Upgrade motherboard & processor
in [Linux Help]
|
From: Baron on 18 Jan 2010 16:45 J G Miller Inscribed thus: > On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:31:13 +0000, Baron wrote: > >> Nothing like this happens on a Linux system. > > Well not if you do not permit it. I think it was SuSE Linux > which used to send a report of what hardware you had in your > machine if you registered your version. That is the crux ! On linux you have to approve sending that information. Which is quite different from having no choice in the matter, as in Windows. > And does not one of the modern distributions (Mint Linux?) > also ask you if you want to submit a hardware report after > installation so that the developers are made aware of what > hardware their distribution will correctly install? I don't know about "Mint". -- Best Regards: Baron.
From: Kadaitcha Man on 19 Jan 2010 02:24 "Zootal", thou balloon-headed velvet guard. I can hardly forbear hurling things at thee. Ye chided: >> Translation: Linux is always compiled for the absolute lowest common >> denominator. If your processor is a 1985 386-SX, Linux is guaranteed to >> run on it. > > > I wouldn't bet it would run on a 386 unless the kernel was specifically > compiled<BITCHSLAP> Idiot. > I have an old 386 machine in my basement that I've been meaning to load > linux on just to see how it performs. I don't know what I would do with > it after that, and I must admit it's pretty low on my to-do list... Thanks for sharing.
From: Zootal on 19 Jan 2010 03:20 Kadaitcha Man <anon(a)no.email> wrote in news:7gj5sf$znu$5(a)shameless-loose- bodied-woman.co.equatorial-guinea: > "Zootal", thou balloon-headed velvet guard. I can hardly forbear hurling > things at thee. Ye chided: > >>> Translation: Linux is always compiled for the absolute lowest common >>> denominator. If your processor is a 1985 386-SX, Linux is guaranteed to >>> run on it. >> >> >> I wouldn't bet it would run on a 386 unless the kernel was specifically >> compiled<BITCHSLAP> > > Idiot. > >> I have an old 386 machine in my basement that I've been meaning to load >> linux on just to see how it performs. I don't know what I would do with >> it after that, and I must admit it's pretty low on my to-do list... > > Thanks for sharing. Ignoramus. What happens when you boot a 386 with a kernel compiled for a Pentium? I'm betting you don't know because you never tried it. Guess what happens when an attempt is made to execute a Pentium+ specific instruction on a 386 (bswap, xadd, etc.)? If it doesn't go off on a wab (you do know what a wab is, don't you?), and if the kernel doesn't stop the attempt to execute, I'm guessing the instruction decoder would barf. Wab, kernel panic, or lockup. Take your choice (I don't remember what the 386 does in this case, but it's not good lol). Anyone here actually tried a kernel compiled for a Pentium+ on a 386?
From: chrisv on 19 Jan 2010 08:50 Zootal wrote: >Kadaitcha Man <anon(a)no.email> wrote *plonk*
From: YKhan on 19 Jan 2010 09:30
On Jan 17, 3:50 pm, John Hasler <jhas...(a)newsguy.com> wrote: > Yousuf Khan > > > Anyways, what sort of driver modules are not compiled? How do they run > > then? > > The system boots up running entirely out of RAM (using a RAM > filesystem), probes the hardware to find out what it is dealing with, > and loads the driver modules it needs. > > See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initrd> But those modules are still compiled (albeit not compiled into the kernel). Ignoramus15099 was saying there are modules that are not compiled. Yousuf Khan |