Comment Re:no u (Score 1) 260
Slackware is compiled for i486 and has been for a LOOOOOONG time.
Yes, but it was not until gcc started to output i486-specific opcodes whether you liked it or not. At that point, what the hell.
Slackware is compiled for i486 and has been for a LOOOOOONG time.
Yes, but it was not until gcc started to output i486-specific opcodes whether you liked it or not. At that point, what the hell.
Do you have any idea how long it would take to just compile kernel on 386sx and 4MB of memory?
Seems to me that it was well under an hour. 386sx/16 with 4MB is the exact specs I used for my first year of Linux hacking, and I got along OK. My machine had one of the lowest recorded BogoMIPS ever (I think it was like 5).
Been meaning to boot that again... had it out to look last month. Maybe I should do a benchmark and report back.
Now, if he got it to run X, I might consider that a reasonable hack...but just running Linux...lame.
Most kids today can't write modelines.
An SX chip is merely a 386 without the floating point coprocessor.
Actually, the 386SX has a reduced data path width compared with the DX, but both could use an external 387 math coprocessor. It was not built in to any 386 CPU.
I had a 387 in my AMD 386DX-40 box... that was a great system. Pretty much stuck with AMD ever since, with a few exceptions.
On the other hand, this release includes essentially zero new features. Calling it a major release and incrementing the primary version number for what is essentially a security update is confusing to the point of making version numbers useless. This release doesn't even deserve a 4.1 IMO.
Call me crazy, but I thought they should have jumped right to Firefox 7.0.
The only truth here is that the article was written by a completely ignorant asshat.
This gives the impression that 2.6.40 is more than an incremental update. But 2.6.40 is an incremental update, so IMHO it should have stayed 2.6.40. Renaming it to 3.0 is just so random.
Try comparing the 2.0 kernel to the 3.0.0-rc1 kernel and then tell me again there's no justification for a major version bump.
.. and that is the problem. Instead of that bullshit flame wars between distros, why not just concentrate on making the whole system better for user. Imagine how childish it would be if Microsoft and Apple did that.
Don't you mean bullshit flame wars between _users_?
Congrats on the new release, Ubuntu!
Yeah, that'll help you when you're pulled over in Michigan. Add obstruction of justice to the charges, wiseguy.
I remember advertisements in magazines in the years before Tasers for a magic-sounding non-lethal weapon that would instantly incapacitate an attacker. The ads were vague about how the device worked, but I recall hearing (reading?) somewhere that it was a super-bright flashlight. Perhaps a strobe.
Maybe the difference is that it's effective this time.
"As geeks, we can only hope the core of Betelgeuse undergoes catastrophic failure in our lifetime."
As geeks, and with the star over 600 light-years away, we can only hope this has already happened close to 600 years ago.
Famous quote, but nonsense. In many ways, trying to build large BASIC programs and ending up with unmaintainable spaghetti code is one of the most valuable lessons a programmer can learn.
Santa will have to settle for a beer and a plate full of bacon.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101108/02464211754/us-patent-office-makes-it-harder-to-reject-patents-for-obviousness.shtml
I'd wonder how many zillions of examples of "prior art" we can dig up for something that is basically keeping a list of alternative protocols/routes, and selecting one of them.
Unfortunately, as of about a week ago, USPTO will no longer consider prior art as one of the tests of "obviousness" when deciding the validity of a patent claim. I wish I was kidding, but I'm not.
"More software projects have gone awry for lack of calendar time than for all other causes combined." -- Fred Brooks, Jr., _The Mythical Man Month_
