RE: Sparc vs i386 architecture
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Danial Thom Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 6:11 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Sparc vs i386 architecture Yeah, Ted. Good cars are a waste of money. You're really starting to sound like a poor guy now! So goes it for good food. If the person your buying it for can't use it, then yes. I have a friend that had a peanut allergy. Buying the most expensive gourmet peanut butter for him would be a total waste of money. He can't use it. Just like your 100Mph toy. Actually worse than your 100Mph toy since he cannot even use the peanut butter in a sex game to get his rocks off, while you can get yourself off thinking about your toy that you can't use. Good wine? Well you can get drunk on cheap wine too, so who cares. lol If your goal of drinking wine is to get drunk, you don't deserve the good stuff. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sparc vs i386 architecture
-Original Message- From: Danial Thom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 5:11 AM To: Ted Mittelstaedt; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Sparc vs i386 architecture --- Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Danial Thom Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 5:28 AM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Sparc vs i386 architecture --- Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gerard Seibert Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 7:02 AM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sparc vs i386 architecture Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Frankly, people who spend $9000. worth of time dicking around with some old piece of junk to avoid buying a $400. computer crack me up. :) Yes, it is amassing. I have a friend who has spent thousands of dollars keeping his old car running. He could have purchased a new one with a new warranty, etc. and have saved all that money, but he refused. For some individuals, the challenge is the real thrill that they crave. That is an interesting, if very inaccurate, analogy, and as a car guy that does my own wrenching, let me tell you why. Computer gear every year gets cheaper and faster and better. Cars by contrast, have not improved much over the last 20 years - unless you count larger cupholders as an improvement - and espically they haven't changed at all over the last 10. Ever since EFI and airbags became standard on vehicles there just haven't been any compelling or significant improvements. In fact for many models, the engine designs themselves are the same as 20 years ago. For example the 2.4 Turbo used in the 2006 Chrysler PT Cruiser went into production in 1994, the 4 speed computer-controlled transmission used in that car went into production in 1989. Many parts for that transmission in fact are the same - how many computers do you know that you can use a 17 year old part in? you need to get out more, Ted, if you think cars haven't improved much in 20 years. I know you can't afford a BMW or Mercedes, but you can test drive them for free if you put on a nice suit. Drive a '95 BMW and a 2005 and you'll see there are huge differences in power, handling, brakes and a whole lot of stuff you can't see, not to mention safety. Anti-skid brakes were a joke when they first came out; now I can stop on a dime. Traction control actually works now. There have been improvements in suspension - however suspension is largely a preference thing. You for example probably would think the suspension tuning I prefer is way too harsh, I by contrast would probably think the suspension in a new BMW or Mercedes that you prefer feels like a speedboat wallowing in the river. As for brakes, a lot of the so-called improvement in stopping power in brakes is achieved by larger rotors - and to get these without making the wheel bigger and heavier you have to make the tire low profile - which means a more expensive tire, and a lot more frequent incidents of bent rims if the roads in your area have a lot of potholes (which is common on the east coast during the winter as the road salt and such destroys the asphalt. And safety, yes there's more airbags, and yes the bodies of cars are safer but once again, thats a tradeoff too. To make the car bodies safer the frame is strategicly weakened in areas to increase the compressibility of the body so that in a massive crash, the car folds up around you. The downside is that in low-speed 10-15Mph collisions where you would survive them in a less compressible body anyway, now the car has to be totaled out because the body simply folds up if it's barely tapped. Once more your getting a small increase in survivability by making everyone else have a lot more expensive-to-fix car, which drives up insurance rates. That might be agreeable until you look at the percentage of the major collisions and discover most of them were caused by drunks, who possibly the society as a whole would be better off if the drunk had died in the accident instead of being saved by the air bags. (since quite often the non-drunk people in these kinds of collisions are killed while the drunks survive, due to their bodies being more relaxed) Most of what your seeing as improvements are merely changes in the tradeoffs in automotive designs that have always existed. In the olden days, people cared more about lower lifetime maintainence costs, so manufacturers were more apt to choose a simpler and more bullet proof design, today by contrast people view cars as disposable if they go wrong, so manufacturers are more
