Re: Which 32 bit kernel runs better under AMD64 architure, 686 or k7?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 03:27:34AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 11:33:14PM -0300, Marcello Di Marino
>>> Azevedo wrote:
[snip]
>>
> Correct on all counts. However, what is the point of having an
> amd64 CPU to then run an "inferior" kernel on it? I was not
> concerned with the question of compatibility, which you adressed,
> but rather which is the "best" kernel for that CPU.
32-bit Linux is not *inferior* to 64-bit Linux. It's *different*.
OP did not tell us why they want to use a 32-bit kernel on an AMD64
machine. Maybe it's because he or the PHB is nervous. Or, the
reason that *I* would choose to run a 32-bit kernel on an AMD64
machine: there is some app that won't run *natively* in 64-bits
(closed-source or poorly-written) and they don't want to use chroots.
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFE9XdRS9HxQb37XmcRAvSyAJ99eCsVcExUj8L/NG/WFFiLfPkkSQCfQ0x6
I8SrM1rFKGeLXzEPxxIzWIA=
=fKph
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: