Well since the release i686 RPM's are really compiled for i586, this is a
rather academic discussion...
Civilme states that there are NO i686 optimizations in the i686 RPM's...
that they are really i586 optimized RPM's with i686 tagging because of the
CPU in the machine they were compiled on.
So there seems to be a lot of worry over nothing...
-JMS
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Declan Moriarty
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2029 6:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [expert] Lost sight of point (was: WAIT!! STOP!!...)
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Rusty Carruth wrote:
I recently joined this list, not because I feel 'expert' but because I
wanted
to know how the next release of Mandrake was shaping up, and this isn't a
bad
place to find out. I am very glad I caught this thread. I'm currently
running 2
AMD K6s and mandrake 6.1 with the 7.0 update, so I'm a bit behind the rest
of
you. Updating is on my mind
My outlook is simple: I want to hear exactly what mandrake are going to do:
are
they going to release in i586 & i686 separately, or plump for one or the
other?
These pcs are with me until they cease to function, or fall beneath the
minimum
specs in a way that hurts; I reckon that's 4-5 years, because increases in
available power won't leave any 100 Mzh bus machine on the scrap heap for a
while. Cutting them off in 8-12 months (the only time I heard mentioned) is
like telling me to buy another distribution
--
Regards,
Declan Moriarty
Applied Researches - Ireland's Foremost Electronic Hardware Genius
A Slightly Serious(TM) Company
Good judgement comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgement.
> > I'm not so sure the 350 thru 600 K6-2's and 3's will go away that soon.
> > I build systems for a living and as of yet see no compelling reason to
retire
> > my K6-2 450 as it performs nearly as well as most 850 900's do given the
same
> > software etc..
>
> Well, Ken beat me to it!
>
> I was planning to say basically the same thing, except that I don't build
> systems for a living, and I don't have a K6-2. Instead, I currently use
> a 486 for my firewall (running LM7.0.1), and until someone GAVE me a dual
> p90 system I was planning on using another 486 as my file server. But
> I *will* be using a 486 as my syslog server.
>
> The point?
>
> Simple - just because its ancient does not mean a bunch of us won't be
> using it. And if I'm using a 486 after all this time, just think of
> how long folks will be using the much faster K6's!
