I find questions on most forums i haunt, and see answers that are questionable about dual core access or not...

Linux has kernels that recognise dual cores, they have kernels that recognise 64 bit, they also have kernels that recognise dual cpu's and can access dual core-dual cpu's...You also have access to hyper-threading on the intel P4 processor(or later ones that support this) using smp...

If you install 32bit kernels on a 64bit cpu, it will tell you its a 64bit cpu and give you the cpu id and data info but will not utilise the 64bit instruction sets...
If you install 64bit kernel on a 32bit cpu machine, it wont work, it will crash....

a lot of distro's only install 32bit kernels that are listed as x86 kernels...
these also have different extensions;
i386, i486, i586, i686, included into this is smp to allow multi-threading...
Linux can handle upto 16 cpu's with the right kernel(you would have to compile your own kernel for this configuration), but there are servers out there that are actually clusters running between 36 cpu's and over 250 cpu's...

With 64bit cpu's you can use i386 to i686 or amd x86_64(on an AMD cpu) or if you have an intel 64bit cpu then you would use the IA64 kernel...
Again i say "If your cpu is not a 64bit cpu then dont install this kernel, it wont work"...



Just because you have a dual core cpu, it doesnt mean it will run faster, lots of applications dont recognise multiple threads or parallel processing and as such wont use both cores, they will use one core and the other will stay idle...
If you have used or tried an application called boinc(Berkeley open infrastructure to network computing) you would notice that the application is running two instances of work at once, this is because it only runs one instance to a core...but the application an allow two instances to run at once...

You can compile(build) your own kernel and incorporate the instructions that you require...you can alter nearly all states of the processor to some degree along with other servers like graphics, network and so forth...


There is a lot of information out there about the linux kernel, but for most users that is not important to them...

Basically what i am trying to do here is let you understand that you must get the correct version of a distro for your cpu... This will reduce the amount of stress and frustration when installing linux for the first time...

Best of luck, and lets go penguin mad...

This is true if the CPU is an Itanium. If it's an EMT64, then you wouldn't use IA64, because they're different. EMT64 is basically x86-64.

Every Linux user should be working toward compiling a kernel. Sometimes it takes a couple tries to get it right, but the machine has so much more memory without the gigantic stock kernels. The OP is not an experienced user, and this post is more of a news item, for which no research was done. One of the great things about Linux is the open source kernel, that you can compile yourself. I'd probably use MS Windows if I couldn't compile a kernel without everything I don't need, and with everything I do need.

The OP is referring to different kernel configurations available in a distro as binary packages. In truth, linux can support thousands of cpus. The worlds fastest computer, The Cray XT5, runs Linux on hundreds of thousands of processors, while it works simulations of nuclear weapon detonation, the formation of the Universe, global nuclear war scenarios, models of the inside of earth and other planets for petroleum mining applications, global weather patterns months into the future, trajectories of the 27,000 or so communication satellites in geosynchronous orbit, 22,500 miles above earth; tracking of heavenly bodies in the visible Universe, decades, and centuries into the future; predicting the end of the world, handling trillions of banking transactions each day, Internet backbone routers; simulations of global disasters, such as eruption of a very large volcano, a massive earthquake, California breaking along the San Andreas Fault line, and falling into the ocean, and a small asteroid colliding with earth; To name a few.

When it comes to Linux, you have to think big, because it just doesn't get any bigger. The world runs on Linux. Google.com, one of the biggest consumers of electricity in the world, all to run servers, runs on Linux. Linux is BIG. But Linux needs PC users to make it a universal platform. 10% of desktops use Linux.

Currently I personally have moved away from the compiling-your-own kernel paradigm. Also, I have moved away from using 64-bit linux on a 64-bit machine, here's why:

Compiling your own kernel is a hackers way of life, if you use linux for using linux, it may suit you. If you are using linux for doing other work, fun and play, it is too much trouble for hardly any gain at all.