RE: Sparc vs i386 architecture
The ability of a car to handle perfectly at 100Mph is more than just a minor improvement, unless you just use a car to take you to the train station or to the market. Ted wrote: Actually, it's a pure waste of money, at least in the US, since no public roads have 100Mph speed limits and chances of driving that fast with any regularity are about nil. (unless you live out in the boondocks, in which case your joy toy is gonna get it's undercarriage torn off by the dirt road you have to go on.) Yeah, Ted. Good cars are a waste of money. You're really starting to sound like a poor guy now! So goes it for good food. Good wine? Well you can get drunk on cheap wine too, so who cares. lol DT __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sparc vs i386 architecture
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Danial Thom Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 5:28 AM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Sparc vs i386 architecture --- Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gerard Seibert Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 7:02 AM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sparc vs i386 architecture Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Frankly, people who spend $9000. worth of time dicking around with some old piece of junk to avoid buying a $400. computer crack me up. :) Yes, it is amassing. I have a friend who has spent thousands of dollars keeping his old car running. He could have purchased a new one with a new warranty, etc. and have saved all that money, but he refused. For some individuals, the challenge is the real thrill that they crave. That is an interesting, if very inaccurate, analogy, and as a car guy that does my own wrenching, let me tell you why. Computer gear every year gets cheaper and faster and better. Cars by contrast, have not improved much over the last 20 years - unless you count larger cupholders as an improvement - and espically they haven't changed at all over the last 10. Ever since EFI and airbags became standard on vehicles there just haven't been any compelling or significant improvements. In fact for many models, the engine designs themselves are the same as 20 years ago. For example the 2.4 Turbo used in the 2006 Chrysler PT Cruiser went into production in 1994, the 4 speed computer-controlled transmission used in that car went into production in 1989. Many parts for that transmission in fact are the same - how many computers do you know that you can use a 17 year old part in? you need to get out more, Ted, if you think cars haven't improved much in 20 years. I know you can't afford a BMW or Mercedes, but you can test drive them for free if you put on a nice suit. Drive a '95 BMW and a 2005 and you'll see there are huge differences in power, handling, brakes and a whole lot of stuff you can't see, not to mention safety. Anti-skid brakes were a joke when they first came out; now I can stop on a dime. Traction control actually works now. There have been improvements in suspension - however suspension is largely a preference thing. You for example probably would think the suspension tuning I prefer is way too harsh, I by contrast would probably think the suspension in a new BMW or Mercedes that you prefer feels like a speedboat wallowing in the river. As for brakes, a lot of the so-called improvement in stopping power in brakes is achieved by larger rotors - and to get these without making the wheel bigger and heavier you have to make the tire low profile - which means a more expensive tire, and a lot more frequent incidents of bent rims if the roads in your area have a lot of potholes (which is common on the east coast during the winter as the road salt and such destroys the asphalt. And safety, yes there's more airbags, and yes the bodies of cars are safer but once again, thats a tradeoff too. To make the car bodies safer the frame is strategicly weakened in areas to increase the compressibility of the body so that in a massive crash, the car folds up around you. The downside is that in low-speed 10-15Mph collisions where you would survive them in a less compressible body anyway, now the car has to be totaled out because the body simply folds up if it's barely tapped. Once more your getting a small increase in survivability by making everyone else have a lot more expensive-to-fix car, which drives up insurance rates. That might be agreeable until you look at the percentage of the major collisions and discover most of them were caused by drunks, who possibly the society as a whole would be better off if the drunk had died in the accident instead of being saved by the air