Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > The first generation was hybrid 16/32 bit internally, and came in
> > variants selected for cost vs performance: 8, 16 or 32 bit external bus.
>
> I've never heard of a version of the 68000 with a 32bit external bus.
You're right. I was misremembering the 68012, which
On Fri, 07 Jul 2023 16:08:44 -0500
John Hasler wrote:
Hello John,
>That processor was targeted at embedded systems and it made sense in
>some applications. I don't understand why anyone would put it in a
>desktop.
Cost.
--
Regards _ "Valid sig separator is {dash}{dash}{space}"
> Motorola's 68000 line had an internal 32 bit architecture, which made
> the CPU both performant and expensive.
Hmm... it had a (non-internal) 32bit instruction set architecture
(i.e. programmers could directly manipulate 32bit entities), but
internally it manipulated only 16bit at a time (e.g.
On Fri, 07 Jul 2023 23:10:01 +0200 John Hasler wrote:
> Bret writes:
>
>> With bits and bytes, one strange thing that I remember, is that, in
>> 1985, in Australia, a particular computer was introduced, that had a
>> 32 bit processor with 8 bit buses. It was a Motorola 68008 CPU, and,
>> I
On 7/7/23 17:24, Dan Ritter wrote:
Bret Busby wrote:
With bits and bytes, one strange thing that I remember, is that, in 1985, in
Australia, a particular computer was introduced, that had a 32 bit processor
with 8 bit buses. It was a Motorola 68008 CPU, and, I could not understand
why a
On Fri 07 Jul 2023 at 16:08:44 (-0500), John Hasler wrote:
> Bret writes:
> > With bits and bytes, one strange thing that I remember, is that, in
> > 1985, in Australia, a particular computer was introduced, that had a
> > 32 bit processor with 8 bit buses. It was a Motorola 68008 CPU, and, I
> >
* On 2023 07 Jul 12:59 -0500, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> There is lots of cross-pollination, though. Before the advent of Clang
> there weren't many credible alternatives to the GCC toolchain; I don't
> think any BSD sysadmin worth their salt would renounce using rsync just
> because it's GPL.
Bret Busby wrote:
>
> With bits and bytes, one strange thing that I remember, is that, in 1985, in
> Australia, a particular computer was introduced, that had a 32 bit processor
> with 8 bit buses. It was a Motorola 68008 CPU, and, I could not understand
> why a company would produce a 32 bit
Bret writes:
> With bits and bytes, one strange thing that I remember, is that, in
> 1985, in Australia, a particular computer was introduced, that had a
> 32 bit processor with 8 bit buses. It was a Motorola 68008 CPU, and, I
> could not understand why a company would produce a 32 bit CPU wit 8
>
On 8/7/23 03:30, mick.crane wrote:
On 2023-07-07 19:19, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
Thr rest, is, as they say...
.."A thirty-two bit extension and graphical shell to a sixteen bit patch
to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a four bit
microprocessor which was written by a
On 7/7/23 13:33, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
On Fri Jul 7 09:59:56 2023 fxkl4...@protonmail.com wrote:
>> Microsoft for good or bad has made major advances in software
Yup. Like surveillance, flakiness, and an endless merry-go-round
of forced upgrades into ever-increasing bloatware.
>> and is
jeremy ardley wrote:
> On 7/7/23 19:28, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote:
> >
> > That may be or not, but is irrelevant. Accurate attribution of
> > quotes is important, IMHO, and not difficult to do. So doubling
> > down on your mistake instead of a simple mea culpa means you move
> > further
On 2023-07-07 19:19, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
Thr rest, is, as they say...
.."A thirty-two bit extension and graphical shell to a sixteen bit patch
to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a four bit
microprocessor which was written by a two-bit company that can't stand
one bit
On Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 08:43:04AM -0500, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> * On 2023 07 Jul 08:13 -0500, jeremy ardley wrote:
> >
> > My error:
> >
> > I should have said
> >
> > "Linux is a clone of Unix so a derivative. MS is also a derivative but not
> > much like Unix. "
>
> If you mean MS Windows
On Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 04:59:48PM +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
> On 7/7/23 16:51, jeremy ardley wrote:
> >
> > On 7/7/23 16:30, Bret Busby wrote:
> > > Microsoft didn't invent anything.
> >
> >
>
> I did not post that statement as the original poster of that statement.
Oh, goody. No, that was
On Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 11:08:57AM -0500, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> * On 2023 07 Jul 09:12 -0500, BRN wrote:
> > I could be accused of nitpicking here, however; I'd suggest that GNU was
> > inspired by the original UNIX rather than being a clone. A clone in
> > the original biological context refers
On Fri Jul 7 09:59:56 2023 fxkl4...@protonmail.com wrote:
>> Microsoft for good or bad has made major advances in software
Yup. Like surveillance, flakiness, and an endless merry-go-round
of forced upgrades into ever-increasing bloatware.
