-----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----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
