Re: What tool(s) reports OS buss width, which processor present?

Hello, On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 08:38:20AM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > cross-graded to amd64 only as far as running the amd64 kernel while > > leaving all of the user land and the primary dpkg architecture as > > i386. This is a supported configuration. > > It's not just "supported": it's ba

Re: What tool(s) reports OS buss width, which processor present?

> cross-graded to amd64 only as far as running the amd64 kernel while > leaving all of the user land and the primary dpkg architecture as > i386. This is a supported configuration. It's not just "supported": it's basically the recommended setup for an i386 install, since the support for the i386

Re: What tool(s) reports OS buss width, which processor present?

On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 10:41 AM Richard Owlett wrote: > > I know I've asked this before, but couldn't thread. > /etc/debian_version reports release active, but I need to know 32 or 64 bit. Which bus width do you want to know? Address, data, pci, agp, something else? Jeff

Re: DUH - was [Re: What tool(s) reports OS buss width, which processor present?]

On 21/8/24 19:43, Richard Owlett wrote: On 08/21/2024 06:34 AM, Richard Owlett wrote: I know I've asked this before, but couldn't thread. /etc/debian_version reports release active, but I need to know 32 or 64 bit. TIA Just finished coffee - inspiration I use MATE   just checked Applicati

Re: What tool(s) reports OS buss width, which processor present?

Hello, On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 07:52:14AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > It's extremely likely that whatever arch /bin/ls uses is the "primary" > arch for the system. It works on every Linux system I've encountered, > even if the kernel doesn't match it. > > Of course, for Debian specifically, th

Re: What tool(s) reports OS buss width, which processor present?

On Wed, 21 Aug 2024, Richard Owlett wrote: > I know I've asked this before, but couldn't thread. > /etc/debian_version reports release active, but I need to know 32 or 64 bit. > TIA > dmidecode

Re: What tool(s) reports OS buss width, which processor present?

This is an edit/resend. Originally I tried to reconstruct the initial login of the day, but brain fart got things backwards, after the upgrade and reboot. Richard Owlett composed on 2024-08-21 06:34 (UTC-0500): > I know I've asked this before, but couldn't thread. > /etc/debian_version reports r

Re: What tool(s) reports OS buss width, which processor present?

Richard Owlett composed on 2024-08-21 06:34 (UTC-0500): > I know I've asked this before, but couldn't thread. > /etc/debian_version reports release active, but I need to know 32 or 64 bit. Debian GNU/Linux 11 gx28b tty3 gx28b login: root Password: Linux gx28b 5.10.0-32-686 #1 SMP Debian 5.10.223-

Re: What tool(s) reports OS buss width, which processor present?

On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 13:39:22 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 06:34:30AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: > > I know I've asked this before, but couldn't thread. > > /etc/debian_version reports release active, but I need to know 32 or 64 bit. > > TIA > > uname -a > > This

Re: What tool(s) reports OS buss width, which processor present?

On 08/21/2024 06:39 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 06:34:30AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: I know I've asked this before, but couldn't thread. /etc/debian_version reports release active, but I need to know 32 or 64 bit. TIA uname -a This tells you the *kernel* version. No

DUH - was [Re: What tool(s) reports OS buss width, which processor present?]

On 08/21/2024 06:34 AM, Richard Owlett wrote: I know I've asked this before, but couldn't thread. /etc/debian_version reports release active, but I need to know 32 or 64 bit. TIA Just finished coffee - inspiration I use MATE just checked Application->System Tools->Mate System Monitor I te

Re: What tool(s) reports OS buss width, which processor present?

On 2024-08-21 19:34, Richard Owlett wrote: I know I've asked this before, but couldn't thread. /etc/debian_version reports release active, but I need to know 32 or 64 bit. TIA maybe this? $ uname -a Thanks -- https://wespeng.pages.dev/

Re: What tool(s) reports OS buss width, which processor present?