>> and is responsible for a fair fraction of what we
* On 2023 07 Jul 09:12 -0500, BRN wrote:
> I could be accused of nitpicking here, however; I'd suggest that GNU was
> inspired by the original UNIX rather than being a clone. A clone in
> the original biological context refers to an exact genetic copy - "byte
> for byte" if you like.
That is
jeremy ardley writes:
> On 7/7/23 21:05, jeremy ardley wrote:
>>
>> On 7/7/23 20:47, Nate Bargmann wrote:
>>> What MS has done has never been relevant to the creation of GNU, X, or
>>> the Linux kernel.
>>
>>
>> Agreed, those technologies were mostly independent of anything
>> Microsoft has
* On 2023 07 Jul 08:13 -0500, jeremy ardley wrote:
>
> My error:
>
> I should have said
>
> "Linux is a clone of Unix so a derivative. MS is also a derivative but not
> much like Unix. "
If you mean MS Windows NT and later, it apparently owes much to VMS and
OS/2. Certainly, some POSIX
While I found most of this discussion not very appealing...
Am 07.07.2023 um 15:05 schrieb jeremy ardley:
...
One option I've not seen yet is a MS kernel running with a GNU
framework. It's entirely feasible, but unlikely to date.
How about this:
07/07/2023 15:19.32 /home/mobaxterm
On 7/7/23 21:05, jeremy ardley wrote:
On 7/7/23 20:47, Nate Bargmann wrote:
What MS has done has never been relevant to the creation of GNU, X, or
the Linux kernel.
Agreed, those technologies were mostly independent of anything
Microsoft has done.
GNU is a clone of Unix so a
On 7/7/23 20:47, Nate Bargmann wrote:
What MS has done has never been relevant to the creation of GNU, X, or
the Linux kernel.
Agreed, those technologies were mostly independent of anything Microsoft
has done.
GNU is a clone of Unix so a derivative. MS is also a derivative but not
much
On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 4:00 AM Bret Busby wrote:
> On 7/7/23 16:51, jeremy ardley wrote:
> >
> > On 7/7/23 16:30, Bret Busby wrote:
> >> Microsoft didn't invent anything.
> >
> >
>
> I did not post that statement as the original poster of that statement.
>
> In responding to messages, please
* On 2023 07 Jul 06:54 -0500, fxkl4...@protonmail.com wrote:
> > Microsoft for good or bad has made major advances in
> > software and is responsible for a fair fraction of what we experience in
> > our Linux world.
>
> true
> if microsoft had ever produced a decent product
> linux may not have
On 7/7/23 19:28, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote:
That may be or not, but is irrelevant. Accurate attribution of quotes
is important, IMHO, and not difficult to do. So doubling down on your
mistake instead of a simple mea culpa means you move further down in my
hierarchy of respect. :(
I
> Microsoft for good or bad has made major advances in
> software and is responsible for a fair fraction of what we experience in
> our Linux world.
true
if microsoft had ever produced a decent product
linux may not have ever become as popular as it is
jeremy ardley wrote:
> On 7/7/23 16:59, Bret Busby wrote:
> >> On 7/7/23 16:30, Bret Busby wrote:
> >>> Microsoft didn't invent anything.
> >
> > I did not post that statement as the original poster of that
> > statement.
>
> Your comment about BSOD strongly suggests you agree with the
>
On 7/7/23 16:59, Bret Busby wrote:
On 7/7/23 16:30, Bret Busby wrote:
Microsoft didn't invent anything.
I did not post that statement as the original poster of that statement.
Your comment about BSOD strongly suggests you agree with the sentiment.
I reiterate. Microsoft for good or
On 7/7/23 10:14, Charles Curley wrote:
What, you couldn't figure that hlyg is not a master of the English
language from his|her|its sentence structure and vocabulary?
Furthermore, this is a world-wide list. We get all levels of English
mastery here, and courtesy calls for not assuming
On 7/7/23 16:51, jeremy ardley wrote:
On 7/7/23 16:30, Bret Busby wrote:
Microsoft didn't invent anything.
I did not post that statement as the original poster of that statement.
In responding to messages, please properly quote the message, or excerpt
of the message, to which the
On 7/7/23 16:30, Bret Busby wrote:
Microsoft didn't invent anything.
This is highly off topic, but Microsoft 'invented' a lot of stuff much
in the say way that many GNU developers 'invented' stuff.
