|
Home > Archive > alt.os.linux > October 2002 > Linux Terminology
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Bob H 2002-10-27, 11:25 pm |
| Hi Guys,
Well I have been reading about Linux for awhile now, and have got a new HDD
and two racks, so I am going to put Red Hat on one and Mandrake on the
other. Is there a site URL that gives the terminology of Linux, such as
RPM, i18n, i586, i686, Alpha, sparc, PPC,noarch etc. Ok I know what you're
thinking, but wherever I have read anyting about linux, the abbreviations or
tech terms are used, for instance how to instal a prog. I have alot to
learn, but will persevere at it until I have a reasonable grasp of the
system. I have been a windows user since 3.1, it has taken me along time to
get disillusioned with windows, but at last I have seen the light. What I
am trying to do is understand the system, I don't want to blame Linux for
my mistakes. I know it doesn't operate the same, and that once to know how
it does, I will like it.
Thanks for any help
Regards
Bob H
| |
| David 2002-10-28, 12:24 am |
| Bob H wrote:
> Hi Guys,
> Well I have been reading about Linux for awhile now, and have got a
> new HDD
> and two racks, so I am going to put Red Hat on one and Mandrake on the
> other. Is there a site URL that gives the terminology of Linux, such as
> RPM, i18n, i586, i686, Alpha, sparc, PPC,noarch etc. Ok I know what
> you're
> thinking, but wherever I have read anyting about linux, the
> abbreviations or
> tech terms are used, for instance how to instal a prog. I have alot to
> learn, but will persevere at it until I have a reasonable grasp of the
> system. I have been a windows user since 3.1, it has taken me along
> time to
> get disillusioned with windows, but at last I have seen the light. What I
> am trying to do is understand the system, I don't want to blame Linux for
> my mistakes. I know it doesn't operate the same, and that once to
> know how
> it does, I will like it.
> Thanks for any help
Not really detailed but gives you the basic concept.
RPM = Red Hat Package Manager
i386, i486, i586, i686, etc... are Intel systems.
AMD is similar to an Intel system but different manufacturer.
Alpha is a different architecture, NOT Intel
sparc is another system, NOT Intel
PPC is yet another system, NOT Intel
noarch = means not architecture specific program.
i386 = old Intel systems.
i486 = also old but not as old
i586 = Pentium class
i686 = Pentium II
--
Confucius: He who play in root, eventually kill tree.
Registered with the Linux Counter. http://counter.li.org
| |
| William D. Tallman 2002-10-28, 10:24 pm |
| David wrote:
> Not really detailed but gives you the basic concept.
>
> RPM = Red Hat Package Manager
> i386, i486, i586, i686, etc... are Intel systems.
Perhaps it's better to say that they are a progression of architecture
developments of the Intel processor. I know that's a lotta words, but
system implies a complete computer, I think.
Oh well, in for a penny.... LOL!!!!!!
A microprocessor, being a single basic computer-on-a-chip, is best
described by the architecture of the chip. In this case, the '86
nomenclature came from the 8086 chip, which was the first one from Intel to
use a 16 bit (two byte) "word" length. The Intel 80186 was an aborted
improvement, which gave way to the 80286, which ran 32 bit word interior,
though 16 bit word to the bus. The 80386, called the i386, ran 32 bit
words both inside and out to the bus, which was what Linus evidently deemed
a minimum for a real os kernel.
The i486(DX) included the math coprocessor, which was a separate chip for
the i386, and handled a pipeline of instructions IIRC. The i586 was the
first Pentium class process, which had two pipelines, and so forth.
So you see that if one is going to write an operating system kernel (which
is what Linux is...) to control the computer, here a microprocessor, one
has to write for the architecture of the chip itself. Which is why the
designations of the Intel processors are so important.
> AMD is similar to an Intel system but different manufacturer.
A better version of the Intel architecture using the same command set
(IIRC.), brought to you by Advanced MicroDevices, Sunnyvale, CA.
> Alpha is a different architecture, NOT Intel
Made by Digital Equipment Corp (DEC), which was bought by Compaq, which was
bought by HP......
> sparc is another system, NOT Intel
The warhorse of Sun computers, the same guys who gave us Java.....