On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 06:34:30AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: > I know I've asked this before, but couldn't thread. > /etc/debian_version reports release active, but I need to know 32 or 64 bit. > TIA uname -a This tells you the *kernel* version. Note that for most architectures, the 64 bit ver

What tool(s) reports OS buss width, which processor present?

I know I've asked this before, but couldn't thread. /etc/debian_version reports release active, but I need to know 32 or 64 bit. TIA

Re: linux-image-amd64: failed to bring up processor 192

esg > -lerr reports: > >root@poto:~# dmesg -lerr >[ 11.080833] smpboot: do_boot_cpu failed(-1) to wakeup CPU#192 > > Further, /proc/cpuinfo is missing processor 192. > > I subsequently installed 6.4.0-0-deb12.2-amd64 from bookwork > backports. The issue still occurs.

linux-image-amd64: failed to bring up processor 192

I purchased a new server based on the Supermicro AS-8125GS-TNHR. It has two EPYC 9654 processors. Each processor has 96 cores and 192 hyperthreads. Thus the system as a whole has 192 cores and 384 hyperthreads. I run Debian stable bookworm. When first installed, it ran kernel 6.1.0.12. That kernel

Re: processor compatibility

On 11/13/21 22:39, deutsch_da...@tuta.io wrote: > Hello! Is the Intel Core i7-9750H processor supported by your operating > system? > Hi! The architecture of this processor is AMD64 so it's supported and you can use this image - https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unoffici

Re: processor compatibility

Hello, On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 09:39:16PM +0100, deutsch_da...@tuta.io wrote: > Hello! Is the Intel Core i7-9750H processor supported by your operating > system? I don't have one but this suggests yes: https://linux-hardware.org/index.php?id=cpu:intel-6-158-10-core-i7-9750h Th

processor compatibility

Hello! Is the Intel Core i7-9750H processor supported by your operating system? -- .

Re: Could KDE work adequately on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo processor @ 2.33 GHz?

Marco Möller wrote: > On 10.03.21 19:28, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote: > (...) >> I don't think there is a Debian DVD iso I can use to install Debian >> Bullseye. >> I think I'll have to install Buster and then switch to Bullseye. >> Is there a better option? > > To my knowledge, there is a Bulleye i

Re: Could KDE work adequately on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo processor @ 2.33 GHz?

> > TDE is the only DE I use on my Debians. Light it is, but with a feature set that > floats my boat very well. > I had only 2GB RAM on this old Core2Duo until recently: > > # free # on fresh boot to multi-user.target > totalusedf

Re: Could KDE work adequately on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo processor @ 2.33 GHz?

Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z composed on 2021-03-10 07:26 (UTC-0400): > How is that TDE? Is it like KDE but much lighter? > What are the main differences? TDE is the only DE I use on my Debians. L

Re: Could KDE work adequately on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo processor @ 2.33 GHz?

On Mi, 10 mar 21, 16:55:39, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote: > > Sorry, I wasn't clear: first Buster then Bullseye. That way I will stay on > Bullseye > when it becomes "stable". I think it will happen soon, won't it? It's a few months away, which in Debian's timeline is indeed soon ;) Kind regards, A

Re: Could KDE work adequately on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo processor @ 2.33 GHz?

> Be aware that although testing has less churn than unstable, that also means that when a bug does creep through, it may take a week or two to see the next release of the software, whereas unstable might see the fix come in later that same day. > > It's a trade-off. Sorry, I wasn't clear: first B

Re: Could KDE work adequately on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo processor @ 2.33 GHz?

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 1:42 PM Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote: > > Thanks. I think I would rather prefer non-free software as a second > option. > > Since I'm new to this, I would prefer to go the safe way: first Debian > 10, then testing. > > Be aware that although testing has less churn than unsta

Re: Could KDE work adequately on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo processor @ 2.33 GHz?

