Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 26 Oct 1996 18:02:50 +0000 (GMT) | From | Gerard Roudier <> | Subject | Re: Byte article - 64 bit Unix |
| |
Hi Rob!
On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Rob Glover wrote:
> Linux probably wasn't mentioned because Linux isn't 64-bit <jeez i hope > i'm right so i don't get flamed ;> > > -Rob
Hmmm ... In my opinion, you are going to be flamed a lot ...
- With a 64 bit O/S like linux/Alpha you can virtually map all the silicium of the universe. - Linux/Alpha has a 64 bit time_t that allows to not reboot for about 30 times the elapsed time from the BIG BANG.
The above text is a joke. Obviously, I know advantages of 64 bit architecture and O/S (es).
A journalist have to write papers. It is his job. Probably he did not have informations about Linux and NetBSD or is a bad journalist. But you, who subscribed to linux lists, receive informations.
You're unforgivable!!!
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
Gerard.
> On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Tyson D Sawyer wrote: > > > I quote from page 141 of the November 1996 issue of Byte in the box > > titled "Unix Pushes the 64-bit Encelope": > > > > Digital Equipment's Unix, IBM's OS/400, and > > Silcon Graphic's Irix are the only full > > 64-bit OS environments available today. > > > > This seems at least a little inflamatory to a Linux (sadly, not Alpha) > > user such as myself. No meaning of that statement is lost due to missing > > context and Linux is not mentioned in the article anywhere. > > > > Ty > > > > > > >
|  |