bags. (since quite often the non-drunk people in these kinds of collisions are killed while the drunks survive, due to their bodies being more relaxed) Most of what your seeing as improvements are merely changes in the tradeoffs in automotive designs that have always existed. In the olden days, people cared more about lower lifetime maintainence costs, so manufacturers were more apt to choose a simpler and more bullet proof design, today by contrast people view cars as disposable if they go wrong, so manufacturers are more apt to choose the complex and less-bullet proof design if it creates some minor feature that they think will help them sell a car. The only real new things that have come down the pike as it were is production hybrid powertrains, but the only thing that made those a reality is massive government subsidies. 20 years ago if we had the same government subsidies in place for hybrids, we would have had them then. But computers
RE: Sparc vs i386 architecture
--- Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Danial Thom Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 5:28 AM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Sparc vs i386 architecture --- Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gerard Seibert Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 7:02 AM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sparc vs i386 architecture Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Frankly, people who spend $9000. worth of time dicking around with some old piece of junk to avoid buying a $400. computer crack me up. :) Yes, it is amassing. I have a friend who has spent thousands of dollars keeping his old car running. He could have purchased a new one with a new warranty, etc. and have saved all that money, but he refused. For some individuals, the challenge is the real thrill that they crave. That is an interesting, if very inaccurate, analogy, and as a car guy that does my own wrenching, let me tell you why. Computer gear every year gets cheaper and faster and better. Cars by contrast, have not improved much over the last 20 years - unless you count larger cupholders as an improvement - and espically they haven't changed at all over the last 10. Ever since EFI and airbags became standard on vehicles there just haven't been any compelling or significant improvements. In fact for many models, the engine designs themselves are the same as 20 years ago. For example the 2.4 Turbo used in the 2006 Chrysler PT Cruiser went into production in 1994, the 4 speed computer-controlled transmission used in that car went into production in 1989. Many parts for that transmission in fact are the same - how many computers do you know that you can use a 17 year old part in? you need to get out more, Ted, if you think cars haven't improved much in 20 years. I know you can't afford a BMW or Mercedes, but you can test drive them for free if you put on a nice suit. Drive a '95 BMW and a 2005 and you'll see there are huge differences in power, handling, brakes and a whole lot of stuff you can't see, not to mention safety. Anti-skid brakes were a joke when they first came out; now I can stop on a dime. Traction control actually works now. There have been improvements in suspension - however suspension is largely a preference thing. You for example probably would think the suspension tuning I prefer is way too harsh, I by contrast would probably think the suspension in a new BMW or Mercedes that you prefer feels like a speedboat wallowing in the river. As for brakes, a lot of the so-called improvement in stopping power in brakes is achieved by larger rotors - and to get these without making the wheel bigger and heavier you have to make the tire low profile - which means a more expensive tire, and a lot more frequent incidents of bent rims if the roads in your area have a lot of potholes (which is common on the east coast during the winter as the road salt and such destroys the asphalt. And safety, yes there's more airbags, and yes the bodies of cars are safer but once again, thats a tradeoff too. To make the car bodies safer the frame is strategicly weakened in areas to increase the compressibility of the body so that in a massive crash, the car folds up around you. The downside is that in low-speed 10-15Mph collisions where you would survive them in a less compressible body anyway, now the car has to be totaled out because the body simply folds up if it's barely tapped. Once more your getting a small increase in survivability by making everyone else have a lot more expensive-to-fix car, which drives up insurance rates. That might be agreeable until you look at the percentage of the major collisions and discover most of them were caused by drunks, who possibly the society as a whole would be better off if the drunk had died in the accident instead of being saved by the air bags. (since quite often the non-drunk people in these kinds of collisions are killed while the drunks survive, due to their bodies being more relaxed) Most of what your seeing as improvements are merely changes in the tradeoffs in automotive designs that have always existed. In the olden days, people cared more about lower lifetime maintainence costs, so manufacturers were more apt to choose a simpler and more bullet proof design, today by contrast people view cars as disposable if they go wrong, so manufacturers are more apt to choose the complex and less-bullet proof design if it creates some minor feature that they think will help them sell a car. The only real new things that have come down the pike as it were