> To my knowledge, there is a Bulleye installer available here: > https://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/ > It is still a test version, but you have good chances that it will work > just fine. As described before, "testing" in Debian does not mean > "unstable". With some bad luck for you, yo

Re: Could KDE work adequately on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo processor @ 2.33 GHz?

On 10.03.21 19:28, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote: (...) I don't think there is a Debian DVD iso I can use to install Debian Bullseye. I think I'll have to install Buster and then switch to Bullseye. Is there a better option? To my knowledge, there is a Bulleye installer available here: https://www

Re: Plasma can be a lightweight (was: Hardware requirements between Debian 9 and 10; and was also: Could KDE work adequately on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo processor @ 2.33 GHz?)

On 10/03/2021 07:23, "Felix Miata" wrote: > > Felix Miata composed on 2021-03-10 05:33 (UTC-0500): > > > Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z composed on 2021-03-09 19:00 (UTC-0400): > > >> I have been reading throughout the Web > >> that Xfce4 is not so lightweight as it was before. > >> Apparently, its performan

Re: Could KDE work adequately on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo processor @ 2.33 GHz?

> I recommend to use "testing" (currently Bullseye) on an individual Laptop/Desktop Computer, and leave "stable" for server or cooperate end user installations. Usually "testing" is very stable concerning reliability for the every day interactive work and during the frequent upgrades (which you sho

Re: Could KDE work adequately on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo processor @ 2.33 GHz?

> If you have the drive-space for it, install it, along with something lighter like Cinnamon or LXQt. > > Then all it takes to switch between the alternatives is to log out, find the settings icon on your login manager, select your alternative, and log back in. > > If KDE proves to be too sluggish,

Re: Could KDE work adequately on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo processor @ 2.33 GHz?

> Debian bullseye (soon to be Debian 11) is already in the "freeze" stage. > > It should be quite reliable in daily usage though you are still going to > see (small) updates to many packages. > > Official security support is not started yet, but security relevant > updates should be prioritised whe

Re: Could KDE work adequately on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo processor @ 2.33 GHz?

On 10.03.21 13:51, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote: (...) My last doubt is if should use Debian 10 with KDE Plasma or Debian Bullseye instead. I recommend to use "testing" (currently Bullseye) on an individual Laptop/Desktop Computer, and leave "stable" for server or cooperate end user installation

Re: Could KDE work adequately on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo processor @ 2.33 GHz?

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 9:34 PM Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote: > Hello. > > I would like to install Debian 10 with the KDE Plasma task > on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 @ 2.33 GHz, > it doesn't have a GPU. > Do you think it would run without problems > or would it be slow and laggy

Re: Could KDE work adequately on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo processor @ 2.33 GHz?

On Mi, 10 mar 21, 08:51:33, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote: > > My last doubt is if should use Debian 10 with KDE Plasma or Debian Bullseye > instead. > Apparently, only the newer versions of KDE Plasma have the performance > boost. Debian bullseye (soon to be Debian 11) is already in the "freeze" sta

Re: Could KDE work adequately on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo processor @ 2.33 GHz?

System: Debian GNU/Linux > KDE Plasma Version: 5.20.5 > KDE Frameworks Version: 5.78.0 > Qt Version: 5.15.2 > Kernel Version: 5.10.0-4-amd64 > OS Type: 64-bit > Processors: 2 × Intel® Core™2 Duo CPU P7450 @ 2.13GHz > Memory: 2,9 GiB of RAM > Graphics Processor: Mesa DR

Re: Could KDE work adequately on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo processor @ 2.33 GHz?

> Commandante Alpha- > Full disclosure, I have always preferred KDE over gnome and alternatives. It's just more complete and tight. But there are some older systems I can't really use it on. I don't NEED a massive window manager and apps, I was a fan of twm for years. I dont mind xfce either, it's

Re: Could KDE work adequately on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo processor @ 2.33 GHz?

