One major issue with any patch or code change is regression testing.
Any given change may fix a particular issue but what are the
ramifications for the entire system across all circumstances.
Though a change or fix may seem simple to integrate, the time is takes
to fully vet that fix could
Peter Corlett via cctalk :
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 10:18:51AM +0200, Sijmen J. Mulder via cctalk wrote:
> [...]
> > It's especially frustrating when, after having put in the work, projects
> > refuse even trivial patches for Solaris and derrivatives or sometimes even
> > BSDs because 'who uses
On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 at 11:39, Peter Corlett via cctalk
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 10:18:51AM +0200, Sijmen J. Mulder via cctalk wrote:
> [...]
> > It's especially frustrating when, after having put in the work, projects
> > refuse even trivial patches for Solaris and derrivatives or
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 10:18:51AM +0200, Sijmen J. Mulder via cctalk wrote:
[...]
> It's especially frustrating when, after having put in the work, projects
> refuse even trivial patches for Solaris and derrivatives or sometimes even
> BSDs because 'who uses that anyway'. (I include the patches
Nemo Nusquam via cctalk :
> I cannot agree. Many developers ensure that their software runs under
> their particular distribution and then call it POSIX. Porting to UNIX
> systems, such as Solaris or macOS, can be difficult and tedious. (Of
> course, this is not a Linux issue.)
It's
> On Sep 28, 2021, at 8:32 PM, ben wrote:
>
> On 2021-09-28 2:24 p.m., Paul Koning wrote:
>
>>> ...
>>> More I play with my designs, I come to the conclusion that
>>> 32 bits is not ample for a general purpose computer.
>> I think Von Neumann would agree; he picked 40 bits as I recall.
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk On Behalf Of Van Snyder via
> cctalk
> Sent: 28 September 2021 23:34
> To: cctalk@classiccmp.org
> Subject: Re: Linux and the 'clssic' computing world
>
> On Tue, 2021-09-28 at 17:03 -0500, Jay Jaeger via cctalk wrote:
>
On 2021-09-28 2:24 p.m., Paul Koning wrote:
My next computer will be 44 bits, if I ever get the routing timing bugs out the
FPGA
prototype card. I can't change the FPGA vender because I can use TTL macros
like 74181, for TTL bread boarding.
With the 74181 I can have any width I want, thus I
On Tue, 2021-09-28 at 17:03 -0500, Jay Jaeger via cctalk wrote:
> > On 2021-09-28 11:43 a.m., Vincent Long standing via cctalk wrote:
> >
> > > The C standards are more liberal, and continue to require char
> > > types
> > > to be 8 or more bits.
> > Was PL/I the only language that would let you
On 9/28/2021 2:15 PM, ben via cctalk wrote:
On 2021-09-28 11:43 a.m., Vincent Long standing via cctalk wrote:
The C standards are more liberal, and continue to require char types
to be 8 or more bits.
Was PL/I the only language that would let you select data size for
variables? Of course
On 9/28/21 12:15 PM, ben via cctalk wrote:
> My next computer will be 44 bits, if I ever get the routing timing bugs
> out the FPGA
> prototype card. I can't change the FPGA vender because I can use TTL
> macros like 74181, for TTL bread boarding.
> With the 74181 I can have any width I want,
> On Sep 28, 2021, at 3:15 PM, ben via cctalk wrote:
>
> On 2021-09-28 11:43 a.m., Vincent Long standing via cctalk wrote:
>
>> The C standards are more liberal, and continue to require char types to be 8
>> or more bits.
> Was PL/I the only language that would let you select data size for
On 2021-09-28 11:43 a.m., Vincent Long standing via cctalk wrote:
The C standards are more liberal, and continue to require char types to
be 8 or more bits.
Was PL/I the only language that would let you select data size for
variables? Of course the fine print would not let you have more than
> On Sep 28, 2021, at 1:43 PM, Vincent Slyngstad via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On 9/28/2021 5:14 AM, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote:
>> On 2021-09-27 11:46 p.m., ben via cctalk wrote:
>>> POSIX requires a byte to be exactly 8 bits I read somewhere.
>>> C99 C standard?
>>> Great for ARM and INTEL, not
On 2021-09-28 02:26, Tor Arntsen via cctalk wrote (in part):
On Mon, 27 Sept 2021 at 23:31, Zane Healy via cctalk
wrote:
On Sep 27, 2021, at 2:15 PM, Nemo Nusquam via cctalk
wrote:
On 2021-09-27 10:07, Joshua Rice via cctalk wrote (in part):
However, much of the "Linux" software is in fact
On 9/28/2021 5:14 AM, Toby Thain via cctalk wrote:
On 2021-09-27 11:46 p.m., ben via cctalk wrote:
POSIX requires a byte to be exactly 8 bits I read somewhere.
C99 C standard?
Great for ARM and INTEL, not so great for the 36 bit computers.
We've been through this before. No.
As I understand
My .02 on this is that the computing world has changed a lot since the
1990s. Back when I was using RH 5, it was useful for server-side stuff
but as a general replacement for Windows desktops, it left a lot to be
desired. On the other hand, it was pretty stable. Eventually I moved
to an
On 9/28/21 12:26 AM, Tor Arntsen via cctalk wrote:
Everything I personally develop for Linux will build on all Linux
distros, and also IRIX, Solaris, AIX, and, until recently, Tru64
(because I have access to those systems, except for Tru64 now). And
to some extent BSD variants.
Kudos to you.
On 2021-09-27 23:46, ben via cctalk wrote:
> POSIX requires a byte to be exactly 8 bits I read somewhere.
