Re: [Syllable-kernel] upcoming Syllable patches..

[BurningShadow <syl...@bu...>]

>> I got a 486 somewhere (and it should be working), so I can test it.
>>
>> But who would run it on a 486? The 486 hasn’t been in active sale for many many years, and I don’t think that Syllable should be known as a you-can-run-it-on-your-oldest-computer system. That’s the way people (in Denmark) see Linux, and now they can’t understand why they can’t run Fedora on their pre-pentium system.
>
>Running Syllable on a 1989 DX25 wouldn't be very practical, but the end of generation 486s and the non-Intel Pentium / P6 clones aren't pre-Pentium in performance, as some of these chips can beat a Pentium 100. When you add in if OpenMOSIX is ported, and specialised tasks like cheap low-power kiosks, they become more
>feasible. Syllable runs fine on a P1 as it is.
>
>If people in developed countries on AMD64 FXs (like you see in the computing forums) think they'd be demasculinated by running an operating system with system requirements that are lower than WinXP... what can be said.
>
You are absolutely right about that, and a lot of people will understand that they should not install Syllable on an old 486/25, but instead choose a 486/100.
But I have seen it a lot of times and of cause the problem might be 100% Danish, although I doubt that. People read an article in Alt Om Data, about how easy it is to make a 486/120 usable, by installing RedHat and OpenOffice. Then they can't understand that Linux/OpenOffice can't run smoothly on their old 486/25, and concludes that Linux sucks.
We can easily agree that a 486/120 can outrun a P1/60, but is this really reason enough to make it run on 486's? 


>
>> In fact I think the exact upper side should be done.10 years from now, there will be almost no 32bit’s left, so at that time it won’t make sense to keep 32bit code. It should be wiped out, in order to keep the system up-to-date.
>
>Intel called AMD64 "Extended Memory Technology" to be derisive to AMD, but that's really all it means for nearly all desktops. If the memory addressing issue wasn't present, then the migration to 64-bit would be very slow because there just isn't any advantage to it unless you're doing specialised number crunching..
>Technologically, support for AMD64 will be driven by applications needing full multigigabyte RAM addressability, not much else.
>
No matter how Intel describes the AMD CPU, it doesn't change the fact that more and more computers are sold with 64bit, and that one day there will be no 32bit machines left, just like there’s no 8bit's left.


>
>> >Otherwise, it's probably never going to get fixed.
>> And I think that’s the best.
>
>But why not? It's just some lines of code, it isn't of any disadvantage to the system, it's just like removing a minor bug that stops someone's video card from working.
>
You might call it a "just some lines of code", but is it positive for the system, in the long term?
7 years ago, some magazines (in Denmark) started to tell people about Linux. At that time Linux didn't have Gnome/KDE. It was configured by using LinuxConf or various command line tools, and everybody wanted to try this cool new system, but they found it hard to use, so they never touched it again.
Today they refuse to try it, because it's "not userfriendly" and "you have to do everything in the console". The very same people can't install a fsck.ing video driver, in WindowsXP (WindowsXP is _very_ user-friendly, you remember? :D ).
By making it possible to use Syllable on the more powerful 486's you will make a lot of people install it on the not-so-powerful 486's, and they will run away, to never return. And they are exactly the people that Syllable was meant for.
You might be able to give Syllable a boost, among the semi-geeks, right now, but then someone writes an article about it, and the people who should be using it 5 years from now, will try it.




I’m not saying, that I got all the right answers, this is just how I see it.