This is a process of continual adaptation of existing software and
methodology. In the
On 7/7/23 12:28, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
Microsoft didn't invent anything.
Yes they did - the highest level of system security - the Blue Screen Of
Death - if a computer is made completely inaccessible, then it cannot be
breached. Hence, the Blue Screen of Death is the highest level of
On Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 06:42:47AM +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
> On 7/7/23 04:23, hlyg wrote:
> > it seems natural to me to use deb12 for debian 12
> >
> > deb for debian as in file name extension of package
> >
>
> I believe that using the abbreviation "deb" as the file name extension for
>
On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 08:14:44 +0800
Bret Busby wrote:
> > i have used wrong word, i don't mean that. you know English is my
> > 2nd language. when we learn foreign language, we tend to parrot
> >
> You do not include in each of your messages, your name and your
> location (at least, the
On 7/7/23 08:31, Bret Busby wrote:
On 7/7/23 08:22, hlyg wrote:
On 7/7/23 08:14, Bret Busby wrote:
You do not include in each of your messages, your name and your
location (at least, the country), and that English is not your
primary language, and therefore, we have no reason to expect that
On 7/7/23 08:22, hlyg wrote:
On 7/7/23 08:14, Bret Busby wrote:
You do not include in each of your messages, your name and your
location (at least, the country), and that English is not your primary
language, and therefore, we have no reason to expect that English is
not your primary (and
On 7/7/23 08:14, Bret Busby wrote:
You do not include in each of your messages, your name and your
location (at least, the country), and that English is not your primary
language, and therefore, we have no reason to expect that English is
not your primary (and possibly, only) language.
On 7/7/23 07:39, hlyg wrote:
On 7/7/23 06:42, Bret Busby wrote:
On 7/7/23 04:23, hlyg wrote:
it follows Windows naming style: win7, win8 ...
Of course,if you want compliance with MS Windows, then, perhaps,
Linux, and, especially, Debian, might not be appropriate for you...
i have used
On 7/7/23 06:42, Bret Busby wrote:
On 7/7/23 04:23, hlyg wrote:
it seems natural to me to use deb12 for debian 12
deb for debian as in file name extension of package
I believe that using the abbreviation "deb" as the file name extension
for packages, is due to, at the time of the creation
On 7/7/23 06:42, Bret Busby wrote:
On 7/7/23 04:23, hlyg wrote:
it follows Windows naming style: win7, win8 ...
Of course,if you want compliance with MS Windows, then, perhaps,
Linux, and, especially, Debian, might not be appropriate for you...
i have used wrong word, i don't mean that.
On 7/7/23 06:42, Bret Busby wrote:
On 7/7/23 04:23, hlyg wrote:
it follows Windows naming style: win7, win8 ...
Of course,if you want compliance with MS Windows, then, perhaps,
Linux, and, especially, Debian, might not be appropriate for you...
i have used wrong word, i don't mean that.
On 7/7/23 06:02, Bret Busby wrote:
On 7/7/23 05:40, Alexander V. Makartsev wrote:
On 07.07.2023 01:23, hlyg wrote:
it seems natural to me to use deb12 for debian 12
deb for debian as in file name extension of package
it follows Windows naming style: win7, win8 ...
but others don't think so,
On 7/7/23 04:23, hlyg wrote:
it seems natural to me to use deb12 for debian 12
deb for debian as in file name extension of package
I believe that using the abbreviation "deb" as the file name extension
for packages, is due to, at the time of the creation of Debian, the
limitation on file
On 7/7/23 06:02, Bret Busby wrote:
On 7/7/23 05:40, Alexander V. Makartsev wrote:
On 07.07.2023 01:23, hlyg wrote:
it seems natural to me to use deb12 for debian 12
deb for debian as in file name extension of package
it follows Windows naming style: win7, win8 ...
but others don't think so,
On 7/7/23 05:40, Alexander V. Makartsev wrote:
On 07.07.2023 01:23, hlyg wrote:
it seems natural to me to use deb12 for debian 12
deb for debian as in file name extension of package
it follows Windows naming style: win7, win8 ...
but others don't think so, i google with deb12, few means
On 07.07.2023 01:23, hlyg wrote:
it seems natural to me to use deb12 for debian 12
deb for debian as in file name extension of package
it follows Windows naming style: win7, win8 ...
but others don't think so, i google with deb12, few means debian
in past 20 years few call it debN
it seems natural to me to use deb12 for debian 12
deb for debian as in file name extension of package
it follows Windows naming style: win7, win8 ...
but others don't think so, i google with deb12, few means debian
in past 20 years few call it debN (N=1,2,3...)
why few are interested in
48 matches
Mail list logo
