On Fri, 24 Aug 2012, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:17:20AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Speaking as one of the x86 maintainers... we are currently deciding the
cost/benefit tradeoff around removing i386 support. I don't mean
general x86-32 support, I mean i386 as opposed to
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Mark Lord wrote:
> On 12-08-26 10:15 AM, wbrana wrote:
>> On 8/26/12, Mark Lord wrote:
>>> Here are a couple of real scenarios you don't seem to have thought about.
>>> A 32-bit kernel on a legacy (or even new) system in 2017 will still need
>>> regular kernel upd
On 12-08-26 10:15 AM, wbrana wrote:
> On 8/26/12, Mark Lord wrote:
>> Here are a couple of real scenarios you don't seem to have thought about.
>> A 32-bit kernel on a legacy (or even new) system in 2017 will still need
>> regular kernel updates (not "long term" un0maintained kernels)
>> in order
Dear wbrana,
this would have been the perfect April 1st joke along the lines of
removing support for *all* CPU architectures and adding support
for the one true virtual CPU, the Turing machine.
Now you spoiled it, shame on you! :-D
Best regards,
Zoltán Böszörményi
--
To unsubscribe from this l
On Sam, 2012-08-25 at 19:38 +0200, wbrana wrote:
[]
> You can temporary unsubscribe from LKML and read archives
[]
> People care because they replied to my e-mails.
You obviously didn't read these mails, didn't understand it, purposely
misread or purposely ignored them (and answer with a
A 32-bit kernel on a legacy (or even new) system in 2017 will still
need
> regular kernel updates (not \"long term\" un0maintained kernels)
> in order to work with new USB devices, new 4KB+ sector hard drives,
> newer generations of SSDs, etc..
12-years-old machine is trash. If someone can buy e.g
On 12-08-24 12:45 PM, wbrana wrote:
> On 8/24/12, Alan Cox wrote:
>> That doesn't work for a variety of reasons x86 hardware is still
>> changing, devices are still changing. So please exit cloud cuckoo land
>> and go do something useful.
> Hardware will be discontinued if no software will support
On 26/08/12 12:18, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2012, wbrana wrote:
>> On 8/25/12, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>>> So despite my humble suggestion, you've filled up my inbox with
>>> pointless rambling. Would it be at all possible you just got the f*ck
>>> off LKML? I know it's diff
On Sat, 25 Aug 2012, wbrana wrote:
> On 8/25/12, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > So despite my humble suggestion, you've filled up my inbox with
> > pointless rambling. Would it be at all possible you just got the f*ck
> > off LKML? I know it's difficult to hear this but nobody gives a shit
> > about your
On 8/25/12, Jochen Striepe wrote:
> You wrote unrelated stuff.
> Enough of this for me. *plonk*
Which unrelated stuff I wrote?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel
Hi,
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 07:22:21PM +0200, wbrana wrote:
> On 8/25/12, Jochen Striepe wrote:
> > You demand stuff. You offer nothing. You don't listen to the arguments
> > people very patiently explain to you.
> I replied to (almost) all arguments.
You wrote unrelated stuff.
Enough of
Dearest "wbrana",
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 8:27 PM, wbrana wrote:
> Why did you send this irrelevant e-mail?
So despite my humble suggestion, you've filled up my inbox with
pointless rambling. Would it be at all possible you just got the f*ck
off LKML? I know it's difficult to hear this but nobod
On 8/25/12, Shentino wrote:
> And I'm ignoring this conversation...
>
> ...because I see fit not to feed the trolls.
Why did you send this irrelevant e-mail?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majord
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 10:22 AM, wbrana wrote:
> On 8/25/12, Jochen Striepe wrote:
>> Let me get this straight. You don't see yourself capable of helping to
>> improve kernel or userland.
> If you tell me what and how Firefox and Chromium should be changed to
> support x32,
> I will create patch
On 8/25/12, Jochen Striepe wrote:
> Let me get this straight. You don't see yourself capable of helping to
> improve kernel or userland.
If you tell me what and how Firefox and Chromium should be changed to
support x32,
I will create patches if it won't take 1000s of hours. I'm not paid to
work on
Hi,
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 01:52:42PM +0200, wbrana wrote:
> On 8/25/12, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> >> Firefox and Chromium are large applications and can't be fixed by one
> >> user.
> >
> > There are already people there. I doubt they will reject help from
> > others
> Only experi
On 8/25/12, Shentino wrote:
> How is that even relevant to a discussion on support for x86_32?
