Re: [ubuntu-uk] uname -a for 32 bit os on 64 bit cpu

[Juan J.]

On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 11:54 +, Colin Law wrote:
> [...]
> Agreed, plus possibly a few words pointing out the significance of
> this.  I maintain there *is* a problem as people have been confused by
> the documentation (including myself), therefore it would benefit from
> clarification, so we don't need to repeat this discussion every few
> months :)

Oh, it could be worse...

For example: http://www.linuxatemyram.com/

:)

Regards,

Juan




-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] uname -a for 32 bit os on 64 bit cpu

[Colin Law]

On 15 November 2011 11:29, Avi Greenbury  wrote:
> Colin Law wrote:
>> On 15 November 2011 09:35, Avi Greenbury  wrote:
>> > Juan J. wrote:
>> >
>> >> For -m says "on which the system is running", which doesn't seem
>> >> to be coherent with the uname output we are getting in a 64 bit
>> >> system running a 32 bit kernel.
>> >
>> > It depends why you are interested.
>> >
>> > When a 686 kernel is running on an amd64 chip, it *is* running on
>> > 686 hardware (it must be since it is running 686 code), but it is
>> > some 686 hardware with extensions such that it can also run amd64
>> > code.
>>
>> But if you run uname in the 64 bit OS it says that it is running on a
>> different type of hardware, which it is not, it is just that the 64
>> bit OS uses the extensions whereas the 32 bit does not.
>>
>
> No, it doesn't. It says exactly what it's running on.
>
> If you run uname on an amd64 kernel it tells you it's running on amd64
> hardware, which is true even if the processor can also do 686.
>
> If you run uname on a 686 kernel it tells you it's running on 686
> hardware, which is true even if the processor can also do amd64.

I think you are stretching things a bit here.  If you had an amd64 PC
with dual boot of Ubuntu 32 and 64 and I asked you what processor type
was in the PC (which is what uname -p says it shows) you would not say
"hold on a minute I have got to check which OS I am running before I
can answer that".  However we are just quibbling over the meaning of a
few words here, the point is that the documentation is ambiguous, as
you are about to point out...

> The problem, if there is one, is that uname's man page doesn't
> explicitly state that it asks the kernel what it's sat atop, rather
> than asking the hardware for its full capabilities.

Agreed, plus possibly a few words pointing out the significance of
this.  I maintain there *is* a problem as people have been confused by
the documentation (including myself), therefore it would benefit from
clarification, so we don't need to repeat this discussion every few
months :)

Colin

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] uname -a for 32 bit os on 64 bit cpu

[Avi Greenbury]

Colin Law wrote:
> On 15 November 2011 09:35, Avi Greenbury  wrote:
> > Juan J. wrote:
> >
> >> For -m says "on which the system is running", which doesn't seem
> >> to be coherent with the uname output we are getting in a 64 bit
> >> system running a 32 bit kernel.
> >
> > It depends why you are interested.
> >
> > When a 686 kernel is running on an amd64 chip, it *is* running on
> > 686 hardware (it must be since it is running 686 code), but it is
> > some 686 hardware with extensions such that it can also run amd64
> > code.
> 
> But if you run uname in the 64 bit OS it says that it is running on a
> different type of hardware, which it is not, it is just that the 64
> bit OS uses the extensions whereas the 32 bit does not.
> 

No, it doesn't. It says exactly what it's running on.

If you run uname on an amd64 kernel it tells you it's running on amd64
hardware, which is true even if the processor can also do 686.

If you run uname on a 686 kernel it tells you it's running on 686
hardware, which is true even if the processor can also do amd64.

The problem, if there is one, is that uname's man page doesn't
explicitly state that it asks the kernel what it's sat atop, rather
than asking the hardware for its full capabilities.

-- 
Avi

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] uname -a for 32 bit os on 64 bit cpu

[Colin Law]

On 15 November 2011 09:41, Colin Watson  wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 08:57:44AM +, Colin Law wrote:
>> So you think the problem is not in the man page for uname, but uname
>> -i -m -p *should* display information about the hardware rather than
>> the installed OS?
>
> This won't change - uname is used in scripts that need to know
> specifically about the running kernel.

So a solution would be to improve the documentation to remove the ambiguity.

