On 4/18/2008 6:24 PM PT, Aragorn typed:

>> Hello. I noticed Debian doesn't make AMD K7 Kernels anymore as of
>> 2.6.24. I assume this will be like this for future versions.
>>
>> I am planning to upgrade my Kernel from 2.6.22-1-k7. Do I use amd64 or
>> 686?
>
> Either will work if your CPU is 64-bit capable. ;-)
>
>> I am not planning to use any 64-bit stuff on my old Athlon 64 3200+
>> 754 single core machine (512 MB of RAM (will add 512 MB soon)) and X2
>> 4600+ machine (2 GB of RAM).
>
> Why not? Why buy a 64-bit machine and then run a 32-bit operating system on
> it?

Well, I don't have the room or feel like reinstalling my Debian to have
fully 64-bit. I was only interested in the Kernel part.


>> Are there any advantages and disadvantages between 686 and amd64 beside
>> being able to use more memory which I doubt I am going to (2 GB is
>> enough).
>
> Well, the /AMD64/ kernels are more likely to contain some processor-specific
> code optimizations than a generic /i686/ kernel, eventhough there is a wide
> enough diversity among 64-bit processors as well and so even an /AMD64/
> kernel will not be fully optimized for your hardware.

Ah, interesting. I wonder why there aren't more optimized Kernels for
the newer 64-bit processors.


> The only way to really optimize your kernel for your hardware is to
> reconfigure it and recompile it yourself, and then you may even want to
> consider using a vanilla kernel from /kernel.org/ - currently at release
> 2.6.25 - than a Debian-patched kernel.

True. I wasn't interested in doing that detailed. If I did and had free
time, I would use Gentoo. I remember doing it for old Red Hat Linux
7.1(?) and man that was a pain to do Kernel compilation and tweakings
even if I had plenty of free time.


>> My machines are mainly workstation to do simple tasks like Web
>> browsing, e-mails, watch videos, newsgroups in Pan and tin, chat/IM, a
>> simple private server, etc. I recall using 64-bit requires more
>> libraries or something and lack some stuff (e.g., Adobe Flash).
>
> No, 64-bit distributions do not need more libraries, although they may come
> with a set of 32-bit libraries for certain proprietary software that does
> not exist in 32-bit versions yet.

Interesting. So if I replace my old AMD-K7 Kernel with the 64-bit one,
reboot, everything should work fine without any problems? No need to
tweak or anything?


> However, Adobe Flash can be used in 32-bit form with /nspluginwrapper/
> inside a 64-bit browser, or natively in 32-bit form inside a 32-bit browser
> - this is what you would need the extra libraries for - and there also is a
> - granted - less functional FOSS alternative, i.e. GNU Gnash.

I can't use GNU Gnash since it is slow, I watch a lot of online videos,
etc. Is using /nspluginwrapper/ with Adobe Flash v9 complicated to do in
IceApe, IceWeasel, etc.?


> On the other hand, it's quite feasible to use a 64-bit kernel underneath an
> otherwise entirely 32-bit operating system, as long as the kernel supports
> 32-bit compatibility, and since you're looking at a distribution-specific
> kernel, this kernel will have 32-bit compatibility enabled by default.

Good. Thanks.
--
"The little ant at its hole is full of courage." --African
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Remove ANT from e-mail address: philpi@earthlink.netANT
( ) or ANTant@zimage.com
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.