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 5:23 AM Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote: > > I would not do that. I run xfce under Debian 10.4 in 8GB, it's very > light weight for a window manager. MUCH lighter than KDE. But still a > little slow sometimes, with more than a few apps open SubCommandante > Geovanis > > 😂 > >

Re: Could KDE work adequately on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo processor @ 2.33 GHz?

l® Core™2 Duo CPU P7450 @ 2.13GHz Memory: 2,9 GiB of RAM Graphics Processor: Mesa DRI Mobile Intel® GM45 Express Chipset The CPU and memory consumption of pure KDE Plasma with only the "Konsole" terminal app open for generating the presented data are these: $ sudo inxi -Cm Memory:

Re: Could KDE work adequately on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo processor @ 2.33 GHz?

On Wednesday 10 March 2021 06:26:22 Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote: > > Yes, I think it will not work - better try lighter desktops or the > > older > > KDE > > > that is called now Trinity Desktop > > How is that TDE? Is it like KDE but much lighter? > What are the main differences? > > Sorry, I'm ne

Re: Could KDE work adequately on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo processor @ 2.33 GHz?

> Yeah it will work, although it'll work a lot better if you can get an extra 4Gb off Ebay, I paid about £25. By it will work you mean: your computer will boot; or: it will be usable? He he, thanks for your help.

Re: Could KDE work adequately on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo processor @ 2.33 GHz?

> Try Enlightenment. > It's very configurable once get familiar with all the options. > Cheers! I saw it was there, but it looks a little difficult to get it working according to what I read about it. Also, I don't know if loading Gtk+, Qt and EFL at the same time at RAM would be a good idea. Bu

Re: Could KDE work adequately on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo processor @ 2.33 GHz?

Also, you could spend a bit on money on an SSD, I did. On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 11:31, James Allsopp wrote: > Yeah it will work, although it'll work a lot better if you can get an > extra 4Gb off Ebay, I paid about £25. > > For reference I was running it on a 3Ghz 4GbRam Core2Duo. > > On Wed, 10

Re: Could KDE work adequately on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo processor @ 2.33 GHz?

Yeah it will work, although it'll work a lot better if you can get an extra 4Gb off Ebay, I paid about £25. For reference I was running it on a 3Ghz 4GbRam Core2Duo. On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 11:23, Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote: > > I would not do that. I run xfce under Debian 10.4 in 8GB, it's very

Re: Could KDE work adequately on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo processor @ 2.33 GHz?

> Yes, I think it will not work - better try lighter desktops or the older KDE > that is called now Trinity Desktop How is that TDE? Is it like KDE but much lighter? What are the main differences? Sorry, I'm new to GNU/Linux OSes.

Re: Could KDE work adequately on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo processor @ 2.33 GHz?

> I would not do that. I run xfce under Debian 10.4 in 8GB, it's very light weight for a window manager. MUCH lighter than KDE. But still a little slow sometimes, with more than a few apps open SubCommandante Geovanis > 😂 Oh, it looks it would be very slowly then. It is weird is doesn't looks

Re: Could KDE work adequately on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo processor @ 2.33 GHz?

On 10-03-2021 17:05, deloptes wrote: > Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote: > >> I would like to install Debian 10 with the KDE Plasma task >> on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 @ 2.33 GHz, >> it doesn't have a GPU. >> Do you think it would run without problems >> or would it be slow and la

Re: Could KDE work adequately on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo processor @ 2.33 GHz?

Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote: > I would like to install Debian 10 with the KDE Plasma task > on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 @ 2.33 GHz, > it doesn't have a GPU. > Do you think it would run without problems > or would it be slow and laggy? Yes, I think it will not work - better t

Re: Could KDE work adequately on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo processor @ 2.33 GHz?

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021, 9:34 PM Cmdte Alpha Tigre Z wrote: > Hello. > > I would like to install Debian 10 with the KDE Plasma task > on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 @ 2.33 GHz, > it doesn't have a GPU. > Do you think it would run without problems > or would it be slow and laggy?

Could KDE work adequately on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo processor @ 2.33 GHz?

Hello. I would like to install Debian 10 with the KDE Plasma task on a PC with 4 GB of RAM and Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 @ 2.33 GHz, it doesn't have a GPU. Do you think it would run without problems or would it be slow and laggy? Thanks in advance for your answers.

Re: node.js updates processor microcode?

On 7/24/20 11:32 PM, mick crane wrote: On 2020-07-25 03:17, Carl Fink wrote: I just installed npm on a Stable (Buster) system with apt. It brought in dozens of other packages. Then I worked on other stuff while it downloaded and installed. When I came back, a curses prompt was informing me that

Re: node.js updates processor microcode?

Carl Fink wrote: > I just installed npm on a Stable (Buster) system with apt. It brought > in dozens of other packages. Then I worked on other stuff while it > downloaded and installed. When I came back, a curses prompt was > informing me that it had already updated my kernel microcode. Is that >

Re: node.js updates processor microcode?

On 2020-07-25 03:17, Carl Fink wrote: I just installed npm on a Stable (Buster) system with apt. It brought in dozens of other packages. Then I worked on other stuff while it downloaded and installed. When I came back, a curses prompt was informing me that it had already updated my kernel micro

node.js updates processor microcode?

I just installed npm on a Stable (Buster) system with apt. It brought in dozens of other packages. Then I worked on other stuff while it downloaded and installed. When I came back, a curses prompt was informing me that it had already updated my kernel microcode. Is that something node.js is really

Re: Intel - Sky Lake Processor?

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 05:24:52PM -0700, HP Garcia wrote: > Does any else have a Debian installed on a pc with a Intel Sky Lake > processor? Has anyone got it configured properly without any boot > errors? Yes. Stretch works beautifully on Skylake systems, without needing anything fro

Re: Intel - Sky Lake Processor?

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 09:22:05 +0500 "Alexander V. Makartsev" wrote: > On 22.04.2018 05:24, HP Garcia wrote: > > Does any else have a Debian installed on a pc with a Intel Sky Lake > > processor? Has anyone got it configured properly without any boot > > errors? &

Re: Intel - Sky Lake Processor?

On 22.04.2018 05:24, HP Garcia wrote: > Does any else have a Debian installed on a pc with a Intel Sky Lake > processor? Has anyone got it configured properly without any boot > errors? > > Just curious. > > HP Garcia On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 12:09:38 +0500 > What I am seein

Re: Intel - Sky Lake Processor?

On 22.04.2018 05:24, HP Garcia wrote: > Does any else have a Debian installed on a pc with a Intel Sky Lake > processor? Has anyone got it configured properly without any boot > errors? > > Just curious. > > HP Garcia > I have an i5-6600 SkyLake CPU and it works without an

Re: Intel - Sky Lake Processor?

On 22/04/18 12:24, HP Garcia wrote: Does any else have a Debian installed on a pc with a Intel Sky Lake processor? Has anyone got it configured properly without any boot errors? Just curious. HP Garcia Skylake is now well-supported. I am using unstable on a Kaby Lake i7 7700, one release

Intel - Sky Lake Processor?

Does any else have a Debian installed on a pc with a Intel Sky Lake processor? Has anyone got it configured properly without any boot errors? Just curious. HP Garcia

Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: "Meltdown" and "Spectre": Every modern processor has unfixable security flaws

On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 08:32:17PM -0500, SDA wrote: > Show who you're quoting with an attribution line, please! With proper attribution, we might know who you are addressing with this statement... Cheers, Tom -- What's the matter with the world? Why, there ain't but one thing wrong with ever

Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: "Meltdown" and "Spectre": Every modern processor has unfixable security flaws

On 2018-01-08, SDA wrote: > Show who you're quoting with an attribution line, please! > Tit for tat, unintended irony, blatant hypocrisy, or something else (I'm leaning toward the foremost, but you never know)? Apropos, as revealed in another thread, I'm dying to learn why SM never includes a

Re: [OFFTOPIC] Re: "Meltdown" and "Spectre": Every modern processor has unfixable security flaws

Show who you're quoting with an attribution line, please!

Re: “Meltdown” and “Spectre”: Every modern processor has unfixable security flaws

to start > fetching the target instruction data from memory. AFAIK this cannot be used > for the > attacks in question. Right. It is just 2 old mainframe system admins reminiscing. > The second is in conjunction with spectulation. Specultation means > starting to execute

Re: “Meltdown” and “Spectre”: Every modern processor has unfixable security flaws

The first is to start fetching the target instruction data from memory. AFAIK this cannot be used for the attacks in question. The second is in conjunction with spectulation. Specultation means starting to execute an instruction sequence which may not in fact really be executed. The processor i

[OFFTOPIC] Re: “Meltdown” and “Spectre”: Every modern processor has unfixable security flaws

> Is it correct to call branch prediction the same as speculative execution? Not really: they're closely related yet different. Stefan

[OFFTOPIC] Re: "Meltdown" and "Spectre": Every modern processor has unfixable security flaws

>> With TLB cache and all that? Pretty impressive :) > I am not sure about the 68010 and its separate MMU. But beginning with 68020 > there surely was memory space separation per process and cache memory in the > CPU. The 68020 didn't have an MMU on chip (it required a separate chip (MC68851) if y

Re: “Meltdown” and “Spectre”: Every modern processor has unfixable security flaws

rediction the same as speculative execution? I'm far from a processor expert myself but yes, that sounds plausible: the memory unit is prefeching stuff on the speculation that the branch will go one way, to keep the pipeline full. When things go the other way... > If so, then "yes"

Re: “Meltdown” and “Spectre”: Every modern processor has unfixable security flaws

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:55 AM, wrote: > (mainframes of that time had at least VM, possibly > speculative prefetch). Is it correct to call branch prediction the same as speculative execution? If so, then "yes" they had it, but I don't honestly know if that's correct. Pipeline rewinding was neces

Re: "Meltdown" and "Spectre": Every modern processor has unfixable security flaws

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 04:39:41PM +0100, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > to...@tuxteam.de wrote: (thanks for this walk down the memory (pun? me?) lane. [...] > > > Man against hardware. Who will finally win ? > > > Hardware. > > The more we shou

Re: "Meltdown" and "Spectre": Every modern processor has unfixable security flaws

Hi, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > Does any of the processors in the M68K family support VM? I wrote: > > http://gunkies.org/wiki/MC68010 > With TLB cache and all that? Pretty impressive :) I am not sure about the 68010 and its separate MMU. But beginning with 68020 there surely was memory spa

Re: "Meltdown" and "Spectre": Every modern processor has unfixable security flaws

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 02:41:57PM +0100, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > Does any of the processors in the M68K family support VM? > > They did since the early 1980s when i wondered what the advantage of an > 68010 would

Re: "Meltdown" and "Spectre": Every modern processor has unfixable security flaws

Hi, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > Does any of the processors in the M68K family support VM? They did since the early 1980s when i wondered what the advantage of an 68010 would be over an 68000 (with HP BASIC: none). http://gunkies.org/wiki/MC68010 After all, early Sun, HP and Apollo Unix workstati

Re: “Meltdown” and “Spectre”: Every modern processor has unfixable security flaws

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 07:39:23AM -0500, Jack Dangler wrote: [...] > Did this also affect Motorola chipsets? I know they haven't been > popular in a while, but I believe they are still in use (i.e. 68000) You can answer this question yourself: -

Re: “Meltdown” and “Spectre”: Every modern processor has unfixable security flaws