Colin

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] uname -a for 32 bit os on 64 bit cpu

[Colin Law]

On 15 November 2011 09:35, Avi Greenbury  wrote:
> Juan J. wrote:
>
>> For -m says "on which the system is running", which doesn't seem to be
>> coherent with the uname output we are getting in a 64 bit system
>> running a 32 bit kernel.
>
> It depends why you are interested.
>
> When a 686 kernel is running on an amd64 chip, it *is* running on 686
> hardware (it must be since it is running 686 code), but it is some 686
> hardware with extensions such that it can also run amd64 code.

But if you run uname in the 64 bit OS it says that it is running on a
different type of hardware, which it is not, it is just that the 64
bit OS uses the extensions whereas the 32 bit does not.

Colin

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] uname -a for 32 bit os on 64 bit cpu

[Colin Watson]

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 08:57:44AM +, Colin Law wrote:
> So you think the problem is not in the man page for uname, but uname
> -i -m -p *should* display information about the hardware rather than
> the installed OS?

This won't change - uname is used in scripts that need to know
specifically about the running kernel.

-- 
Colin Watson   [cjwat...@ubuntu.com]

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] uname -a for 32 bit os on 64 bit cpu

[Avi Greenbury]

Juan J. wrote:

> For -m says "on which the system is running", which doesn't seem to be
> coherent with the uname output we are getting in a 64 bit system
> running a 32 bit kernel.

It depends why you are interested. 

When a 686 kernel is running on an amd64 chip, it *is* running on 686
hardware (it must be since it is running 686 code), but it is some 686
hardware with extensions such that it can also run amd64 code. 

If it was only capable of running amd64 code there'd be no problems
because you couldn't run anything other than amd64 kernels on it, but
that's not how it was designed.

The ambiguity comes from the fact that an amd64 chip is both a 686 chip
and an amd64 chip. I suspect it also doesn't help that, historically,
users of uname have expected to be told about the kernel that was
running for purposes of crafting things that run on that kernel, rather
than information about the underlying hardware for the purposes of
choosing a new kernel.

-- 
Avi

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] uname -a for 32 bit os on 64 bit cpu

[Juan J.]

On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 08:57 +, Colin Law wrote:
> 2011/11/15 Juan J. :
> > On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 08:04 +, Colin Law wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> which suggests that it is talking about the hardware platform the
> >> software is running on.
> >
> > Have you tried texinfo manual as recommended in the man page?
> >
> > info coreutils 'uname invocation'
> >
> > It's way more complete.
> >
> > I looks like the problem may be in the information that it's being
> > provided by the kernel it's not accurate, or at least it's not what
> > uname is expecting :)
> 
> So you think the problem is not in the man page for uname, but uname
> -i -m -p *should* display information about the hardware rather than
> the installed OS?

It's interesting that POSIX only seem to cover -m, but not -i or -p:

http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/uname.html

For -m says "on which the system is running", which doesn't seem to be
coherent with the uname output we are getting in a 64 bit system running
a 32 bit kernel.

Regards,

Juan



-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] uname -a for 32 bit os on 64 bit cpu

[Colin Law]

2011/11/15 Juan J. :
> On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 08:04 +, Colin Law wrote:
>> [...]
>> which suggests that it is talking about the hardware platform the
>> software is running on.
>
> Have you tried texinfo manual as recommended in the man page?
>
> info coreutils 'uname invocation'
>
> It's way more complete.
>
> I looks like the problem may be in the information that it's being
> provided by the kernel it's not accurate, or at least it's not what
> uname is expecting :)

So you think the problem is not in the man page for uname, but uname
-i -m -p *should* display information about the hardware rather than
the installed OS?

I have had a quick look for any relevant bug reports but cannot find any.

Colin

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] uname -a for 32 bit os on 64 bit cpu

[Juan J.]

On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 08:04 +, Colin Law wrote:
> [...]
> which suggests that it is talking about the hardware platform the
> software is running on.

Have you tried texinfo manual as recommended in the man page?

info coreutils 'uname invocation'

It's way more complete.

I looks like the problem may be in the information that it's being
provided by the kernel it's not accurate, or at least it's not what
uname is expecting :)

Regards,

Juan



-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] uname -a for 32 bit os on 64 bit cpu

[Colin Law]

2011/11/14 Juan J. :
> On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 22:22 +, Colin Law wrote:
>> [...]
>> >
>> > TL;DR: it doesn't matter what is your hardware, the important it's which
>> > kernel are your running.
>>
>> It does matter what the hardware is if you want to know whether you
>> *could* run the 64 bit kernel.
>
> ... and you're running a 32 bit kernel. OK, fair enough.
>
> I wouldn't use uname. "lm" in the CPU flags in /proc/cpuinfo it's the
> best bet.

