Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


			      USENET Archives

From: r...@clark.net (Ryan Rafferty)
Subject: Time for a 64-bit LINUX
Date: 1995/07/03
Message-ID: <3t9218$4re@clarknet.clark.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 105625466
content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc., Ellicott City, MD USA
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc

since 1992, Linux was the only OS to fully take advantage of the 386/486 
32-bit capability (I don't really count Windows).  The 386 was a 
technology that had been around since 1987 at least; it took 5-YEARS for 
a decent OS to come out that handled the new 32-bit capability.

Now, however, the limit has been pushed up again, by the 64-bit 
capability of the Pentium.  At the same time, while Linux fulfilled its role 
for 32-bit 
Intel machines beautifully,  it is being ported to all sorts of new, 
powerful platforms like Suns, ALPHAs,and PowerPC's, all of which are more 
powerful than the original i386 platform Linux was designed for.  And 
because the versions of Linux for these other platforms has been designed 
to take full advantage of their respective capacities, I feel the Intel 
version of Linux may be in danger of gradually becoming obselete even as 
Linux for other architectures come to the fore!  

Thus, I ask of the Linux community wether or not it is a good idea to 
begin a new project for Linux--creating a 64-bit version of Linux for the 
new line of Intel platforms.  This new version would possibly cause a 
rift--binaries from 32-bit Linux would be incompatible with the new 
64-bit version, though any source code could be recompiled.  Also, 
the original intent of Linux was to provide an advanced OS that 
would work with any 386 or better.  However, the 
advantage would be in maintaining the vitality of the Linux project as a 
whole.  The new version would take full advantage of P5 piping and 64-bit 
addressing capabilities, and anything else the Pentium can do that I 
don't know of (but would be willing to learn).  This would keep Linux on 
the cutting edge of techonology, as it was when the 486 was the top of 
the line.

Please let me know how you feel about this proposal.  If the primary goal 
should be to provide binary backwards-compatibility, then Linux is fine 
as it is on its current path.  If people feel there is a need for a Linux 
upgrade, then I would be willing to coordinate the project (it would be a 
GREAT learning experience).

Ryan Rafferty

r...@takara.clark.net
r...@clark.net

From: tdgil...@best.com (Tim Gilman)
Subject: Re: Time for a 64-bit LINUX
Date: 1995/07/03
Message-ID: <3t9gs1$1i2@shell1.best.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 105625520
distribution: world
references: <3t9218$4re@clarknet.clark.net> <3t9e8b$dcn@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
organization: Best Internet Communications, Inc. (i...@best.com)
newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc

L. Donovan Heinz < ldhe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Last I checked, the Pentium doesn't add much from a programming point
>of view. No 64-bit registers or operations, at least.  It's just
>faster.  So what is wrong with the Linux that we've got?

And you'd be better off getting the PowerPC RISC-based chip to work
with Linux if you were going to go that route.  Some people were working
on it, but since the Linux code is closely optimized for a 32-bit Intel
chip, I think the effort basically fizzled and they gave up.


-- 
Tim D. Gilman  < tdgil...@best.com> < tdgil...@ce.berkeley.edu>
               http://www.best.com/~tdgilman
  .fvwmrc Archive - ftp://ftp.best.com/pub/tdgilman/Fvwmrcs

From: torva...@cc.Helsinki.FI (Linus Torvalds)
Subject: Re: Time for a 64-bit LINUX
Date: 1995/07/04
Message-ID: <3taj9q$l5v@kruuna.helsinki.fi>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 105625854
sender: torva...@cc.helsinki.fi
references: <3t9218$4re@clarknet.clark.net> <3t9e8b$dcn@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
<3t9gs1$1i2@shell1.best.com>
content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
organization: University of Helsinki
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc

In article <3t9gs1$...@shell1.best.com>, Tim Gilman < tdgil...@best.com> wrote:
>L. Donovan Heinz < ldhe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Last I checked, the Pentium doesn't add much from a programming point
>>of view. No 64-bit registers or operations, at least.  It's just
>>faster.  So what is wrong with the Linux that we've got?
>
>And you'd be better off getting the PowerPC RISC-based chip to work
>with Linux if you were going to go that route.  Some people were working
>on it, but since the Linux code is closely optimized for a 32-bit Intel
>chip, I think the effort basically fizzled and they gave up.

As others have said, the Pentium is indeed not a 64 bit chip, even
though intel tried to do some PR by claiming it was (it has a 64-bit
external interface to fill in the cache quicker, that's all, I do
believe). 

But if you want to go 64 bits, don't go for the PowerPC: it's still 32
bit (well, maybe the 620 is out now, but even so the PowerPC linux will
be only 32-bit due to that being the only mode supported by all PPC
chips). 

If you want to go 64 bit, get the DEC Alpha chip: linux for it already
exists, and it's fully 64-bit clean.  Linux has been cleaned up a lot
the last year or two, and it's not tied to the intel architecture any
more. 

		Linus

From: rmo...@bach.seattleu.edu (Robert Mobbs)
Subject: Re: Time for a 64-bit LINUX
Date: 1995/07/10
Message-ID: <3tqiau$gll@dns1.seattleu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 105906874
distribution: world
references: <3t9218$4re@clarknet.clark.net> <3t9e8b$dcn@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
<3t9gs1$1i2@shell1.best.com>
organization: Seattle University
newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc

Tim Gilman (tdgil...@best.com) wrote:
: And you'd be better off getting the PowerPC RISC-based chip to work
: with Linux if you were going to go that route.  Some people were working
: on it, but since the Linux code is closely optimized for a 32-bit Intel
: chip, I think the effort basically fizzled and they gave up.

