Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 27 Oct 1996 11:21:55 GMT | Subject | Re: Byte article - 64 bit Unix | From | Ray Auchterlounie <> |
| |
Rob Glover <potato@dsnet.com> wrote: >Linux probably wasn't mentioned because Linux isn't 64-bit
Linux doesn't care - 32, 64, (16 !) whatever the architecture supports.
><jeez i hope i'm right so i don't get flamed ;> [...] I recall that you also suggested that people install an intel-only libc to fix module loading, instead of a generic patch to insmod.
Many might consider it better to check data before writing it, rather than write garbage and disclaim it's accuracy.
What are you going to claim next - "Linux is not portable" ? [ you are Andy Tanenbaum and I claim my $5 ]
ray
PS. I suggest getting a new copy of the kernel source, you appear to be missing some stuff under linux/arch/ - it is possible that you have somehow managed to hard-link arch to arch/i386.
-- Ray Auchterlounie <rda@kythera.demon.co.uk> "Forty Two! Is that all you've got to show for seven and a half million years' work?"
| |