I demand that Pierre THIERRY may or may not have written...
> Scribit Peter Samuelson dies 17/03/2007 hora 03:29:
>> Linus Torvalds read Intel's announcement and was a bit disgusted that
>> Intel tried as hard as they could to imply (without actually saying so)
>> that the architecture was their o
Scribit Peter Samuelson dies 17/03/2007 hora 03:29:
> Linus Torvalds read Intel's announcement and was a bit disgusted that
> Intel tried as hard as they could to imply (without actually saying
> so) that the architecture was their own invention
Would you have any reference to this?
Curiously,
P
"Michael S. Peek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi gurus,
>
> I'm looking to buy or build an install host -- one machine dedicated
> to building and serving a local repository for the purposes of
> installing/upgrading/maintaining other Debian hosts throughout our
> organization. The problem is,
Hi,
> A machine that generates *.deb files that are only good on *that* one
> machine is useless to me.
as I said before, you can run 32bit and 64bit OSs on amd64 machines, so
you could just stay with ia32 on all machines and not worry about 64bit.
But neither that nor trying to cross-compile from
On Saturday 17 March 2007 09.29:10 Peter Samuelson wrote:
> "x86=64" would have been
> amusing too. Is it a veiled Commodore 64 reference, or is it
> quoted-printable?
Not to speak of broken mime decoders that would just display x86d.
I'd rather say it's to do something with Georg Orwell. If 2+
[Wouter Verhelst]
> Both amd64 and x86_64 are names that AMD coined to describe the
> architecture. They changed their opinion at some point, I don't know
> which is the most recent name they chose.
AMD64 is the newer name. When Intel released their clone chip, the
Linux kernel was still using t
* Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [2007-03-16 15:10 +0100]:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 07:14:27AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> > ... and just for completeness: x86_64 was the name the Linux kernel people
> > chose for AMD64. I don't know where the term came from, exactly.
>
> Both
On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 07:14:27AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> On Thursday 15 March 2007 20.02:14 Greg Folkert wrote:
> > And for clarity, IA32 cover 32-bit Intel and works for AMD 32-bit
> > processors. IA64 is the Itanium series of processors, amd64 cover the
> > AMD K8/Opteron processors A
On Thursday 15 March 2007 20.02:14 Greg Folkert wrote:
> And for clarity, IA32 cover 32-bit Intel and works for AMD 32-bit
> processors. IA64 is the Itanium series of processors, amd64 cover the
> AMD K8/Opteron processors AND the Intel emt64* Intel processors.
... and just for completeness: x86_6
On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 21:21 +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Heya,
> > And for clarity, IA32 cover 32-bit Intel and works for AMD 32-bit
> > processors.
> >
>
> but ia32 will just work fine on amd64 architectures.
> You can decide if you want to run a 32 or 64bit Linux on amd64/emt64.
> Both ways
Heya,
> And for clarity, IA32 cover 32-bit Intel and works for AMD 32-bit
> processors.
>
but ia32 will just work fine on amd64 architectures.
You can decide if you want to run a 32 or 64bit Linux on amd64/emt64.
Both ways have their advantages and drawbacks. Choose whatever you need.
Cheers
On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 11:03 -0400, Michael S. Peek wrote:
> Hi gurus,
>
> I'm looking to buy or build an install host -- one machine dedicated to
> building and serving a local repository for the purposes of
> installing/upgrading/maintaining other Debian hosts throughout our
> organization. T
Hi gurus,
I'm looking to buy or build an install host -- one machine dedicated to
building and serving a local repository for the purposes of
installing/upgrading/maintaining other Debian hosts throughout our
organization. The problem is, I'm a little clueless when it comes to
hardware, and
13 matches
Mail list logo