RE: Sparc vs i386 architecture
--- Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gerard Seibert Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 7:02 AM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sparc vs i386 architecture Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Frankly, people who spend $9000. worth of time dicking around with some old piece of junk to avoid buying a $400. computer crack me up. :) Yes, it is amassing. I have a friend who has spent thousands of dollars keeping his old car running. He could have purchased a new one with a new warranty, etc. and have saved all that money, but he refused. For some individuals, the challenge is the real thrill that they crave. That is an interesting, if very inaccurate, analogy, and as a car guy that does my own wrenching, let me tell you why. Computer gear every year gets cheaper and faster and better. Cars by contrast, have not improved much over the last 20 years - unless you count larger cupholders as an improvement - and espically they haven't changed at all over the last 10. Ever since EFI and airbags became standard on vehicles there just haven't been any compelling or significant improvements. In fact for many models, the engine designs themselves are the same as 20 years ago. For example the 2.4 Turbo used in the 2006 Chrysler PT Cruiser went into production in 1994, the 4 speed computer-controlled transmission used in that car went into production in 1989. Many parts for that transmission in fact are the same - how many computers do you know that you can use a 17 year old part in? you need to get out more, Ted, if you think cars haven't improved much in 20 years. I know you can't afford a BMW or Mercedes, but you can test drive them for free if you put on a nice suit. Drive a '95 BMW and a 2005 and you'll see there are huge differences in power, handling, brakes and a whole lot of stuff you can't see, not to mention safety. Anti-skid brakes were a joke when they first came out; now I can stop on a dime. Traction control actually works now. But computers are not comparable to cars. It might make sense to keep an old car going as a new car depreciates much more than your time is worth in the first year, and they aren't cheap. DT __ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sparc vs i386 architecture
At 12:14 PM -0800 1/8/06, Danial Thom wrote: --- Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: user Opteron/Athlon64 - better than both :) AMD made RISC-like architecture that just runs i386-like code (i386+more registers and few extra instructions, while lots of mostly-unused instructions emulated). Thats hilarious, a reduced instruction set processor that has extra instructions! Good one! You should think of RISC as a set of reduced instructions, and not a reduced set of instructions. Even IBM's original RISC had a fairly large *number* of instructions, but fancier do-all instructions were removed in favor of instructions which did less, and thus could always complete in fewer CPU cycles. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn= [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rensselaer Polytechnic Instituteor [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sparc vs i386 architecture
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Robert Slade Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 11:35 PM To: Ted Mittelstaedt Cc: Michael Bernstein; jasonharback; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Sparc vs i386 architecture On Sun, 2006-01-08 at 04:51, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: What machine code exploits currently exist for FreeBSD on the i386 other than the F00F bug, which has already been patched out? I wasn't aware of any. Ted Ted, Good point. However, in my case I'm using the sparc (its a U10) because it there. I originally got it as I needed to find out about Solaris/Sparc. It was lying in the back of a cupboard so when I started to investigate replacements for a domain based on W2k using FBSD I dusted it off and I'm using it for the BDC. The only thing I really noticed is the disk(s) are slow compared (SUN's IDE) to the PDC which has a fast scsi setup. Given the choice I think I would still go for a good sparc from Ebay over a i386. We still have a couple Sparcs in service, doing odd jobs. Mainly haven't gotten around to replacing them, however I will probably keep at least 1 running indefinitely for software portability testing. I think with the cost of PC hardware today that a brand new device is less trouble for a production server and faster as well. You can get a clone rack mount server built on an Intel desktop motherboard with mirrored SATA 200GB disks for a bit under $1000 now that will kick the stuffing out of just about everything older that you can lay your hands on, and be more reliable. Where I still use older gear is for servers that there's -no- money budgeted for, and that there's a vested interest in keeping -off- the radar scope of upper management for political reasons. For example that older 300Mhz P2 server decomissioned a few years ago makes a great platform to run Nessus on, and the last thing I want is a discussion among the upper managers who don't know any better of the merits of whether or not we should be attempting to break into our own desktops. It's much better to find the insecure desktop then go to the upper managers and tell them that you caught employee X who keeps bringing in his personal laptop and docking it to the network, and who never updates it because way back in 1892 an update broke his 2,000 year old shareware wigit he downloaded for free, and now he never updates, that his precious toy has 10 security holes in it. You get what I mean. In any organization there's a need for stealth servers that aren't publically acknowledged by the IT group as existing, but nevertheless have key tasks, if not politically controversial ones, to perform. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sparc vs i386 architecture
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gerard Seibert Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 7:02 AM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sparc vs i386 architecture Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Frankly, people who spend $9000. worth of time dicking around with some old piece of junk to avoid buying a $400. computer crack me up. :) Yes, it is amassing. I have a friend who has spent thousands of dollars keeping his old car running. He could have purchased a new one with a new warranty, etc. and have saved all that money, but he refused. For some individuals, the challenge is the real thrill that they crave. That is an interesting, if very inaccurate, analogy, and as a car guy that does my own wrenching, let me tell you why. Computer gear every year gets cheaper and faster and better. Cars by contrast, have not improved much over the last 20 years - unless you count larger cupholders as an improvement - and espically they haven't changed at all over the last 10. Ever since EFI and airbags became standard on vehicles there just haven't been any compelling or significant improvements. In fact for many models, the engine designs themselves are the same as 20 years ago. For example the 2.4 Turbo used in the 2006 Chrysler PT Cruiser went into production in 1994, the 4 speed computer-controlled transmission used in that car went into production in 1989. Many parts for that transmission in fact are the same - how many computers do you know that you can use a 17 year old part in? Of course, for the general public that doesen't work on their own cars they are happy to swallow the marketing bullshit by the car companies that the vehicles are redesigned', redesigned my ass. All that changes is the sheet metal. If an old car has good paint and straight sheetmetal, it is cheaper to replace the powertrain, both engine and transmission, than to buy a new car - also rebuilt engines and transmissions carry a warranty too, didn't you know? Also a new car requires comprehensive insurance by the lender which is much more expensive than just liability. In areas of the United States, like the East Coast particularly where they salt the roads, keeping an old car running isn't an option because in 10 years it will be rusted out. Or flooded out like in the South. But it is very common still to see quite a number of 20 year old vehicles on the road in the Pacific NW, and California. What matters with cars is how they were maintained. If the vehicle was well maintained and the owner got right on the small stuff and fixed it when it broke, and did oil changes religiously and antifreeze changes and so on, it can go up to 300,000 miles before the engine is shot, and many people that drive gently can get 150-200K miles out of a transmission. If it's still in immaculate shape and the powertrain conks out, then it's cheaper to fix. If, however, it's got holes in the upholstery, standing water in the carpet, and the headliner stinks like a beach at low tide, than that is a different story. A computer by contrast, really has no maintainence that needs to be done, other than keeping it cool. And long before any car gets close to the end of it's lifespan, a computer will be hopelessly obsolete. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sparc vs i386 architecture