> C99 C standard?
> Great for ARM and INTEL, not so great for the 36 bit computers.
> Ben.
And probably don't work on your 20-bit CPU, when it is done ;-)
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 09:55:08AM -0400, Murray McCullough via cctalk wrote:
> [...] WIN 11 is much more secure than previous Windows versions. [...]
Windows 11 hasn't even been released yet, so this cannot be known. Any
claims of "much more secure" comes from press releases and other marketing
On 2021-09-27 11:46 p.m., ben via cctalk wrote:
> On 2021-09-27 3:15 p.m., Nemo Nusquam via cctalk wrote:
>> On 2021-09-27 10:07, Joshua Rice via cctalk wrote (in part):
>>>
>>> However, much of the "Linux" software is in fact POSIX software, and
>>> can quite easily be ported between Linux and
On Mon, 27 Sept 2021 at 23:31, Zane Healy via cctalk
wrote:
>
> On Sep 27, 2021, at 2:15 PM, Nemo Nusquam via cctalk
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2021-09-27 10:07, Joshua Rice via cctalk wrote (in part):
> >>
> >> However, much of the "Linux" software is in fact POSIX software, and can
> >> quite
On 2021-09-27 3:15 p.m., Nemo Nusquam via cctalk wrote:
On 2021-09-27 10:07, Joshua Rice via cctalk wrote (in part):
However, much of the "Linux" software is in fact POSIX software, and
can quite easily be ported between Linux and other *NIX-likes, such as
Solaris, macOS and the *BSD family.
More like you sell the hardware, then write the software. Look at APPLE
was 68000 now the Apple/386 style cpu. Hardware has no meaning.
Never a fan of RISC or modern designs because you got speed by being
able pipeline DRAM access, not because of RISC or what ever CPU of the
day was.
Ben.
On 9/27/21 3:30 PM, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote:
This also sums up nicely what is Linux’s greatest failing.
Software vendors need “Linux”, and what they get is “Red Hat”,
“SLES”, “Ubuntu”, etc. and as a result, the users suffer.
The same can be, and was, said about Unix. IRIX, Solaris,
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 2:39 PM Bill Degnan via cctalk
wrote:
> > To my knowledge the Linux kernel was released to the public 30 years ago
> > around this time. My dear friend swears by it and will never go back to
> > Windows even though WIN 11 is much more secure than previous Windows
> >
On Sep 27, 2021, at 2:15 PM, Nemo Nusquam via cctalk
wrote:
>
> On 2021-09-27 10:07, Joshua Rice via cctalk wrote (in part):
>>
>> However, much of the "Linux" software is in fact POSIX software, and can
>> quite easily be ported between Linux and other *NIX-likes, such as Solaris,
>> macOS
On 2021-09-27 10:07, Joshua Rice via cctalk wrote (in part):
However, much of the "Linux" software is in fact POSIX software, and
can quite easily be ported between Linux and other *NIX-likes, such as
Solaris, macOS and the *BSD family.
I cannot agree. Many developers ensure that their
On Sep 27, 2021, at 8:03 AM, mazzinia--- via cctalk
wrote:
>
> As I think others already mentioned, there's no difference between emulators
> run under windows or linux... they are both limited by the cpu and amount of
> ram used to run them, not by the host os
The real difference is in the
>
>
>
>
> To my knowledge the Linux kernel was released to the public 30 years ago
> around this time. My dear friend swears by it and will never go back to
> Windows even though WIN 11 is much more secure than previous Windows
> versions. Prior to Linux there were other much-earlier operating
On Mon, 27 Sept 2021 at 16:07, Joshua Rice via cctalk
wrote:
>
> and i'd rather prefer that this mailing list didn't fall for the same
> petty bickering that can be found across the internet.
+1 to that!
--
Liam Proven – Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk –
On Mon, 27 Sept 2021 at 15:55, Murray McCullough via cctalk
wrote:
>
> even though WIN 11 is much more secure than previous Windows
> versions
[[Citation needed]] ;-)
There still are more choices than people realise.
I sometimes play around with Haiku. It's getting there and is quite
usable
> On Sep 27, 2021, at 12:06 PM, Kenneth Gober via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 11:18 AM Alan Perry via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
>>> On Sep 27, 2021, at 07:07, Joshua Rice via cctalk
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Obviously, there's more hardware platforms that support
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 11:18 AM Alan Perry via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> > On Sep 27, 2021, at 07:07, Joshua Rice via cctalk
> wrote:
> >
> > Obviously, there's more hardware platforms that support Linux (like the
> RPi and other ARM boards)
>
> Doesn’t this have the
Doesn’t this have the relationship between the OS and the hardware platform
backwards?
> On Sep 27, 2021, at 07:07, Joshua Rice via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> Obviously, there's more hardware platforms that support Linux (like the RPi
> and other ARM boards)
As I think others already mentioned, there's no difference between emulators
run under windows or linux... they are both limited by the cpu and amount of
ram used to run them, not by the host os
-Original Message-
From: cctalk On Behalf Of Murray McCullough via
cctalk
Sent: Monday,
The is also the Windows Subsystem for Linux, which basically runs Linux
under Windows.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/
On 9/27/2021 9:07 AM, Joshua Rice via cctalk wrote:
Claiming one OS is better than another is always a contentious issue,
and i'd rather prefer that this
Claiming one OS is better than another is always a contentious issue,
and i'd rather prefer that this mailing list didn't fall for the same
petty bickering that can be found across the internet. The fact of the
matter is, when it comes to emulation on x86 IBM PC compatibles, both
Windows
38 matches
Mail list logo
