--=-sujVTwIVaEg2iBETEZvb
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Same thing? In one sense it is. Both windows and most distros of linux
(RH, SuSE, Deb) are compiled/optimised with the lowest common
denominator processor in mind. The 386 was the first but now "i386" is
just one way of indicating the PC x86 architecture. In reality, I
believe those distros are now compiled for i586 (tried installing MDK6
on my 486 and it wouldn't run).
However, I don't understand how recompiling the kernel to a _higher_
level of optimisation will make it work if it didn't not work before. I
would theoretically have to recompile winxp for a 486 if I wanted to run
it on a 486 or above, but that's not feasible for numerous reasons.
Anyways, I don't see what recompiling the kernel has to do with
upgrading your distro.

On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 13:19, Tom Achtenberg wrote:
> The fact you even ask about recompiling the kernal shows one of the most=20
> glaring weaknesses of Linux.  Imagine the outcry if Microsoft sais everyo=
ne=20
> had to recompile Windows XP to get it to work on their machine.  This is=20
> about the same thing.
>=20
> On Sunday 18 January 2004 13:04, Craig Brooksby wrote:
> > Two unrelated questions:
> >
> > 1) I use RH9, and like Frank and Austin, I see April coming.  I know
> > there are many more like us on this list.
> >
> > The prospect of backing my data up; formatting the harddrive and doing =
a
> > fresh install of [fedora, debian, whatever], then reinstalling all the
> > applications I use, and then all my data -- gives me the hives.  I'm to=
o
> > much a newbie.
> >
> > Nothing is worse than getting stuck midstream.  I can't afford it!  If =
I
> > undertake step A in that process, I must be confident of getting all th=
e
> > way to step N.  I cannot tolerate bogging down -- this machine is
> > mission-critical for me.
> >
> > I know there are a lot of people happily running RH7.3 etc.  What if I
> > decide just to ride out 2004 (or 2005) on RH9?  Is that a dumb idea?
> >
> > 2) My machine (athlon 2200+) reports itself as an i686 architecture, ye=
t
> > I regularly install rpms etc. for i386.  My kernel is for i386.
> >
> > If I compile my own kernel on this machine, do I then have an i686
> > kernel?  It that better / faster / more stable?
> >
> > --- Craig
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change  you mail settings:
> > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>=20
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change  you mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
--=20
Bryce C <Plug@BryceCo.Net>
CoBryce Communications

--=-sujVTwIVaEg2iBETEZvb
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBACvDm/wbq/C6yyPcRAhi7AJwJCf+ajJYbp3rsntbOa/usWlXsUgCfVxwF
mLnNQbYEN8PBszJ4d1eNaBg=
=Vuqu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-sujVTwIVaEg2iBETEZvb--