Re: Intel vs. the OLPC (It's like Bambi vs Godzilla) - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: Intel vs. the OLPC (It's like Bambi vs Godzilla) - Linux ; "oh great" wrote in message news:47f58424$1@newsgate.x-privat.org... > if there was no OLPC there would be no wintel version. > > MS got afraid that millions would start using Linux and it was a nitch... > they had to stop. Don't ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Re: Intel vs. the OLPC (It's like Bambi vs Godzilla)

  1. Re: Intel vs. the OLPC (It's like Bambi vs Godzilla)



    "oh great" wrote in message
    news:47f58424$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...
    > if there was no OLPC there would be no wintel version.
    >
    > MS got afraid that millions would start using Linux and it was a nitch...
    > they had to stop.


    Don't be stupid.. Intel wanted to sell cpus and the OLPC group wanted to use
    something else even if it cost more.
    This annoyed Intel and they are better at engineering stuff for production
    than the rest so they built an alternative that was better. I doubt if M$
    had anything to do with it.


    I know there is an irrational hate of M$ amongst a lot of linux users but
    trying to pin this on them is silly.

    And before you blame Intel just remember who made linux possible in the
    first place.. the 386 was specifically designed to run unix and was the
    first CPU with a standard MMU so that things like linux were "easy" to do.
    Without them there would probably be loads of different unicies with odd
    page sizes, etc. like there was before Intel did the 386 family and no MMU
    at all in PCs. (BTW I know you can run unix without an MMU but swapping (as
    opposed to paging) is so old hat.)


  2. Re: Intel vs. the OLPC (It's like Bambi vs Godzilla)

    > I doubt if M$ had anything to do with it.

    Intel can run linux too... Naive extrodinair? Or just plain stupid? Of
    course MS is behind this!
    I dont hate MS, I am an XP fan, and I use office and other products of MS.
    But I dont agree with everything they do, and i also think vista is their
    worst product.

    > And before you blame Intel

    I dont blame intel, I never blamed intel. Intel just makes chips.
    Its an OS war and MS is doing everything to be sure it will dominate in 3rd
    world countires because they are the majority of the population of the
    earth... you should see Bill G in china ... lol....

    Oh they are scared to death that Linux will become popular in third world
    countires and whats a better way to stop it?
    Stomp out free computers with linux given to children. They have battled
    this gesture of humanitarian act, like their worse enemy,
    what morons! And Bill G has the nerve to call himself a humanitarian? He is
    one, as long as he sees the MS flag waving on every country. They should be
    ashamed of themselves mixing up corporate politics with laptops for
    children..

    asswipes

    "dennis@home" wrote in message
    news:ft4p11$7d2$1@news.datemas.de...
    >
    >
    > "oh great" wrote in message
    > news:47f58424$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...
    >> if there was no OLPC there would be no wintel version.
    >>
    >> MS got afraid that millions would start using Linux and it was a nitch...
    >> they had to stop.

    >
    > Don't be stupid.. Intel wanted to sell cpus and the OLPC group wanted to
    > use something else even if it cost more.
    > This annoyed Intel and they are better at engineering stuff for production
    > than the rest so they built an alternative that was better. I doubt if M$
    > had anything to do with it.
    >
    >
    > I know there is an irrational hate of M$ amongst a lot of linux users but
    > trying to pin this on them is silly.
    >
    > And before you blame Intel just remember who made linux possible in the
    > first place.. the 386 was specifically designed to run unix and was the
    > first CPU with a standard MMU so that things like linux were "easy" to do.
    > Without them there would probably be loads of different unicies with odd
    > page sizes, etc. like there was before Intel did the 386 family and no MMU
    > at all in PCs. (BTW I know you can run unix without an MMU but swapping
    > (as opposed to paging) is so old hat.)




  3. Re: Intel vs. the OLPC (It's like Bambi vs Godzilla)

    In article ,
    dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >first place.. the 386 was specifically designed to run unix and was the


    Ummmm....got a cite for that? I seem to remember something
    very different: UNIX was designed to take advantage of memory management
    features on the DEC VAX line.

    >first CPU with a standard MMU so that things like linux were "easy" to do.


    Hogwash. The IBM 370 architecture had this in 1970. (For instance)


  4. Re: Intel vs. the OLPC (It's like Bambi vs Godzilla)



    "the wharf rat" wrote in message
    news:ft5log$765$1@reader2.panix.com...
    > In article ,
    > dennis@home wrote:
    >>
    >>first place.. the 386 was specifically designed to run unix and was the

    >
    > Ummmm....got a cite for that? I seem to remember something
    > very different: UNIX was designed to take advantage of memory management
    > features on the DEC VAX line.


    What has Unix (a bit of software) being designed to run on a Vax (a bit of
    hardware) got to do with Intel designing a bit of hardware to run Unix? Your
    memory may be correct (I agree it sounds about right) but your logic is
    cr@p.

    >
    >>first CPU with a standard MMU so that things like linux were "easy" to do.

    >
    > Hogwash. The IBM 370 architecture had this in 1970. (For instance)
    >


    Hogwash to you. Lots of computers had MMUs but they were all different, even
    the IBM was changed from machine to machine. Some had 1k page sizes some had
    8k and other odd sizes for instance.
    Intel certainly standardised the MMU in microprocessors even if it was a
    second attempt after the segmented MMU in the 286. I liked the Intel 432 CPU
    myself but that went down a military path and disappeared.


  5. Re: Intel vs. the OLPC (It's like Bambi vs Godzilla)

    the wharf rat wrote:
    > In article ,
    > dennis@home wrote:
    >> first place.. the 386 was specifically designed to run unix and was the

    >
    > Ummmm....got a cite for that? I seem to remember something
    > very different: UNIX was designed to take advantage of memory management
    > features on the DEC VAX line.


    Untrue. Unix was developed by people from Bell Labs on a PDP-11. The
    early PDP-11s had very crude, segment oriented, memory management. E.g.
    in order to grow a process' data segment, the entire process had to be
    swapped out and swapped back in into a larger segment. I don't recall
    the PDP-11 having paging.
    The Berkeley guys then took the Unix source code and ported it to the
    VAX. The VAX had proper paging.

    >> first CPU with a standard MMU so that things like linux were "easy" to do.

    >
    > Hogwash. The IBM 370 architecture had this in 1970. (For instance)


    However, a PC with a 386 inside costs a tad less than a 370.

    Fact is that the 386 had interesting features (MMU, built-in support for
    tasks) Linus Thorvalds wanted to explore and out of that grew Linux.

    --
    These are my personal views and not those of Fujitsu Siemens Computers!
    Josef Möllers (Pinguinpfleger bei FSC)
    If failure had no penalty success would not be a prize (T. Pratchett)
    Company Details: http://www.fujitsu-siemens.com/imprint.html

+ Reply to Thread