On 01/04/2018 12:55 PM, The Wanderer wrote: On 2018-01-04 at 12:30, Michael Fothergill wrote: On 4 January 2018 at 17:22, Curt wrote: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/meltdown-and-spectre-every-modern- processor-has-unfixable-security-fladdws/U TL;DR Windows, Linux, and macOS

Re: “Meltdown” and “Spectre”: Every modern processor has unfixable security flaws

anderer wrote: >> >> On 2018-01-04 at 12:30, Michael Fothergill wrote: >> >> > On 4 January 2018 at 17:22, Curt wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/meltdown-and-spectre-every-modern- >> >> processor-has

Re: “Meltdown” and “Spectre”: Every modern processor has unfixable security flaws

On 4 January 2018 at 17:55, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2018-01-04 at 12:30, Michael Fothergill wrote: > > > On 4 January 2018 at 17:22, Curt wrote: > > > >> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/meltdown-and- > spectre-every-modern- > >> pro

Re: “Meltdown” and “Spectre”: Every modern processor has unfixable security flaws

On 2018-01-04 at 13:17, Tixy wrote: > On Thu, 2018-01-04 at 12:55 -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > >> Meltdown so far is not known to affect anything other than Intel. > > And ARM's Cortex-A75 [1] which according to The Register [2] > "Qualcomm's upcoming Snapdragon 845 is an example part that uses

Re: “Meltdown” and “Spectre”: Every modern processor has unfixable security flaws

On Thu, 2018-01-04 at 12:55 -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > Meltdown so far is not known to affect anything other than Intel. And ARM's Cortex-A75 [1] which according to The Register [2] "Qualcomm's upcoming Snapdragon 845 is an example part that uses the A75" [1] https://developer.arm.com/support/s

Re: “Meltdown” and “Spectre”: Every modern processor has unfixable security flaws

On 2018-01-04 at 13:06, francis picabia wrote: > On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Curt wrote: > >> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/meltdown-and-spectre-every-modern- >> processor-has-unfixable-security-fladdws/U >> >> >> TL;DR >> >> Wind

Re: “Meltdown” and “Spectre”: Every modern processor has unfixable security flaws

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Curt wrote: > https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/meltdown-and-spectre-every-modern- > processor-has-unfixable-security-fladdws/U > > > TL;DR > > Windows, Linux, and macOS have all received security patches that > significantly

Re: “Meltdown” and “Spectre”: Every modern processor has unfixable security flaws

On 2018-01-04 at 12:30, Michael Fothergill wrote: > On 4 January 2018 at 17:22, Curt wrote: > >> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/meltdown-and-spectre-every-modern- >> processor-has-unfixable-security-fladdws/U >> >> >> TL;DR >> >> Wind

Re: “Meltdown” and “Spectre”: Every modern processor has unfixable security flaws

On 4 January 2018 at 17:22, Curt wrote: > https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/meltdown-and-spectre-every-modern- > processor-has-unfixable-security-fladdws/U > > > TL;DR > > Windows, Linux, and macOS have all received security patches that > significantly alter h

Re: “Meltdown” and “Spectre”: Every modern processor has unfixable security flaws

On 2018-01-04 at 12:22, Curt wrote: > https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/meltdown-and-spectre-every-modern-processor-has-unfixable-security-fladdws/U > > > TL;DR > > Windows, Linux, and macOS have all received security patches that > significantly alter how the ope

“Meltdown” and “Spectre”: Every modern processor has unfixable security flaws

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/meltdown-and-spectre-every-modern-processor-has-unfixable-security-fladdws/U TL;DR Windows, Linux, and macOS have all received security patches that significantly alter how the operating systems handle virtual memory in order to protect against a

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On 09/02/2017 08:24 PM, Doug wrote: [snip] Do you have Kate on your system? You can open side-by-side versions of that, and that's a fine text editor that you don't have to know vi or anything esoteric to use it. --doug As I currently have the MATE desktop, it is not installed and the origin