That is not the point really.  The point is that the man page for
uname is misleading.  The heading says
   uname - print system information
which is ambiguous, it does not indicate whether it is talking about
hardware or installed software, and for -i for example it says

   -i, --hardware-platform
  print the hardware platform or "unknown"

which suggests that it is talking about the hardware platform the
software is running on.

Colin

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] uname -a for 32 bit os on 64 bit cpu

[Juan J.]

On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 22:22 +, Colin Law wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > TL;DR: it doesn't matter what is your hardware, the important it's which
> > kernel are your running.
> 
> It does matter what the hardware is if you want to know whether you
> *could* run the 64 bit kernel.

... and you're running a 32 bit kernel. OK, fair enough.

I wouldn't use uname. "lm" in the CPU flags in /proc/cpuinfo it's the
best bet.

Regards,

Juan

-- 
jjm's home: http://www.usebox.net/jjm/
blackshell: http://blackshell.usebox.net/
en_GB@blog: http://engbblog.wordpress.com/


-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] uname -a for 32 bit os on 64 bit cpu

[Steve Fisher]

For hardware info, I use the inxi script e.g (from my debian install):

$ inxi -F
System:Host: n5010 Kernel: 3.0.0-1-amd64 x86_64 (64 bit) Desktop Gnome
2.30.2 Distro: Linux Mint Debian Edition
Machine:   Mobo: Dell model: 03C6YH version: A15 Bios: Dell version: A15
date: 07/19/2011
CPU:   Dual core Intel Core i5 CPU M 430 (-HT-MCP-) cache: 3072 KB
flags: (lm nx sse sse2 sse3 sse4_1 sse4_2 ssse3 vmx)
   Clock Speeds: 1: 1197.00 MHz 2: 1197.00 MHz 3: 1197.00 MHz 4:
1197.00 MHz
Graphics:  Card: ATI Manhattan [Mobility Radeon HD 5400 Series]
   X.Org: 1.11.1.902 drivers: ati,radeon (unloaded: vesa,fbdev)
Resolution: 1366x768@60.0hz
   GLX Renderer: Gallium 0.4 on AMD CEDAR GLX Version: 2.1 Mesa 7.11
Audio: Card-1: Intel 5 Series/3400 Series Chipset High Definition Audio
driver: HDA Intel Sound: ALSA ver: 1.0.24
   Card-2: ATI Manhattan HDMI Audio [Mobility Radeon HD 5000
Series] driver: HDA Intel
Network:   Card-1: Realtek RTL8101E/RTL8102E PCI Express Fast Ethernet
controller driver: r8169
   IF: eth1 state: down speed: 10 Mbps duplex: half mac:
a4:ba:db:ba:04:f2
   Card-2: Broadcom BCM4313 802.11b/g/n Wireless LAN Controller
driver: wl
   IF: eth2 state: up mac: 70:f1:a1:55:fe:bf
Drives:HDD Total Size: 500.1GB (18.8% used) 1: /dev/sda WDC_WD5000BEVT
500.1GB
Partition: ID: / size: 46G used: 7.5G (18%) fs: ext4 ID: /home size: 221G
used: 81G (39%) fs: ext4
   ID: swap-1 size: 8.00GB used: 0.00GB (0%) fs: swap
Sensors:   System Temperatures: cpu: 65.5C mobo: N/A gpu: 73.5
   Fan Speeds (in rpm): cpu: N/A
Info:  Processes: 208 Uptime: 3:41 Memory: 1973.9/3831.4MB Client:
Shell inxi: 1.7.24
-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] uname -a for 32 bit os on 64 bit cpu

[Colin Law]

2011/11/14 Juan J. :
> On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 22:05 +, Colin Law wrote:
>> On 14 November 2011 21:55, John Levin  wrote:
>> > ...
>> > Thanks to everyone who replied. Does seem that uname reports the kernel, 
>> > and
>> > not the hardware, which is what is suggested by the man page and
>> > http://ss64.com/bash/uname.html
>>
>> This has caused confusion to others, there was a long thread which
>> involved such confusions on Ubuntu Users mailing list recently.
>> Perhaps it would be worth filing a bug to get the man page clarified.
>> I suppose you could even file a patch with better wording, but I don't
>> know go about that.
>
> TL;DR: it doesn't matter what is your hardware, the important it's which
> kernel are your running.

It does matter what the hardware is if you want to know whether you
*could* run the 64 bit kernel.

Colin

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] uname -a for 32 bit os on 64 bit cpu

[Juan J.]