I said if kernel supports x86_32, NVIDIA won't support x32.
I was told I should use open source drivers if I want to use x32.
My previous mail is saying than I can't use open source drivers
because of lo
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 7:41 AM, wbrana wrote:
> On 8/25/12, wbrana wrote:
>> There is chance Ivy Bridge can accelerate Chromium, but it can't
>> accelerate open source game at sufficient frame rate - 60 fps
>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel_ivy_gpushow&num=8
> My 5-year
On 8/25/12, wbrana wrote:
> There is chance Ivy Bridge can accelerate Chromium, but it can't
> accelerate open source game at sufficient frame rate - 60 fps
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel_ivy_gpushow&num=8
My 5-years-old Geforce 7300 GT provides 120 fps instead of 30 fp
On 8/25/12, wbrana wrote:
> Open source drivers are black listed by Chromium because of instability
> file software_rendering_list.json:
> NVIDIA cards with nouveau drivers in Linux are crash-prone
> The Intel Mobile 945 Express family of chipsets is not compatible with
> WebGL
> Intel mesa driver
On 8/25/12, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
>> Firefox and Chromium are large applications and can't be fixed by one
>> user.
>
> There are already people there. I doubt they will reject help from
> others
Only experienced Firefox/Chromium developer can help. Users aren't
useful as it will require m
On Fre, 2012-08-24 at 20:59 +0200, wbrana wrote:
[]
> > The source code for Firefox and Chromium is available online. Go fetch and
> > compile. If they don't compile or execute as intended, I'm sure they would
> > like seeing a patch from you fixing the problem.
> Firefox and Chromium are large
On 8/25/12, Gene Heskett wrote:
> What rock did you just crawl out from under? Stuff gets fixed, I've been
> using it since I installed Ubu10.04.4 LTS. Current uptime is half a day
> short of 3 weeks.
If Chromium black listed graphics card, it means Chromium/Xserver
crashed if hardware accelerat
On Saturday 25 August 2012, wbrana wrote:
>On 8/24/12, Martin Nybo Andersen wrote:
>> I know he's not giving any names, however he's specific enough: Apps
>> which can't be recompiled. Ie. software for which you haven't got the
>> source code or
>> a working compiler.
>
>Software used by 99% users
On 8/24/12, Martin Nybo Andersen wrote:
> I know he's not giving any names, however he's specific enough: Apps which
> can't be recompiled. Ie. software for which you haven't got the source code
> or
> a working compiler.
Software used by 99% users will have alternative software which have
source
On 8/25/12, Cruz Julian Bishop wrote:
> People won't want to be forced to stick with an old version of the
> kernel which,
> as you said, will not have any backported features.
Trash shouldn't be fully supported.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the bod
On 25/08/12 02:36, Alan Cox wrote:
>> almost all x86-32 boxes will be trash in 2017, remaining boxes will
>> use long term tree
> People will still be manufacturing 32bit x86 processors in 2017 I'm quite
> sure. You appear entirely out of touch. There are already serious
> discussions going on abou
On 25/08/12 03:05, wbrana wrote:
> On 8/24/12, Martin Nybo Andersen wrote:
>> What I'd hate even more is rendering my old working hardware useless by
>> removing x86-32 support from the kernel. To reason the removal by saying
>> "Microsoft plans to do it" just makes me go bonkers...
> Your old har
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 02:57:41PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:17:20AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >
> > Speaking as one of the x86 maintainers... we are currently deciding the
> > cost/benefit tradeoff around removing i386 support. I don't mean
> > general x86-32
On 08/24/2012 01:25 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 04:06:42PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 03:58:56PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>>
>> > BTW, it turns out I was wrong about Linux being used on Mars.
>> > Apparently Linux was used on the Mars Global Su
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 04:06:42PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 03:58:56PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>
> > BTW, it turns out I was wrong about Linux being used on Mars.
> > Apparently Linux was used on the Mars Global Surveyor, as well as the
> > Sprit and Opportunity ro
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 03:58:56PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> BTW, it turns out I was wrong about Linux being used on Mars.
> Apparently Linux was used on the Mars Global Surveyor, as well as the
> Sprit and Opportunity rovers
citation? My recollection was that they were running VxWorks.