	Precisely.  That's the problem with this field -- everything written
risks the danger of becoming obsolete.  Therefore, what we do need is a new
OS for the RISC processors.  Once a standard comes out, I'm certain there 
will be some clever young person like Linus who will create a brand new
form of home-Unix, and widen the freeware market.  And, six years later,
probably the same thing will happen again.

Robert Mobbs
rmo...@seattleu.edu

From: r...@planetx.com (root)
Subject: Re: Time for a 64-bit LINUX
Date: 1995/07/11
Message-ID: <3ttv4m$bek@mars.earthlink.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 106006083
distribution: world
references: <3t9218$4re@clarknet.clark.net> <3t9e8b$dcn@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
<3t9gs1$1i2@shell1.best.com> <3tqiau$gll@dns1.seattleu.edu>
organization: Planet-Xware Systems/Solutions
reply-to: rept...@earthlink.net
newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc

Robert Mobbs (rmo...@bach.seattleu.edu) wrote:
: Tim Gilman (tdgil...@best.com) wrote:
: : And you'd be better off getting the PowerPC RISC-based chip to work
: : with Linux if you were going to go that route.  Some people were working
: : on it, but since the Linux code is closely optimized for a 32-bit Intel
: : chip, I think the effort basically fizzled and they gave up.

: 	Precisely.  That's the problem with this field -- everything written
: risks the danger of becoming obsolete.  Therefore, what we do need is a new
: OS for the RISC processors.  Once a standard comes out, I'm certain there 
: will be some clever young person like Linus who will create a brand new
: form of home-Unix, and widen the freeware market.  And, six years later,
: probably the same thing will happen again.

: Robert Mobbs
: rmo...@seattleu.edu

     DEC is fully supporting Linux.  This was announced at Last years DECAS
convention.  They gave Linus Torvalds a system with the new ALPHA CPU to
port Linux.  This will be a full blown 64-bit OS.  For more complete info
grab a copy of the July Linux Journal.  They may have some info at
http://www.digital.com but I cannot remember.  As soon as Linux is ported
to the ALPHA, I am getting one!

			Dave - rept...@earthlink.net

From: torva...@cc.Helsinki.FI (Linus Torvalds)
Subject: Re: Time for a 64-bit LINUX
Date: 1995/07/12
Message-ID: <3tvqq8$dba@kruuna.helsinki.fi>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 106006394
sender: torva...@cc.helsinki.fi
references: <3t9218$4re@clarknet.clark.net> <3t9gs1$1i2@shell1.best.com> 
<3tqiau$gll@dns1.seattleu.edu> <3ttv4m$bek@mars.earthlink.net>
content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
organization: University of Helsinki
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc

In article <3ttv4m$...@mars.earthlink.net>, root < rept...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>: Tim Gilman (tdgil...@best.com) wrote:
>: : And you'd be better off getting the PowerPC RISC-based chip to work
>: : with Linux if you were going to go that route.  Some people were working
>: : on it, but since the Linux code is closely optimized for a 32-bit Intel
>: : chip, I think the effort basically fizzled and they gave up.

Linux is no longer tied to the i386: the reason the PPC port has had
lots of problems is the lack of documentation on the PowerMacs and the
lack of machinery for anything else.  We'll get a PPC linux eventually,
but it will probably be at the end of this year at the earliest (and
that without X11 etc). 

>     DEC is fully supporting Linux.  This was announced at Last years DECAS
>convention.  They gave Linus Torvalds a system with the new ALPHA CPU to
>port Linux.  This will be a full blown 64-bit OS.  For more complete info
>grab a copy of the July Linux Journal.  They may have some info at
>http://www.digital.com but I cannot remember.  As soon as Linux is ported
>to the ALPHA, I am getting one!

My alpha (and others) already do run linux.  The major lack right now is
that there is no good and easy distribution (but people inside DEC has
done some of the work already), and there is no X server yet.  And to be
quite frank, the axp-linux hasn't gotten nearly the amount of testing
that the normal x86-linux has, so I expect that it won't be quite that
stable for a while. 

That said, Linux/axp already runs most OSF/1 binaries, and as of this
week the networking also works so I can telnet out from it (I haven't
installed any inetd/telnetd etc yet, so I can't telnet in yet).  The
worst problem right now is the lack of X: I can't work without X any
longer, so I still use OSF/1 for Linux/axp development. 

		Linus

			        About USENET

USENET (Users’ Network) was a bulletin board shared among many computer
systems around the world. USENET was a logical network, sitting on top
of several physical networks, among them UUCP, BLICN, BERKNET, X.25, and
the ARPANET. Sites on USENET included many universities, private companies
and research organizations. See USENET Archives.

		       SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM

March 7, 2003 - The SCO Group filed legal action against IBM in the State 
Court of Utah for trade secrets misappropriation, tortious interference, 
unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM 
made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of 
UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's Linux services 
business. See SCO vs IBM.

The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or
research.

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com			  http://tech-insider.org/