> PPC is yet another system, NOT Intel
Brought to you from Cupertino, CA by Apple Computer!!
> noarch = means not architecture specific program.
Runs on any of the above.
> i386 = old Intel systems.
> i486 = also old but not as old
> i586 = Pentium class
> i686 = Pentium II
>
All of which is more than you wanted to know, no doubt, and one would hope
is not too full of errors..... <grin>
Bill Tallman
--
Registered Linux User: #221586
| |
| Chris Bennetts 2002-10-29, 1:24 am |
| William D. Tallman wrote:
> The Intel 80186 was an aborted
> improvement,
Not quite aborted, it ended up in a few embedded systems, IIRC.
> which gave way to the 80286, which ran 32 bit word interior,
> though 16 bit word to the bus.
The 80286 was 16 bits inside and out. You're thinking of the 386SX, which
was a 'cheapened' 386(DX), which allowed manufacturers to keep using
cheaper 16 bit buses, while using a better processor core.
> The 80386, called the i386, ran 32 bit
> words both inside and out to the bus, which was what Linus evidently
> deemed a minimum for a real os kernel.
Yes, the 386 architecture was a big advance over the 286.
> The i486(DX) included the math coprocessor, which was a separate chip for
> the i386, and handled a pipeline of instructions IIRC.
The 486SX, of course, left out the math coprocessor. Intel produced math
coprocessor chips for its early chips, the 8087 (for the 8086), 80287,
80387, and the 80487 for the 486SX. The 80487 was essentially a full 486DX,
and it typically plugged into a second processor socket on the motherboard.
When the 80487 was installed, the original 80486SX was basically disabled,
everything ran on the 80487.
> So you see that if one is going to write an operating system kernel (which
> is what Linux is...) to control the computer, here a microprocessor, one
> has to write for the architecture of the chip itself. Which is why the
> designations of the Intel processors are so important.
Not really, most Intel processors are backwards compatible. You can run an
ancient copy of DOS on a Pentium 4, if you really wanted to. However, you
wouldn't be taking advantage of the new features that are present in more
modern processors, and that are missing from the older ones. So in general,
you can't run something compiled for a modern processor on an 8088.
--Chris
| |
| Juergen Pfann 2002-10-29, 2:24 am |
| Chris Bennetts wrote:
>
> William D. Tallman wrote:
>
> > The Intel 80186 was an aborted
> > improvement,
>
> Not quite aborted, it ended up in a few embedded systems, IIRC.
>
> > which gave way to the 80286, which ran 32 bit word interior,
> > though 16 bit word to the bus.
>
> The 80286 was 16 bits inside and out. You're thinking of the 386SX, which
> was a 'cheapened' 386(DX), which allowed manufacturers to keep using
> cheaper 16 bit buses, while using a better processor core.
>
Halfway true. The 80286 had a 16 bit core, but 24 address lines.
Hence, it could address 16 MB RAM - which was merely a theoretical
amount way back then ;-)). Of course, memory access had to be
segmented still. And Intel introduced the Protected Mode with
the '286 IIRC.
Juergen
| |
| Minderbinder 2002-10-29, 5:24 am |
| On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:19:24 +1100, Bob H wrote:
> Hi Guys,
> Well I have been reading about Linux for awhile now, and have got a new
> HDD and two racks, so I am going to put Red Hat on one and Mandrake on
> the other. Is there a site URL that gives the terminology of Linux,
> such as RPM, i18n, i586, i686, Alpha, sparc, PPC,noarch etc. Ok I know
> what you're thinking, but wherever I have read anyting about linux, the
> abbreviations or tech terms are used, for instance how to instal a prog.
I think the only term there that nobody else has mentioned is i18n. This
means "internationalisation", and comes about because there are 18 letters
between "i" and "n". There is a similar "l10n" for localisation.
Generally, these terms are used to refer to support for international
character representations and their input methods, and localised
widgets/menus/documentation in programs.
Cheers,
Luminary.
| |
| William D. Tallman 2002-10-29, 11:25 pm |
| Chris Bennetts wrote:
> William D. Tallman wrote:
>
>> The Intel 80186 was an aborted
>> improvement,
>
> Not quite aborted, it ended up in a few embedded systems, IIRC.
