Les wrote: > I didn't know that the 686 stuff would run OK on the celeron, thus my > choice of the 386 pkg. Since I see so much about the issues of 64 bit > still being not quite fully implemented, I will probably stay where I am > until 64 bit is fully running (I am assuming that 686 is 64 bit). No. Definitely not. Completely different stuff. Erm -- as a result of an adverse decision in a lawsuit with AMD, Intel branded their P5 processor as the Pentium and the P6 as the Pentium Pro, since they could trademark those names. Precisely *because* those names were trademarked, they can't be used as generic names. So people continued the i?86 sequence, using i586 to refer to Pentium-compatible processors and i686 to refer to Pentium Pro-compatible processors. (Later, Intel branded different versions of the Pentium Pro under other names, including Pentium II, Pentium III, and Celeron. But not all Celerons are P6-based). Intel's preferred 64 bit architecture was the Itanium -- the 64 bit architecture implemented on Athlon 64, Opteron, later Pentium 4 and Intel Core 2 processors was designed by AMD (and cloned by Intel). > I have mucked up my installation a bit already and a reinstall may be > imminent if I can't figure this out today. My ultimate goal is to drive > a dual processor dual core system with 64 bit capability for some > software I had been working on (I need more flops to make it useful). Moving to 64 bit really implies a fresh install anyway. > I > really like the opterons and have been following the progress people are > making with those systems. I hope one of them will summarize their work > soon, and the state of the whole system would be helpful. Well, I've been working on a (single core) Athlon 64 for a couple of years now, and this e-mail is written on one. As far as Fedora software is concerned, it looks and feels almost indistinguishable from the 32 bit version. The whole distribution is polished and well integrated. There are a few issues remaining with the multiarch setup (having i386 and x86-64 versions of the same package at once) which you don't get in 32 bit installs, and closed source software support is often not nearly as good -- some people find that a problem. At the moment, this mainly affects Web browser plugins and media codecs. Intel's new Core 2 Duo architecture is very well regarded, and quad-core processors are beginning to come out. You may find they do what you need. > ... I am a bit of a lightweight on system install and > config stuff. So for me, a step by step install guide will get me where > I need to be, and that appears rare. 1. Download an x86_64 version of Fedora Core. 2. Burn it to CD / DVD as you would the 32 bit version. 3. Place the disc inside a 64-bit capable computer. 4. Install as you would a 32 bit version of Fedora. > Also I was surprised to find > packages installed in the "lib" directory. I have expected them to be > in a /usr/local directory or something like that. I am a bit of a > structure nut when it comes to systems, although you would not guess it > when you see my computer room (messy is too polite). http://www.pathname.com/fhs/ : the Linux File Hierarchy Standard. It specifies where everything goes on a Linux (or other Unix-like) system.[1] You might also like to check http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-6.1-Manual/ref-guide/ch-sysadmin.html which is still basically accurate. Hope this helps, James. [1] Having said that, by no means all Unix-like OSes claim to follow the FHS. -- E-mail: james@ | "Surely you don't begrudge me one measly bag per cup?" aprilcottage.co.uk | "Of tea, no. Of sugar, yes." | -- Peter Corlett
