RH-Dist-FAQ: WAS: OpenSSL

[Bryan J. Smith]

[ Reposting to Fedora-Legacy, because I'm getting some redundant
questions here and there. ]

Just to summarize other off-list e-mail correspondence, I'm noted:  

1.  I'm only covering GLibC, GCC and kernel which comprise of the core
ABI/API of any Linux distributions.  If I start getting into different
libraries (glib2, gtk+, qt+, etc...), then I'll have to build a table of
dozens, maybe hundreds, and the FAQ will be bloated.  I might consider
it for "core" libraries, but it will go in a different FAQ.

2.  (Several people) I'm going to detail the RPM packaging manager
versions and differences in the latter Section on "Package Management." 
I might split it into 2 sections now, one on the RPM "Back-end" and one
on the APT/YUM/UP2DATE "Front-ends" because there is enough into to do
so.

On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 13:37, Alec Voropay wrote:
> Hi!
> Do you have any plans to write a bit about
> RedHat for the oter CPU/platforms ?

This FAQ is largely, "here's the general RH-Fedora link" deal -- from a
100% technical perspective.

But yes, although they will be in a new FAQ.  E.g.,

3.  I plan on writing a Fedora Core Linux/x86-64 FAQ as soon as I get a
dual-Opteron system (next few months).  I especially want to talk about
the /lib v. /lib64 issues, Extras, etc...  I also want to detail:

A.  The Opteron "64-bit I/O MMU" v. Intel EM64T "32-bit I/O MMU"
Intel ain't really producing a "true 64-bit" x86 platform right now,
because it's more of a chipset/board issue than the CPU.  At least not
until Intel merges the chipset/mainboards of Pentium (IA-32 aka x86) and
Itanium (IA-64) -- the Pentium is still very much 32-bit (with 36-bit
processor address extensions, PAE).

BTW, the Socket-754/939/940 Athlon64/Opteron is actually only a 48-bit
platform, address-wise, for i486 TLB compatibility.  The old Athlon32
was actually a true 40-bit platform, address-wise, because Alpha EV6
(21264) used it as well.

B.  How XP 64-bit Edition is still 32-bit, using Win64 on Win32 (WoW)
for most libraries, because Microsoft couldn't tackle the massive
compatibility and effort that GCC/GLibC/Linux did back in the mid-'90s. 
Right now, if you want to run 64-bit programs on Windows, you are (or
your vendor is ;-) stuck with making sure you have 64-bit libraries. 
Other than a kernel that runs in "long mode," XP 64-bit still quite
32-bit at the core.

So benchmarks on PC enthusiast sites showing _reduced_ performance with
64-bit versions of applications on XP 64-bit Ed is not only not
surprising -- but a "replay" of the old NT 3.x days when Win32 on Win16
(WoW) ran Win16 apps slower.  History repeats itself.  ;-ppp

>From there, I might work on a Fedora Core Linux/PowerPC FAQ since they
now have it running on it (just no installer yet).  I have some older
PowerMacs, although I'd love to get it up on a newer G3/G4 too.

> I personally have one alive RedHat 6.2 installation
> on the old SUN Ultra-I machine.  It works fine :)

I don't know the status of any Fedora Core Linux/SPARC32 or
Linux/SPARC64 port, but I heard someone out there was playing
with it.  There are also SPARC-centric, Red Hat-based distros.

But I think since Debian 2.2 (Potato, Stable) or 3.0 (Sarge, Testing) is
built for both SPARC32 and SPARC64, it might be a better option right
now.  At least more well-supported at this time.

Otherwise, I'm not really interested in maintain FAQs on
EOL Red Hat releases that either don't have Fedora Legacy
maintenance or such maintenance has been suspended (e.g.,
Red Hat Linux 7.2 and 8.0).

-- Bryan

P.S.  Any reason we're talking off-list?

 
--
Compatibility and update matrix of Red Hat(R) distributions:
http://www.vaporwarelabs.com/files/temp/RH-Distribution-FAQ-3.html
http://www.vaporwarelabs.com/files/temp/RH-Distribution-FAQ-4.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan J. Smith, E.I.                         b.j.smith at ieee.org