Messages in this thread |  | | From | (Philippe Strauss) | Subject | Re: kernel bug -> security problem | Date | Sat, 26 Oct 1996 12:36:25 +0200 (MET DST) |
| |
Albert Cahalan wrote: > > > PS: I also think that linux-alpha is no 64 bits :^) > > What is it then? > > sizeof(char *) == 8 > sizeof(long) == 8 > > 8 bytes is 64 bits. What more do you want? >
Sorry, i was thinking about MM, but here's what i've found under a dark and obscure directory on my disk:
> In article <4shphu$kvn@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, > Jason V. Robertson <jroberts@uiuc.edu> wrote: > > > >Buh? Linux is tied pretty well to 32 bits. Most Unices are - 64 bit Unix is > >a pretty new thing. I assume someone somewhere is working on making it work > >with 64-bit CPU's or has already. > > Buh indeed! > > Linux has been 64-bit for the last year or two on the alpha, and being > tied to 32 bit we are _definitely_ not. > > Get an alpha, install linux on it, and you'll find you can map hundreds > of gigabytes of virtual memory, do 64-bit pointer and integer arithmetic > natively etc etc. There aren't _many_ OS's that can claim to work on > both 32- and 64-bit architectures, but Linux is definitely there. > > (I think IRIX has a 64-bit version, but Solaris is still 32-bit even on > 64-bit hardware, as is WinNT, of course. NetBSD works on 32/64 bits, and > Digital UNIX is 64 bit. HP? Dunno). > > Linus
My apologise... (Once again, linux amaze me :)
-- Philippe Strauss, CH-1092 Belmont
Email: <philippe.strauss@urbanet.ch> Homepage: http://sicel-home-1-4.urbanet.ch
|  |