Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   For the umpteeth time, that doesn't make any freaking sense.

And for the umpteeth time, we just plainly disagree with the categorical "not
any" part of the statement of yours, because we do see some *possible* sense in
it.

>   When I ask about any concrete evidence that any operating system out
> there is planning to actively deny access to the FPU, all I get is
> material which talks about compilers migrating to SSE in 64-bit systems,
> which has nothing to do with the issue.

.... and some statement from AMD that, for some reason, hints that some OS or the
other *may* actually go that path.

It's out there to read, and may *or* may not be based on sound plans by some
vendors. But it's there.

So when you keep crying out "why, it can't make any sense", I'd say there may be
some after all.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > > How long do I have to repeat myself: They're gonna do it some day.
> >
> >   Can you give me a reference to, for example, an online linux community
> > where they are discussing this?
> >
> >   Or are you, too, making a claim with absolutely no proof?

> The proof is in my argument: The x87 will not live eternally, one way or the
> other.

  In other words, you made a claim with no proof.

  Well, my claim is that eg. linux will never drop support for the FPU when
compiled for a platform with a FPU. Please prove me wrong.

  Linux will never drop the support because that would blatantly go
against the very principles of Linux: To be a highly portable OS which
can be run on very various platforms. Some part of the Linux community
even has some kind of unofficial "competition" with NetBSD to see who
supports more platforms.

> >   (In fact, with linux it even *might* be plausible because 99.9% of the
> > software for it is open source and it's more or less trivial for every
> > distro to just recompile *everything* for the new system. With Windows,
> > which is plagued with old, closed source software, I don't think so.)

> Even Windows software occasionally sees new versions of itself - or at least so
> I heard tell.

  I don't think you understood what I wrote above.

> > (Well, DOS is *not* an operating system at all.)

> Then what do you think it's named for? "Disk Ohjesushelpme System"?

  I knew you would argue that, because that's what everyone argues.

  If I make a program which prints "hello world" and name the program
HWOS, standing for "hello world operating system", does that make my
program an operating system?

  Please answer "yes" or "no".

> Your definition of an operating system may be somewhat biased by the times of
> scheduled multitasking and multicore systems.

  It's not *my* definition.

> Now, 'nuff said. If you are not willing to get my points, then forget about it.

  I will be willing to get your points when you show me some actual concrete
*proof*. For example, I would be *really* interested in seeing some proof
about the linux community planning to completely drop support for programs
using the FPU.

  Some obscure statement in some AMD technical manual with a passing note
on OS FPU support is not proof of anything.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> > And maybe you ought to look up the word "deprecated" in the dictionary. It
> > is *not* a synonym for "deny"...
>
>   So OS'es are *not* going to drop support for programs using the FPU.
> They will still run older software which uses the FPU (at least on platforms
> which *have* a FPU). It's just that software written for newer 64-bit
> processors should not use it.
>
>   That's all I wanted to agree with.

And since 64-bit is the natural evolution, it'd also mean eventually no software
will use the FPU anymore...

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> And since 64-bit is the natural evolution, it'd also mean eventually no software
> will use the FPU anymore...

  Given that all current 64-bit processors have a perfectly good FPU,
I don't see that coming anytime soon either...

  (It's one thing what Intel and AMD would like things to go, and another
thing what the market says.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   For the umpteeth time, that doesn't make any freaking sense. Is, for
> example, the linux project going to say: "Sorry, you can't run the newest
> kernel in a Pentium4 because we decided to drop support for programs using
> the FPU"?

For the umpteeth  time, go to off-topic.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   It's not *my* definition.

 From WikiPedia:

"""
An operating system (commonly abbreviated OS and O/S) is the infrastructure 
software component of a computer system; it is responsible for the 
management and coordination of activities and the sharing of the limited 
resources of the computer. The operating system acts as a host for 
applications that are run on the machine. As a host, one of the purposes of 
an operating system is to handle the details of the operation of the 
hardware. This relieves application programs from having to manage these 
details and makes it easier to write applications.
"""

Sure sounds like MS-DOS to me. And CP/M, and TRS-DOS, for that matter. 
Unless you don't count memory, serial and parallel ports, keyboard, disk 
space, and network connections as "limited resources".

Follow-ups yet again redirected.
-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   I will be willing to get your points when you show me some actual concrete
> *proof*. For example, I would be *really* interested in seeing some proof
> about the linux community planning to completely drop support for programs
> using the FPU.

Why is it *my* job to give *proof*?

I just tried to explain how things we both know only from 3rd hand *might* fit
and make *some* sense, which you boldly claimed they'd make *no* sense at all.
That's all the point I am trying to make, and I think I have given proof enough
that there *may* be some sense to it. Take that from me or leave it.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> through what the consequences would be if someone would actually do it. ;)
> I'd be very interested in what Chris has to say about it. He seems a bit 
> quite.

From my point of view distributing changed files amongst collaborators who
are working on fixing stuff in POV (with the intention of submitting fixes
to us) is clearly OK, though as pointed out this isn't how the source
distribution rules are worded. I'll revise this in the next source release
(and also make clear that it's allowed to post updated files here on the
server).

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> wrote:
> From my point of view distributing changed files amongst collaborators who
> are working on fixing stuff in POV (with the intention of submitting fixes
> to us) is clearly OK, though as pointed out this isn't how the source
> distribution rules are worded. I'll revise this in the next source release
> (and also make clear that it's allowed to post updated files here on the
> server).

Good to know - I guess I might make use of it occasionally... unless it makes
sense to wait for the next beta, that is (hint! ;))

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warp [mailto:war### [at] tagpovrayorg]
>   Even Windows Vista can run Windows 1.0 software (with some
tweaking).
> Just google for it.

Unless it's Vista 64, in which case you can't run 16 bit software.

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message