On Friday 05 November 2004 02:48, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
Hello Bryan, completely forgot about responding to your reply to me.
Sorry ! Have need of clarification of some of your comments. Will snip a bunch
of the previous message.
>> I settled on a "barebones" set up from Monarch.
>
>Good vendor, they know their stuff.
>
>> New case,
>
>Which one?
Enemax CS800 TA Not fancy but supposed to be very cooling efficient.
>
>> lots of fans,460 w PS, an AMD Athlon 64 +3500 on an MSI K8T MB
>
>Er, might have waited on PCI-Express which is only a month away for the
>Socket-754/939 platforms.
....<snip>...
>Understand PCI-Express does far more for I/O away from the video.
>Unfortunately, all of the enthusiast sites seem to be focused on the
>video (sigh).
Welllll... What can I tell you. Didn't know about PCI-Express and nobody
mentioned it when I was asking about a new setup. I suppose you could wait a
month for something and then another month for something else, and never get
a new system.
>
>Also, which K8T mainboard? Socket-754 or 939? The A64 3500+ is
>available for both.
It's a 939. The MSI K8T Neo2-F Reccomended by Monarch when I told them I did
not want an ASUS. They agreed after I told them I was running Linux.
Probably spent two hours on the phone with them.
>
>> and a gig of ram, a new Nec DVD +-RW/CDRW
>
>Ouch, Sony/Philips DVD+RW drive/firmware. Compatibility is less than
>stellar for DVD-R.
Ouch ?? Sony/Phillips ??? Is that what a NEC is ??? Couple of the guys on
this list seem to think that is a great DVD player/writer.
>
>> and a Sony 32x52 CDRW,
>
>Why a separate drive? All drives today do CD-R/RW as well.
So I can write back and forth to them, and/or play music with one while
writing or reading the other. The $39 is worth it. ( like to hear the
soothing tones of music while I work on the computer)
>
...........<snip some>.......
>> Point of all of this? Trying to think ahead at what problems might
>> arise. Running SuSE 8.2 right now and have backed up all of the file that
>> I think are important. I will reuse my current HD's and put them in the
>> new box. There are some major differences between 8.2 and 9.2 Kernel of
>> course. from 2.4 to 2.6.
>
>The distro upgrade takes care of that. The Application Binary Interface
>(ABI) compatibility of 2.4 -> 2.6 is very good. GCC-GLibC will probably
>be the bigger issue for a few apps (but probably not many).
>
>> RPM from 3 to 4, user id from 500 to I000 ?,
>
>Didn't know that one.
Yep, a PITA for sure for an upgrade. All of the /home files may need to have
ID's changed
>
>> and I understand they have moved some files/directories around.
>
>Largely Linux Standards Base (LSB) 1.3/2.0-draft compliance, which
>follows the Linux Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS) 2.3.
Yes, but I think that SuSE is evolving to that standard. eg: 8.2 to 9.2
>
>> Plus I will be changing from 32 bit to 64 bit to further complicate
>> matters.
>
>64-bit apps must be linked to /lib64, 32-bit apps to /lib. Typically
>this is just a matter of rebuilding for 64-bit, minimizing the need for
>32-bit libraries. Most GNU code has been 64-bit clean since the
>mid-'90s.
Hmmm.. are you saying that most apps will need to be rebuilt using .src
rpm's ?
>
>Most apps are 64-bit, but a few apps (e.g., Mozilla/Firefox) that might
>use 32-bit libraries (e.g., 3rd party, binary-only plug-ins) are still
>32-bit.
Planning on using Firefox. Hoping that they (and other programs) are
compatible from the SuSE 64 bit DVD.
>
>> So, I am thinking fresh install vs upgrade.
>
>Oh definitely if you are going Linux/x86-64.
>If you don't go Linux/x86-64, then you could upgrade.
>
>Also note that the Linux/x86-64 release from SuSE is _different_.
>The last time I checked (and it's been 6 months), the Linux/x86-64
>release is _only_ available as "SuSE Linux Professional" and it is $50
>more than the regular "Professional" version ($79+$50=$129).
No, I don't think so. I purchased SuSE 9.2 Pro and the DVD is a dual layer,
both 32 bit and 64 bit. The price was $79 from Novell/SuSE. (plus shipping
of course)
>
>If there is now a "Personal" version of the Linux/x86-64 release, let me
>know. I haven't checked in awhile.
Nope, SuSE dropped the "personal" version but when the FTP version is
available it will be what used to be the personal edition. Then you have to
add all of the other stuff (devel etc.) to bring it up to the "Pro" standard.
>
>> Maybe less problems. Anyway I want to change the fs on some of my
>> partitions and/or resize them.
>
>I now use kernel 2.6 / LVM2 and setup volumes with my disks. That way
>it is much easier to resize things.
Can't make up my mind on LVM. Not sure how to go about it and that would add
another unknown variable to my system. Seems like a good idea though.
>
>> I am going to try and restore my /home some of /user/local/ some of /etc/
>> and another partition named /data which only contains jpegs, mp3's, etc.
>> (no problem) I hope. Already running KDE 3.3 which I think comes with
>> 9.2, so maybe a complete restore of /home will work ??
>
>Maybe. I just mount my home directories via NFS (SFS) from a server.
>Other than a few login script and GNOME considerations, I can even mount
>and use the same home directory from Solaris. ;->
Hmmm.. welll... This is just a stand-alone desktop for my personal use and
pleasure. No servers, lans, etc. No need for the other stuff. ( I think )
>
>--- TANGENT (if you're interested) ---
Always interested in what you have to say
>
>You can have an x86-64 processor run with a "LONG" mode (64-bit) kernel,
>and still run 32-bit applications. But if you run a "LONG" mode
>(64-bit) application, all libraries and support software needs to also
>be 64-bit. LONG mode binaries can't use non-LONG mode libraries and
>vice-versa. (BTW, the LONG mode is actually 48-bit addressing -- those
>who know how segment and offset registers work in x86 can probably
>figure out why it is called such in x86-64, and has the corresponding
>48-bit addressing limitation of 256TiB ;-).
Oh Bryan, You're gonna give me a headache. 48 bit ??? So, what you are saying
is that most apps are 64 bit ready, and only a few are still only 32 bit?
Like I said above, if I install a 64 bit SuSE, most apps will be 64 bit from
their DVD. Otherwise I would have to compile them from an src rpm. ( only use
rpm's now. Got tired of all of the dependencies from tar files of a few years
ago ) Now if I really want an app that I can only find as a tar I use
checkinstall to convert it to an rpm. Keeps everything neat and tidy and less
confusing for an old duffer like me.
>
>On Linux, for most apps, they are 64-bit and use libraries in /lib64.
>For the few apps that might rely on libraries that are only 32-bit,
>those libraries are in /lib. Pure, native 64-bit games like UT2004 run
>up to 20% faster.
>
Sounds like progress in the right direction to me.
>Microsoft solves the problem in XP 64-bit Edition by not even bothering
>to ship much 64-bit.
........<snip all of the Microsoft stuff>..... Noted and digested. You only
confirm what I have already suspected. Don't really give a s___ about what
they do. Linux has been my OS for about 5 years now. Wish I could convince my
children to do the same. ( Hmmm.. A father's guidance and counseling never
seems to end ) One of them is a big-time architect in New York and must
use??? Autocad to keep his business going. Won't hear of alternatives.
Anyway, Bryan, I really appreciate your input. You are one of the guru's of
the SLUG list.
Bob S
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 16:51:56 EDT