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 08:13:58PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > (Of course, I'm rather doubtful that NASA would ever be willing to use
> > Linux on something like the Curiosity Mars Rover, but I could imagine
> > Linux being used in a non-mission critcal system on the ISS)
>
> GOAS, RACSI... not
On Friday 24 August 2012 20:59:33 wbrana wrote:
> On 8/24/12, Martin Nybo Andersen wrote:
> > I want to use *my* old machines (hey, I payed for them) on whatever new
> > hardware I can plug into them. I'm not an oracle and can't see into the
> > future, however USB has evolved, for instance, and w
Heh... I just read about Android Nexus One phones being used as satellite
controllers.
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:17:20AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>
>> Speaking as one of the x86 maintainers... we are currently deciding
>the
>> cost/benefit tradeoff around removing i
ESA has the Leon series (SPARC)...
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:17:20AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>
>> Speaking as one of the x86 maintainers... we are currently deciding
>the
>> cost/benefit tradeoff around removing i386 support. I don't mean
>> general x86-32 support,
Some useless troll said:
> nouveau is useless garbage as most open source graphics drivers.
Coming to an open source mailing list like LKML just to bitch about open
source being garbage? Come on...at least entertain us with better
subtlety.
I'm ready to ignore this guy, how about everyone else?
> (Of course, I'm rather doubtful that NASA would ever be willing to use
> Linux on something like the Curiosity Mars Rover, but I could imagine
> Linux being used in a non-mission critcal system on the ISS)
GOAS, RACSI... not entirely non-mission critical stuff either.
And the ST8 project co
On 8/24/12, Martin Nybo Andersen wrote:
> I want to use *my* old machines (hey, I payed for them) on whatever new
> hardware I can plug into them. I'm not an oracle and can't see into the
> future, however USB has evolved, for instance, and will probably still do --
Your 32-bit machines will be li
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:17:20AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> Speaking as one of the x86 maintainers... we are currently deciding the
> cost/benefit tradeoff around removing i386 support. I don't mean
> general x86-32 support, I mean i386 as opposed to i486, Pentium, and so on.
Random ques
On Friday 24 August 2012 20:18:49 wbrana wrote:
> On 8/24/12, Martin Nybo Andersen wrote:
> > That's right, but new hardware, that I wish to use with the old machines
> > might
> > not because of no backporting of new drivers. Same goes for new software
> > utilising newer kernel features.
>
> Wh
On 8/24/12, Martin Nybo Andersen wrote:
> That's right, but new hardware, that I wish to use with the old machines
> might
> not because of no backporting of new drivers. Same goes for new software
> utilising newer kernel features.
Which new hardware and which old machine do you want to use?
> T
On Friday 24 August 2012, wbrana wrote:
>On 8/24/12, Martin Nybo Andersen wrote:
>> What I'd hate even more is rendering my old working hardware useless by
>> removing x86-32 support from the kernel. To reason the removal by
>> saying "Microsoft plans to do it" just makes me go bonkers...
>
>Your
On 08/23/2012 11:54 AM, Brian Gerst wrote:
>
>> - wastes time of developers who can spend their time supporting X32
>> instead of x86-32 or support x86-64 only as 99% of users will be able
>> to run x86-64 software if x86-32 will be dropped
>
> The x86-32 arch is mature and well maintained, and s
On Friday 24 August 2012 19:05:53 wbrana wrote:
> On 8/24/12, Martin Nybo Andersen wrote:
> > What I'd hate even more is rendering my old working hardware useless by
> > removing x86-32 support from the kernel. To reason the removal by saying
> > "Microsoft plans to do it" just makes me go bonkers
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:05 PM, wbrana wrote:
> On 8/24/12, Martin Nybo Andersen wrote:
>> What I'd hate even more is rendering my old working hardware useless by
>> removing x86-32 support from the kernel. To reason the removal by saying
>> "Microsoft plans to do it" just makes me go bonkers...
On 08/24/2012 11:05 AM, wbrana wrote:
On 8/24/12, Martin Nybo Andersen wrote:
What I'd hate even more is rendering my old working hardware useless by
removing x86-32 support from the kernel. To reason the removal by saying
"Microsoft plans to do it" just makes me go bonkers...
Your old hardw
On 8/24/12, Martin Nybo Andersen wrote:
> What I'd hate even more is rendering my old working hardware useless by
> removing x86-32 support from the kernel. To reason the removal by saying
> "Microsoft plans to do it" just makes me go bonkers...
Your old hardware will work fine with long term kern
On Friday 24 August 2012 18:24:16 Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 08/24/2012 10:14 AM, Martin Nybo Andersen wrote:
> > (And I'm still not sure why one would run 32-bit applications on a 64-bit
> > architecture...)