--- Robert Slade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 2006-01-08 at 04:51, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: What machine code exploits currently exist for FreeBSD on the i386 other than the F00F bug, which has already been patched out? I wasn't aware of any. Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael Bernstein Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 1:53 PM To: Robert Slade; jasonharback Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Sparc vs i386 architecture Hi group, I was just wondering if there's an advantage to running FreeBSD on a SPARC than compared with a regular PC. Obviously the architecture is different (CISC vs RISC). How ever you can purchase a higher powered PC box for less money than it would cost for a SPARC. The main advantage I'm seeing here is for security. It's going to be harder to break into a SPARC running FreeBSD than an Intel/Amd running FreeBSD b/c most machine code exploits will be for the i386 type architecture. Any insights are much appreciated. Michael - Original Message - From: Robert Slade [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: jasonharback [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 2:43 AM Subject: Re: Sparc dual boot problems On Sat, 2006-01-07 at 03:47, jasonharback wrote: Here's the situation The machine is a SUN ULTRA 5 and I have 4 IDE devices. I am new to SUN hardware I know much more about PC's. The first device primary master is the cdrom which Solaris 10 and FreeBSD were successfully installed from. Currently Solaris 10 which is the primary slave is the default boot device. FreeBSD is installed on the primary slave drive. I am used to the FreeBSD install on a PC and during that install it gave time for configuring the boot loader but I can't find it on the recent Sparc FreeBSD edition? During the partition process it says I will have the option to configure the boot loader latter. Right now I can't boot FreeBSD and I have no idea how to configure this machine to make it dual boot? I would like to have Solaris 10 as the primary O/S, FreeBSD as the secondary and Sparc Linux on the third hd. Can you please help? Jason Harback Jason, You don't need to use a boot loader with the U5, just boot to the promt (Stop A). Then just type boot followed by the alias of the slice you want to boot. Rob Ted, Good point. However, in my case I'm using the sparc (its a U10) because it there. I originally got it as I needed to find out about Solaris/Sparc. It was lying in the back of a cupboard so when I started to investigate replacements for a domain based on W2k using FBSD I dusted it off and I'm using it for the BDC. The only thing I really noticed is the disk(s) are slow compared (SUN's IDE) to the PDC which has a fast scsi setup. Given the choice I think I would still go for a good sparc from Ebay over a i386. Rob Frankly, people who spend $9000. worth of time dicking around with some old piece of junk to avoid buying a $400. computer crack me up. :) __ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sparc vs i386 architecture
Hi group, I was just wondering if there's an advantage to running FreeBSD on a SPARC than compared with a regular PC. Obviously the architecture is different (CISC vs RISC). How ever you can purchase a higher powered PC box for less money than it would cost for a SPARC. user Opteron/Athlon64 - better than both :) AMD made RISC-like architecture that just runs i386-like code (i386+more registers and few extra instructions, while lots of mostly-unused instructions emulated). possible latest SUN processor may be comparable in speed at 100 times higher price :) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sparc vs i386 architecture
Danial Thom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Frankly, people who spend $9000. worth of time dicking around with some old piece of junk to avoid buying a $400. computer crack me up. :) Yes, it is amassing. I have a friend who has spent thousands of dollars keeping his old car running. He could have purchased a new one with a new warranty, etc. and have saved all that money, but he refused. For some individuals, the challenge is the real thrill that they crave. -- Gerard Seibert [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sparc vs i386 architecture
Yes, it is amassing. I have a friend who has spent thousands of dollars keeping his old car running. He could have purchased a new one with a new warranty, etc. and have saved all that money, but he refused. For some individuals, the challenge is the real thrill that they crave. and SUN itself sells AMD64 based machines with their solaris. Of course they won't say Yes our SPARC processor isn't worth of buying and producing, because AMD made it better and much cheaper ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sparc vs i386 architecture
--- Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi group, I was just wondering if there's an advantage to running FreeBSD on a SPARC than compared with a regular PC. Obviously the architecture is different (CISC vs RISC). How ever you can purchase a higher powered PC box for less money than it would cost for a SPARC. user Opteron/Athlon64 - better than both :) AMD made RISC-like architecture that just runs i386-like code (i386+more registers and few extra instructions, while lots of mostly-unused instructions emulated). Thats hilarious, a reduced instruction set processor that has extra instructions! Good one! DT __ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sparc vs i386 architecture