Heh heh... that's true. I had at one time not all that long ago a full
stick of unpackaged 80186s, don't know if I still do.. <grin>
>> which gave way to the 80286, which ran 32 bit word interior,
>> though 16 bit word to the bus.
>
> The 80286 was 16 bits inside and out. You're thinking of the 386SX, which
> was a 'cheapened' 386(DX), which allowed manufacturers to keep using
> cheaper 16 bit buses, while using a better processor core.
Argh, my bad. Yeah I knew that and can't think what was on my mind whilst
typing that. After all, it was the 16 bit bus that drove the change from
XT to AT motherboard architecture.. or did I get that wrong?
>> The i486(DX) included the math coprocessor, which was a separate chip for
>> the i386, and handled a pipeline of instructions IIRC.
>
> The 486SX, of course, left out the math coprocessor. Intel produced math
> coprocessor chips for its early chips, the 8087 (for the 8086), 80287,
> 80387, and the 80487 for the 486SX. The 80487 was essentially a full
> 486DX, and it typically plugged into a second processor socket on the
> motherboard. When the 80487 was installed, the original 80486SX was
> basically disabled, everything ran on the 80487.
I'd forgotten that about the 80487. Only knew one guy who had a 486SX...
>> So you see that if one is going to write an operating system kernel
>> (which is what Linux is...) to control the computer, here a
>> microprocessor, one
>> has to write for the architecture of the chip itself. Which is why the
>> designations of the Intel processors are so important.
>
> Not really, most Intel processors are backwards compatible. You can run an
> ancient copy of DOS on a Pentium 4, if you really wanted to. However, you
> wouldn't be taking advantage of the new features that are present in more
> modern processors, and that are missing from the older ones. So in
> general, you can't run something compiled for a modern processor on an
> 8088.
Yep, backwards compatibility. Rather problematic necessity, actually, but
that's what happens when one depends on unportable software.
But there's another consideration here. Slackware continues to compile for
the i386, and I gather that the consideration is that the later processors
automatically optimize the code. Of course, this doesn't speak to the
media capabilities in the later processors, and such like. It might be
worth discussing this somehow, as newbies sometimes like to try out Linux
on older boxes. It might be that they don't have a good idea on what they
can and cannot expect, and why. And there are probably other issues I
don't recognize that are relevant here.
Any comments?
Bill Tallman
--
Registered Linux User: #221586
| |
| William D. Tallman 2002-10-29, 11:25 pm |
| Juergen Pfann wrote:
> Halfway true. The 80286 had a 16 bit core, but 24 address lines.
> Hence, it could address 16 MB RAM - which was merely a theoretical
> amount way back then ;-)). Of course, memory access had to be
> segmented still. And Intel introduced the Protected Mode with
> the '286 IIRC.
>
> Juergen
Another part of the AT architecture, IIRC, but maybe not.... <grin>
Thanks to you and Chris for the additional info and corrections!
Bill Tallman
--
Registered Linux User: #221586
| |
|
| Guys'
Thanx for all the information, it is interesting, thanx for the replies
Regards
Bob H
"Minderbinder" <milo_and_minderbinder@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news an.2002.10.29.11.27.32.311136.10763@hotmail.com...
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:19:24 +1100, Bob H wrote:
>
> > Hi Guys,
> > Well I have been reading about Linux for awhile now, and have got a new
> > HDD and two racks, so I am going to put Red Hat on one and Mandrake on
> > the other. Is there a site URL that gives the terminology of Linux,
> > such as RPM, i18n, i586, i686, Alpha, sparc, PPC,noarch etc. Ok I know
> > what you're thinking, but wherever I have read anyting about linux, the
> > abbreviations or tech terms are used, for instance how to instal a prog.
>
>
> I think the only term there that nobody else has mentioned is i18n. This
> means "internationalisation", and comes about because there are 18 letters
> between "i" and "n". There is a similar "l10n" for localisation.
> Generally, these terms are used to refer to support for international
> character representations and their input methods, and localised
> widgets/menus/documentation in programs.
>
> Cheers,
> Luminary.
>
|
|
|
|
|