>
> There are several architectures (powerpc comes to mind) where 32-bit
> userspace on 64
On 8/24/12, Alan Cox wrote:
> That doesn't work for a variety of reasons x86 hardware is still
> changing, devices are still changing. So please exit cloud cuckoo land
> and go do something useful.
Hardware will be discontinued if no software will support it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send
On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 18:36:26 +0200
wbrana wrote:
> On 8/24/12, Alan Cox wrote:
> >> almost all x86-32 boxes will be trash in 2017, remaining boxes will
> >> use long term tree
> >
> > People will still be manufacturing 32bit x86 processors in 2017 I'm quite
> > sure. You appear entirely out of t
On 8/24/12, Martin Nybo Andersen wrote:
> Then I suggest you wait another five years with this discussion.
It is important to announce this year that mainline kernel will drop
support for x86-32 in 2015 and only long term tree will support x86-32
after 2015. People shouldn't be surprised.
--
To un
On 8/24/12, Alan Cox wrote:
>> almost all x86-32 boxes will be trash in 2017, remaining boxes will
>> use long term tree
>
> People will still be manufacturing 32bit x86 processors in 2017 I'm quite
> sure. You appear entirely out of touch. There are already serious
> discussions going on about th
> almost all x86-32 boxes will be trash in 2017, remaining boxes will
> use long term tree
People will still be manufacturing 32bit x86 processors in 2017 I'm quite
sure. You appear entirely out of touch. There are already serious
discussions going on about things like the kernel modifications nee
On 8/24/12, Martin Nybo Andersen wrote:
> Dropping one of the most used architectures for no apparent reason makes no
> sense at all.
x86-32 won't be one of the most used architectures in 2017.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to m
On 08/24/2012 10:14 AM, Martin Nybo Andersen wrote:
(And I'm still not sure why one would run 32-bit applications on a 64-bit
architecture...)
There are several architectures (powerpc comes to mind) where 32-bit
userspace on 64-bit kernel is the norm because it offers performance
advantages d
On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 12:41 +0200, wbrana wrote:
> Microsoft will drop support for x86-32 in Windows 9.
> Linux could do same.
> http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/windows-9-details-are-already-emerging
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the
On 8/24/12, Bobby Powers wrote:
> Did you have anyone in particular you wanted to volunteer as a
> maintainer for this?
Do you mean maintainer for long term tree? There is always one.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@v
On Friday 24 August 2012 18:17:14 wbrana wrote:
> On 8/24/12, Martin Nybo Andersen wrote:
> > Ahh..., so the development time saved by not supporting x86-32 in
> > mainline can
> > now be used by backporting new features to the forementioned long term
> > tree?
>
> new features won't be backporte
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 9:17 AM, wbrana wrote:
> On 8/24/12, Martin Nybo Andersen wrote:
>> Ahh..., so the development time saved by not supporting x86-32 in mainline
>> can
>> now be used by backporting new features to the forementioned long term
>> tree?
> new features won't be backported
Did
On 8/24/12, Chen wrote:
> no, u have ignore so many x86-32 boxes.I have enough reason to prove that u
> have got temperature or mental illness, or even your brain has been hit by
> somebody.LoL.
almost all x86-32 boxes will be trash in 2017, remaining boxes will
use long term tree
--
To unsubscrib
On 8/24/12, Martin Nybo Andersen wrote:
> Ahh..., so the development time saved by not supporting x86-32 in mainline
> can
> now be used by backporting new features to the forementioned long term
> tree?
new features won't be backported
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On Friday 24 August 2012 17:55:08 wbrana wrote:
> On 8/24/12, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> > You really think that there are no 32bit x86-compatible CPUs in the
> > embedded world?
>
> x86-32 would be supported by long term tree until all x86-32 CPU disappear
Ahh..., so the development time saved
On 8/24/12, Chen wrote:
> Are u wasting your time on trolling?
I'm discussing my proposal.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read
On 8/24/12, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> You really think that there are no 32bit x86-compatible CPUs in the
> embedded world?
x86-32 would be supported by long term tree until all x86-32 CPU disappear
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a messag
On Fre, 2012-08-24 at 14:59 +0200, wbrana wrote:
> On 8/24/12, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
[...]
> > And you obviously never thought about embedded devices.