On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 22:05 +, Colin Law wrote:
> On 14 November 2011 21:55, John Levin  wrote:
> > ...
> > Thanks to everyone who replied. Does seem that uname reports the kernel, and
> > not the hardware, which is what is suggested by the man page and
> > http://ss64.com/bash/uname.html
> 
> This has caused confusion to others, there was a long thread which
> involved such confusions on Ubuntu Users mailing list recently.
> Perhaps it would be worth filing a bug to get the man page clarified.
> I suppose you could even file a patch with better wording, but I don't
> know go about that.

TL;DR: it doesn't matter what is your hardware, the important it's which
kernel are your running.

It's not a big deal, although the words aren't 100% accurate. If you're
running a 32bits kernel, it doesn't matter you have 64bits hardware.

Besides that if you're running a 64bits kernel, it's probably a good
idea you run the 64bits version of any application; but you can still
run the 32bits version (although it may involve installing more 32bits
stuff, such as shared libraries).

Regards,

Juan
(ex-Linux 64bits user, Adobe Flash 64bits plugin hater)

-- 
jjm's home: http://www.usebox.net/jjm/
blackshell: http://blackshell.usebox.net/
en_GB@blog: http://engbblog.wordpress.com/


-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] uname -a for 32 bit os on 64 bit cpu

[Colin Law]

On 14 November 2011 21:55, John Levin  wrote:
> ...
> Thanks to everyone who replied. Does seem that uname reports the kernel, and
> not the hardware, which is what is suggested by the man page and
> http://ss64.com/bash/uname.html

This has caused confusion to others, there was a long thread which
involved such confusions on Ubuntu Users mailing list recently.
Perhaps it would be worth filing a bug to get the man page clarified.
I suppose you could even file a patch with better wording, but I don't
know go about that.

Colin

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] uname -a for 32 bit os on 64 bit cpu

[John Levin]

On 14/11/2011 19:27, Avi Greenbury wrote:

John Levin wrote:


I'm writing a bit of documentation, and am having trouble with uname.
What does uname -a produce for a 32 bit operating system running on a
64 bit cpu?


uname reports information about the kernel, not the hardware. So for a
32-bit kernel it will report 32-bit information (with strings like i386
and i686), and on a 64-bit kernel it will contain 64-bit sorts of
strings (x86_64, amd64 etc.)

Precisely what it says depends upon what the person who built the
kernel told it to, though.



Thanks to everyone who replied. Does seem that uname reports the kernel, 
and not the hardware, which is what is suggested by the man page and 
http://ss64.com/bash/uname.html


My bit of documentation, on installing the beta of Zotero, is now published:
http://anterotesis.com/wordpress/2011/11/installing-zotero-standalone-on-ubuntu-11-10/
Comments, clarifications etc welcome.
And also, I hope it is useful for installing other non-deb executables.

John

--
John Levin
http://www.anterotesis.com
johnle...@joindiaspora.com
http://twitter.com/anterotesis


--
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] uname -a for 32 bit os on 64 bit cpu

[Avi Greenbury]

John Levin wrote:

> I'm writing a bit of documentation, and am having trouble with uname. 
> What does uname -a produce for a 32 bit operating system running on a
> 64 bit cpu?

uname reports information about the kernel, not the hardware. So for a
32-bit kernel it will report 32-bit information (with strings like i386
and i686), and on a 64-bit kernel it will contain 64-bit sorts of
strings (x86_64, amd64 etc.)

Precisely what it says depends upon what the person who built the
kernel told it to, though.

-- 
Avi

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] uname -a for 32 bit os on 64 bit cpu

[Joe Barker]

I find running uname -m is easier for determining whether it's a 64
bit machine or not.

Generally though, you just need to look out for x86_64 which is on a
64 bit machine, and i686 or similar for 32 bit.

On 14 Nov 2011, at 18:17, Rob Beard  wrote:

> On 14/11/11 17:53, John Levin wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm writing a bit of documentation, and am having trouble with uname.
>> What does uname -a produce for a 32 bit operating system running on a 64
>> bit cpu? If anyone is running such a system, if they could cut & paste
>> the output, I'd be very much obliged.
>>
>> PS: Thanks to Alan Lord & Simon Greenwood for their replies to my
>> question (from ages ago) about installing non-deb apps. I was having a
>> terminology problem!
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>
> Okay I'm running Mint 11, so it might be slightly different output to Ubuntu 
> (I haven't fired up my media PC and my server is running Ubuntu Server 
> 64-Bit), but hope this helps:
>
> rob@aspire ~ $ uname -a
> Linux aspire 2.6.38-11-generic-pae #50-Ubuntu SMP Mon Sep 12 22:21:04 UTC 
> 2011 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
>
> (It's running on a Core 2 Duo with 4GB Ram)
>
> Rob
>
> --
> ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] uname -a for 32 bit os on 64 bit cpu

[Rob Beard]

On 14/11/11 17:53, John Levin wrote:

Hi all,

I'm writing a bit of documentation, and am having trouble with uname.
What does uname -a produce for a 32 bit operating system running on a 64
bit cpu? If anyone is running such a system, if they could cut & paste
the output, I'd be very much obliged.