What machine code exploits currently exist for FreeBSD on the i386 other than the F00F bug, which has already been patched out? I wasn't aware of any. Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael Bernstein Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 1:53 PM To: Robert Slade; jasonharback Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Sparc vs i386 architecture Hi group, I was just wondering if there's an advantage to running FreeBSD on a SPARC than compared with a regular PC. Obviously the architecture is different (CISC vs RISC). How ever you can purchase a higher powered PC box for less money than it would cost for a SPARC. The main advantage I'm seeing here is for security. It's going to be harder to break into a SPARC running FreeBSD than an Intel/Amd running FreeBSD b/c most machine code exploits will be for the i386 type architecture. Any insights are much appreciated. Michael - Original Message - From: Robert Slade [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: jasonharback [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 2:43 AM Subject: Re: Sparc dual boot problems On Sat, 2006-01-07 at 03:47, jasonharback wrote: Here's the situation The machine is a SUN ULTRA 5 and I have 4 IDE devices. I am new to SUN hardware I know much more about PC's. The first device primary master is the cdrom which Solaris 10 and FreeBSD were successfully installed from. Currently Solaris 10 which is the primary slave is the default boot device. FreeBSD is installed on the primary slave drive. I am used to the FreeBSD install on a PC and during that install it gave time for configuring the boot loader but I can't find it on the recent Sparc FreeBSD edition? During the partition process it says I will have the option to configure the boot loader latter. Right now I can't boot FreeBSD and I have no idea how to configure this machine to make it dual boot? I would like to have Solaris 10 as the primary O/S, FreeBSD as the secondary and Sparc Linux on the third hd. Can you please help? Jason Harback Jason, You don't need to use a boot loader with the U5, just boot to the promt (Stop A). Then just type boot followed by the alias of the slice you want to boot. Rob ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.15/223 - Release Date: 1/6/2006 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sparc vs i386 architecture
On Sun, 2006-01-08 at 04:51, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: What machine code exploits currently exist for FreeBSD on the i386 other than the F00F bug, which has already been patched out? I wasn't aware of any. Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Michael Bernstein Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 1:53 PM To: Robert Slade; jasonharback Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Sparc vs i386 architecture Hi group, I was just wondering if there's an advantage to running FreeBSD on a SPARC than compared with a regular PC. Obviously the architecture is different (CISC vs RISC). How ever you can purchase a higher powered PC box for less money than it would cost for a SPARC. The main advantage I'm seeing here is for security. It's going to be harder to break into a SPARC running FreeBSD than an Intel/Amd running FreeBSD b/c most machine code exploits will be for the i386 type architecture. Any insights are much appreciated. Michael - Original Message - From: Robert Slade [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: jasonharback [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 2:43 AM Subject: Re: Sparc dual boot problems On Sat, 2006-01-07 at 03:47, jasonharback wrote: Here's the situation The machine is a SUN ULTRA 5 and I have 4 IDE devices. I am new to SUN hardware I know much more about PC's. The first device primary master is the cdrom which Solaris 10 and FreeBSD were successfully installed from. Currently Solaris 10 which is the primary slave is the default boot device. FreeBSD is installed on the primary slave drive. I am used to the FreeBSD install on a PC and during that install it gave time for configuring the boot loader but I can't find it on the recent Sparc FreeBSD edition? During the partition process it says I will have the option to configure the boot loader latter. Right now I can't boot FreeBSD and I have no idea how to configure this machine to make it dual boot? I would like to have Solaris 10 as the primary O/S, FreeBSD as the secondary and Sparc Linux on the third hd. Can you please help? Jason Harback Jason, You don't need to use a boot loader with the U5, just boot to the promt (Stop A). Then just type boot followed by the alias of the slice you want to boot. Rob Ted, Good point. However, in my case I'm using the sparc (its a U10) because it there. I originally got it as I needed to find out about Solaris/Sparc. It was lying in the back of a cupboard so when I started to investigate replacements for a domain based on W2k using FBSD I dusted it off and I'm using it for the BDC. The only thing I really noticed is the disk(s) are slow compared (SUN's IDE) to the PDC which has a fast scsi setup. Given the choice I think I would still go for a good sparc from Ebay over a i386. Rob ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