> > Servers, laptops, notebooks and desktop computers are not the whole
> > computing world - and from the pure numbers not even the majority BT
On 8/24/12, wbrana wrote:
>> *If* you really miss something in some other parts (compilers,
>> virtualization, ...) or they developing to slow *for you*, help them and
>> send patches there but do not try to lure others into fighting your
>> cause.
> I don't have knowledge about compilers and virt
On 8/24/12, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> What do you mean with "Linux"? The Linux kernel as such? Some (and
> which) distributions?
Linux kernel first, distributions and software will follow
>
> And you obviously never thought about embedded devices.
> Servers, laptops, notebooks and desktop compute
On Don, 2012-08-23 at 20:07 +0200, wbrana wrote:
> On 8/23/12, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> > Please stop trolling (and top-posting). Linux is NOT Windows where people
> > must
> > throw out their hardware because it stopped working in new version. There
> > are
> > millions of 32-bit x86 machines all aro
On 8/24/12, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> So stop wasting time with this trolling.
My and others' computers would work faster if x32 would be useful,
which isn't yet. It would save time.
I need to practise English.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a
On Friday 24 August 2012, wbrana wrote:
> On 8/24/12, Brian Gerst wrote:
> > If you don't want to support it that's your opinion. Those of us who
> > do don't care what you think. There is no profit motive in open
> > source.
>
> Support needs time. Time is money.
So stop wasting time with this
On 8/24/12, Brian Gerst wrote:
> If you don't want to support it that's your opinion. Those of us who
> do don't care what you think. There is no profit motive in open
> source.
Support needs time. Time is money.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the b
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 5:53 AM, wbrana wrote:
> On 8/23/12, Brian Gerst wrote:
>> Windows mostly sells with new hardware, and by the time win9 is
>> released all new hardware designed for it will be 64-bit capable.
>> Therefore it is not *profitable* for Microsoft to continue to develop
>> a 32-
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 6:42 AM, wbrana wrote:
> On 8/24/12, Ronnie Collinson wrote:
>> Hes just told you what x32 is, if you dont understand that, you cant
>> understand why its not a replacement for x32_64
> I know what is x32. x32 is replacement for x86-32, not x86-64.
Since you can't seem to
No its not a replacement, its an alternative with various nuances, but
its not a direct replacement for anything
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-
Op 24-08-12 12:42, wbrana schreef:
> On 8/24/12, Ronnie Collinson wrote:
>> Hes just told you what x32 is, if you dont understand that, you cant
>> understand why its not a replacement for x32_64
> I know what is x32. x32 is replacement for x86-32, not x86-64.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list:
On 8/24/12, Ronnie Collinson wrote:
> Hes just told you what x32 is, if you dont understand that, you cant
> understand why its not a replacement for x32_64
I know what is x32. x32 is replacement for x86-32, not x86-64.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
Hes just told you what x32 is, if you dont understand that, you cant
understand why its not a replacement for x32_64
On 8/24/12, wbrana wrote:
> On 8/24/12, Ronnie Collinson wrote:
>> Sort of the problem here, you dont understand what your talking about.
> I understand what I'm talking about, bu
On 8/24/12, Ronnie Collinson wrote:
> Sort of the problem here, you dont understand what your talking about.
I understand what I'm talking about, but don't understand what Brian
Gerst is talking about.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a mess
On 8/24/12, wbrana wrote:
> On 8/23/12, Brian Gerst wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:08 PM, wbrana wrote:
>>> On 8/23/12, Brian Gerst wrote:
Nobody here cares about closed source drivers.
>>> There are also open source software which don't support X32 like
>>> Oracle Java, VirtualBox, M
On 8/23/12, Brian Gerst wrote:
> Windows mostly sells with new hardware, and by the time win9 is
> released all new hardware designed for it will be 64-bit capable.
> Therefore it is not *profitable* for Microsoft to continue to develop
> a 32-bit version. That doesn't apply to Linux. Linux is i
On 8/23/12, Al Viro wrote:
> ... which gives you no right whatsoever to demand anything. Let me
> repharse what Pekka has suggested - off to the wankers' stall with you;
> take it to linux-visionaries.
your e-mail is off topic, try to say something relevant
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send
On 8/23/12, Brian Gerst wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:08 PM, wbrana wrote:
>> On 8/23/12, Brian Gerst wrote:
>>> Nobody here cares about closed source drivers.
>> There are also open source software which don't support X32 like
>> Oracle Java, VirtualBox, Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome.
>
>
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:08 PM, wbrana wrote:
> On 8/23/12, Brian Gerst wrote:
>> Nobody here cares about closed source drivers.