PS: Thanks to Alan Lord & Simon Greenwood for their replies to my
question (from ages ago) about installing non-deb apps. I was having a
terminology problem!

John




Okay I'm running Mint 11, so it might be slightly different output to 
Ubuntu (I haven't fired up my media PC and my server is running Ubuntu 
Server 64-Bit), but hope this helps:


rob@aspire ~ $ uname -a
Linux aspire 2.6.38-11-generic-pae #50-Ubuntu SMP Mon Sep 12 22:21:04 
UTC 2011 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux


(It's running on a Core 2 Duo with 4GB Ram)

Rob

--
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] uname -a for 32 bit os on 64 bit cpu

[Gareth France]

Linux laptop 3.0.0-12-generic #20-Ubuntu SMP Fri Oct 7 14:50:42 UTC 2011
i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux

On 11.10 running on an HP TX 1000

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:53 PM, John Levin  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm writing a bit of documentation, and am having trouble with uname. What
> does uname -a produce for a 32 bit operating system running on a 64 bit
> cpu? If anyone is running such a system, if they could cut & paste the
> output, I'd be very much obliged.
>
> PS: Thanks to Alan Lord & Simon Greenwood for their replies to my question
> (from ages ago) about installing non-deb apps. I was having a terminology
> problem!
>
> John
>
>
> --
> John Levin
> http://www.anterotesis.com
> johnle...@joindiaspora.com
> http://twitter.com/anterotesis
>
>
> --
> ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/**mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/**UKTeam/ 
>
-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

Re: [ubuntu-uk] uname -a for 32 bit os on 64 bit cpu

[Juan J.]

On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 17:53 +, John Levin wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm writing a bit of documentation, and am having trouble with uname. 
> What does uname -a produce for a 32 bit operating system running on a 64 
> bit cpu? If anyone is running such a system, if they could cut & paste 
> the output, I'd be very much obliged.
> 
> PS: Thanks to Alan Lord & Simon Greenwood for their replies to my 
> question (from ages ago) about installing non-deb apps. I was having a 
> terminology problem!

$ uname -a
Linux vortex.usebox.net 3.1.0-7.fc16.i686 #1 SMP Tue Nov 1 21:00:16 UTC
2011 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux

I have less than 4GB of RAM, so I didn't bother running a 64 bits
system.

If you want to know if a CPU is 64bits no matter which kernel is
running, look for "lm" in the CPU flags in /proc/cpuinfo, or try with
lscpu:

$ lscpu 
Architecture:  i686
CPU op-mode(s):32-bit, 64-bit
Byte Order:Little Endian
CPU(s):4
On-line CPU(s) list:   0-3
Thread(s) per core:2
Core(s) per socket:2
Socket(s): 1
Vendor ID: GenuineIntel
CPU family:6
Model: 37
Stepping:  5
CPU MHz:   2394.000
BogoMIPS:  4799.84
Virtualization:VT-x
L1d cache: 32K
L1i cache: 32K
L2 cache:  256K
L3 cache:  3072K

Regards,

Juan

-- 
jjm's home: http://www.usebox.net/jjm/
blackshell: http://blackshell.usebox.net/
en_GB@blog: http://engbblog.wordpress.com/


-- 
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/

[ubuntu-uk] uname -a for 32 bit os on 64 bit cpu

[John Levin]

Hi all,

I'm writing a bit of documentation, and am having trouble with uname. 
What does uname -a produce for a 32 bit operating system running on a 64 
bit cpu? If anyone is running such a system, if they could cut & paste 
the output, I'd be very much obliged.


PS: Thanks to Alan Lord & Simon Greenwood for their replies to my 
question (from ages ago) about installing non-deb apps. I was having a 
terminology problem!


John


--
John Levin
http://www.anterotesis.com
johnle...@joindiaspora.com
http://twitter.com/anterotesis


--
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/