Also, why I migrated back to 32-bit last weekend, was because all "really fun" stuff, like proprietary windows drivers for video, adobe flash plugin (for youtube), and just a lot of other stuff are created for 32-bit linux.

Want to use a few windows applications with wine? It will only work for 32bit linux.

So, unless you're a hardcore linux fan, you're quite good with default kernels and configurations. And if you want to become a hardcore linux fan, try gentoo, and compile everything yourself!

I totally disagree. I am part of the group that hopes to see Linux in the hands of significant numbers of everyday computer users--including the ones who have NO interest in getting under the hood. One of the fascinating---and yet frustrating---paradoxes is that there are thousands of people for whom Linux would easily meet all computing needs, and yet they may not even realize that it exists. Such is the power of marketing and brand name recognition.

The people I am referring to would never use a terminal--much less compile anything.

AwesomeMachine, an inexperienced user hey....hmmm...I like that...

The whole idea of this post was simplicity of explaining the basic kernel required to install linux for a new user...
I have compiled dozens of kernels prior to about 2000, since then i havent really had much of a prob getting things configured with ease, but what put me off compiling my own kernels was the 36 to 48 hours of compiling just to find it had problems...

Now i got no idea of your time with linux or experience level, but a cray with hundreds of thousands of processors, wow, where did robert put them...
being able to process hundreds of thousands of instructions, yes...
A lot of what you quoted as being done on cray computers is actually quite often done using berkeleys super computer, oops i mean boinc...

and yes the cray is a phenominal piece of equipment, especially the the fact of being the earliest parallel processing...But a cluster or as some like to refer to them, supercomputer, is just that, a cluster...
very cheap to build, considering $ per process time...


Now pixellany, I must totally agree with you there...the only way to get linux to be the monster in this environment is to promote it...promoting kernel compiling, terminal configurations only and driver manipulation the hardway, is just ludicrous for a person that hasnt even had linux a month, let alone some that just want a functional os without the downtime...
I think we have been involved with debates a few times over the years, and it is very true, why compile a kernel if its not necessary....




Now back to me having the last word...
AwesomeMachine, I doubt you where even born when i built my first computer, and i can tell you this, it didnt have DOS/linux/windows in fact it didnt even have an 8 bit processor, but when the z80 cpu came out i did enjoy that....
oh the old days, when you could design a game, application or just a program that made things do odd things, was always ground breaking, now its like "someones already done it, why bother"...

My mistake, not being an intel person i forgot that they like to be different....

I love these totally de-railed threads.....

What, a 4-bit processor maybe??? That would let you address 16 bytes of magnetic core memory......

Let's just see who can have the last word here.....

Ever run an IBM 36 key punch?
Ever run an ANALOG computer?
Ever built a flip-flop out of vacuum tubes?

The first computer I used was an octal machine which was the standard for the era. There were 6 bits per byte. At the time General Electric used 6 bytes per word for 36 bit words. IBM used variable word lengths. The IBM programmer defined the length of each word in his program and set hardware "word marks" to deliniate the beginning and end of each word.

-----------------
Steve Stites

pixellany, i wasnt refering to youself, as if i remember rightly we have discussed this some time ago...wether i was using wraithe then or another username...
and if i recall, your also about 10 yrs older than I...
I started into pc's in 75-76', cant give an exact date, but was around summer 75' so not sure if it was before harvest or after(i'm southern hemisphere)...
The box i built was a kit from some friend of my step dads, and i still remember gettin a belting for disassembling something for bits(cant remember what but remember the belt mum gave me)...

I got my z80 a few years later and after that the bug bit...
If i remember you where programming or something like that back then, but i may have some wires crossed, memory fading about conversations nowadays...

Dont ask what cpu it was, the z80 is the one i remember best, probably because i wrote my first game on that, after that was an 8088, then 80286 and up...i think i would have been rich by now if i spent money on better things but alas i got the pc bug...