> There are also open source software which don't support X32 like
> Oracle Java, VirtualBox, Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome.
As I said before, X32 is an optional ABI
On 8/23/12, Brian Gerst wrote:
> Nobody here cares about closed source drivers.
There are also open source software which don't support X32 like
Oracle Java, VirtualBox, Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a mess
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:03 PM, wbrana wrote:
> On 8/23/12, Brian Gerst wrote:
>> The x86-32 arch is mature and well maintained, and shares so much in
>> common with x86-64, that there is little to be gained by dropping
>> kernel support.
> I would gain better chance, that NVIDIA will support X3
On 8/23/12, Brian Gerst wrote:
> The x86-32 arch is mature and well maintained, and shares so much in
> common with x86-64, that there is little to be gained by dropping
> kernel support.
I would gain better chance, that NVIDIA will support X32.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "uns
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 08:40:19PM +0200, wbrana wrote:
> On 8/23/12, David Daney wrote:
> > I suspected as much. So from your point of view, this issue is of
> > exactly zero importance.
> I'm using software which is developed by others.
... which gives you no right whatsoever to demand anythi
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:22 PM, wbrana wrote:
> x86-32
> - is deprecated since Linux supports X32.
> - will slow down adoption of X32 - there won't be X32 versions of many
> software - if new ABI was added, old one should be removed
You misunderstand what the X32 ABI is. It's 64-bit code (allow
On Thursday 23 August 2012 19:22:07 wbrana wrote:
> x86-32
> - is deprecated since Linux supports X32.
> - will slow down adoption of X32 - there won't be X32 versions of many
> software - if new ABI was added, old one should be removed
> - wastes time of developers who can spend their time support
On 8/23/12, David Daney wrote:
> I suspected as much. So from your point of view, this issue is of
> exactly zero importance.
I'm using software which is developed by others. As I already said
many software would be developed faster if x86-32 could be dropped.
Support for x86-32 can mean no suppo
On 08/23/2012 11:30 AM, wbrana wrote:
On 8/23/12, David Daney wrote:
Exactly what part of your user-space code requires special handling to
accommodate the differences between the two 32-bit x86 ABIs? Please be
specific.
My code doesn't need special handling,
[...]
I suspected as much. So
On 8/23/12, David Daney wrote:
> Exactly what part of your user-space code requires special handling to
> accommodate the differences between the two 32-bit x86 ABIs? Please be
> specific.
My code doesn't need special handling, but e.g. compilers, virtual
machines, software which use assembler ne
On 08/23/2012 11:17 AM, wbrana wrote:
On 8/23/12, Al Viro wrote:
How much of your time is being wasted? I don't remember any patches
from you. If you mean to say that we are losing your future valuable
contributions that would happen otherwise... I think you'll find that
we will manage to mu
Dear "wbrana",
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:17 PM, wbrana wrote:
> I'm user space developer. User space software also needs more time if
> more ABIs are supported.
I feel your pain.
As much as I appreciate your contribution here on LKML, I can't help
thinking that this discussion would be best con
On 8/23/12, Al Viro wrote:
> How much of your time is being wasted? I don't remember any patches
> from you. If you mean to say that we are losing your future valuable
> contributions that would happen otherwise... I think you'll find that
> we will manage to muddle through, even without a visi
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 07:22:07PM +0200, wbrana wrote:
> - wastes time of developers who can spend their time supporting X32
> instead of x86-32 or support x86-64 only as 99% of users will be able
> to run x86-64 software if x86-32 will be dropped
How much of your time is being wasted? I don't
On 8/23/12, Ondrej Zary wrote:
> Please stop trolling (and top-posting). Linux is NOT Windows where people
> must
> throw out their hardware because it stopped working in new version. There
> are
> millions of 32-bit x86 machines all around the world. If new Windows will
> not
> run on them, Linux
On Thursday 23 August 2012 19:22:07 wbrana wrote:
> x86-32
> - is deprecated since Linux supports X32.
> - will slow down adoption of X32 - there won't be X32 versions of many
> software - if new ABI was added, old one should be removed
> - wastes time of developers who can spend their time support
x86-32
- is deprecated since Linux supports X32.
- will slow down adoption of X32 - there won't be X32 versions of many
software - if new ABI was added, old one should be removed
- wastes time of developers who can spend their time supporting X32
instead of x86-32 or support x86-64 only as 99% of u
100 matches
Mail list logo
