announcements - Bill & Ted & Alex
7:10 Milk & Cookies - , Janet
7:15 Kent's Korner (Module of the Month)
7:20 Django, Dave Rowell
9:00 Adjourn
___
About PySIG:
PySIG meetings are typically 10-20 people, around a large table
equipped with a projector, power, and Internet hookup (wired and
wireless). We encourage laptops and hands-on; seminar style.
The main meeting starts at 7 PM; officially we finish circa 9 PM.
Everyone is welcome. ("Membership" is anyone who has an interest
in the Python progamming language, whether on Microsoft systems,
Linux, or mainframes. We have everyone from object-oriented
gurus to recovering COBOL programmers.) Tell your friends!
Beginners' session:
The half hour before the formal meeting (i.e., starting at 6:30PM)
we have a beginners' session. Any Python question is welcome --
whoever asks the first question gets the half hour! Questions are
equally welcome by mail beforehand (in which case we can announce
them) or at the meeting. (As are all Python questions, anytime.)
About Python:
"Python is a dynamic object-oriented programming language that
can be used for many kinds of software development. It offers
strong support for integration with other languages and tools,
comes with extensive standard libraries, and can be learned
in a few days. Many Python programmers report substantial
productivity gains and feel the language encourages the
development of higher quality, more maintainable code."
"NASA uses Python...so does Rackspace, Industrial Light&Magic,
AstraZeneca, Honeywell, and many others."
Google: "Python has been an important part of Google since the
beginning, and remains so as the system grows and evolves."
-Peter Norvig
http://www.python.org
About Amoskeag Business Incubator:
Our gracious hosts are the Amoskeag Business Incubator, an
organization providing a supportive entrepreneurial environment
that stimulates the growth of businesses to ensure economic
vitality and encourage job creation, by providing affordable
office space and technical assistance to early stage companies.
PySIG thanks the ABI for their generous hospitality.
http://www.abi-nh.com
___
Directions:
PySIG NH meetings are held at the Amoskeag Business Incubator,
33 South Commercial Street, Manchester, NH.
Coming in to Manchester using I-293, from the north:
o Use Exit 6 from I-293. Don't go around & over at the exit,
but bear as straight as possible to the stop sign.
o At the stop sign turn left (south). A Hospital sign points
to the south. There are several service stations, and a
Dunkin across from them. Follow this
Re: GPG Question
On Feb 15, 2007, at 11:28, Ben Scott wrote: Be aware that such a policy (not telling employees of snooping) is outright illegal in some jurisdictions, and is a legal minefield in others. Or so I'm told. Yeah, it's amazing what some people don't care about. I left when it was decided that it would be cheaper to settle any potential lawsuits than buy a J2EE container with two-phase commits to avoid a chance of medication errors. My argument at the time with regards to e-mail was to store the messages encrypted on disk and have them by default be encrypted to the employer's key rather than just leave them plaintext on disk for anybody who can steal the hard drive or break the system to read (the concern was auditability). "Crazy talk" -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Page: 603.442.1833 Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
