Am 12.12.2010 um 22:35 schrieb Martin Jungowski: > Hi everybody, > > I've tried to install CentOS 5.5 i386 on an AMD Geode LX 800 > processor. Installing SL5 on AMD Geode LX80 http://wiki.keithl.com/index.cgi?SL5Alix > That processor, being of the much more recent i586 family, is fully > i386- > compatible. However, my attempt was brutally shattered when I had to "brutally shattered" - What does that mean? Maybe a thermal issue ?) > This is more of a general issue. i386 does not generally refer to > "whatever x86-compatible processor is the most recent" but a very well > defined and standardized architecture. Specifically, i386 refers to > Intels 80386 processor and its 32-bit x86 architecture (which is why > x86 > are i386 are often used interchangeably when x86 should instead be > referring to the 8086 architecture). Code that claims to be i386 > compatible has to run on any given microprocessor that claims to be > i386 > compatible. It's as simple as that: if it doesn't run on i386 > processors > then it's not i386 compatible. That's industry standard and thus > universally valid. If one would claim i386 compatibility but require a > x86_64 compatible processor, which of course would be capable of > executing standard i386 code, it'd be the exact same issue. It'd be > more > radical but at its core not different from CentOS's unmet claim of > i386 > copmpatibility. > > I guess my question is thus quite simple: why does CentOS 5 claim to > be > i386 when it's not even remotely i386 compatible? And shouldn't the > name > reflect code and/or processor family compatibility and affiliation? > > And in a closely related question of more personal interest: what > exactly > is it that makes CentOS require an i686 processor? > > Thanks, > Martin Sorry Martin but the rest reads like a pressure blowout. Sincerely PM