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

Gene Heskett wrote: > I gave up on the kde breakage that never gets fixed by kde, and on this > boxen, and one of my more well-endowed cnc boxes its TDE r14.0.0.x all > the way down, so I am still running kmail 1.9, its had at least 99% of > all the kde bugs swatted.  Its a fork of kde 3.5. > Sa

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Wednesday 06 September 2017 13:39:01 deloptes wrote: > kamaraju kusumanchi wrote: > > FWIW, I also thought that you lost 6 months of work based on what > > you wrote initially. Happy to hear that the damage is much less. But > > even that can be very frustrating, right? > > > > Along with the b

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Wednesday 06 September 2017 12:27:37 kamaraju kusumanchi wrote: > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Gene Heskett wrote: > > The ability to edit the copy buffer in a different tab, doing a > > buffer wide edit to change the axis references in the buffer, so > > that those edits are done and stan

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

kamaraju kusumanchi wrote: > FWIW, I also thought that you lost 6 months of work based on what you > wrote initially. Happy to hear that the damage is much less. But even > that can be very frustrating, right? > > Along with the backups, may I suggest you to store all your work in > version contr

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Gene Heskett wrote: > > The ability to edit the copy buffer in a different tab, doing a buffer > wide edit to change the axis references in the buffer, so that those > edits are done and stand a chance of being correct when the main buffer > has been scrolled to the

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 10:02:45AM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote: [...] > Replace all that file and directory management with git. > > edit /cncmaster/cnc-machine-A/config > git commit /cncmaster/cnc-machine-A/config To harp on my previous post: git

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 02:31:08AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Wednesday 06 September 2017 00:09:31 kamaraju kusumanchi wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Gene Heskett > wrote: > > > On Friday 17 March 2017 05:49:30 Jonathan Dowland wrote: > > >> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 09:54:42AM

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Wednesday 06 September 2017 03:12:36 Erik Christiansen wrote: > On 06.09.17 02:31, Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Wednesday 06 September 2017 00:09:31 kamaraju kusumanchi wrote: > > > > The total configuration generally is not a single file, usually > > broken up according to its order in the progr

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 05:12:36PM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote: [...] > A VCS only allows you to retrieve versions which have been checked in, > but that might help if it encourages you to do that immediately at the > end of an editing session, ra

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On 06.09.17 02:31, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Wednesday 06 September 2017 00:09:31 kamaraju kusumanchi wrote: > > The total configuration generally is not a single file, usually broken up > according to its order in the programs bootup, first being the basic > config, then the first of what could

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Wednesday 06 September 2017 00:09:31 kamaraju kusumanchi wrote: > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Friday 17 March 2017 05:49:30 Jonathan Dowland wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 09:54:42AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > >> > gedit has caused me to have to start ov

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Friday 17 March 2017 05:49:30 Jonathan Dowland wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 09:54:42AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: >> > gedit has caused me to have to start over again, 3 times, on a 600+ >> > line configuration file for machine contr

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On 04/02/2017 07:13 AM, Tom Browder wrote: On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 14:36 Fred > wrote: On 04/01/2017 09:24 AM, Richard Owlett wrote: > On 04/01/2017 10:55 AM, cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 16, 201

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On 2017-04-01, Richard Owlett wrote: > > On 03/16/2017 09:04 AM, I {the OP} had written: > > > > I don't need a diff tool exactly. I need to do a _visual_ comparison > > to make sure I'm editing the right portion. > > I might say I was looking for an "analog" not "digital" solution. > There's mel

Re: Suitable text editor [NOT word processor] or workaround?

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 14:36 Fred wrote: > On 04/01/2017 09:24 AM, Richard Owlett wrote: > > On 04/01/2017 10:55 AM, cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 06:38:52AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: > >>> The two files are nearly identical and need them displayed > >>> simult

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >