Ok so how is it that UNIX is compatible with arm chips and Intel chips?
Ok so how is it that you thought this was a search engine?
>>54047194
Whatever I thought u guys were smart with this shit.
>>54047173
it's written in an architecture-agnostic, high level language (C)
>>54047206
So I have a question, does the dos based system have comparability with these arm chips?
low quality bait. i refuse to believe someone would be this much of a moron
>>54047219
Whatever I'm new to this /g/ I usually browse x and b
>>54047211
>the dos based system
huh? windows 1.x through 4.x?
they are written in an architecture-agnostic language too (probably also C), they are just only only compiled for one particular architecture
>>54047241
so unix based system is compiled for 2 architectures?
>>54047278
the arm architecture and intel architecture?
what is it you're after, op?
"why can't i run 'regular' windows on my arm phone/tablet"?
the reason you can't get 'regular' windows for non-x86 systems is simply because microsoft doesn't see any benefit in doing so. they did it once before with the first couple releases of windows NT, but the demand was low. they experimented again with an Itanium version of XP, but Itanium flopped, so that was that
compiled software (the majority of windows programs) won't directly work on a non-x86 version of windows, programs will need to be recompiled for other architectures, this is a non-issue on free systems, where the majority of programs have their sources available
>>54047278
no, systems like linux/freebsd/netbsd, etc are released as source code, not pre-compiled binaries
linux and netbsd in particular support a LOT of architectures, many more than 2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_supported_architectures
http://www.netbsd.org/ports/
you might get the answers you want if you succ deez nuts first
>>54047332
to be clear;
sources = the human written program code, defining the program often in an architecture-independant manner
binaries = architecture-specific code which is generated from the sources (by a compiler)
there are exceptions to both, for example, assembly sources are architecture-specific, and java binaries are architecture-independant
>>54047332
>compiled software (the majority of windows programs) won't directly work on a non-x86 version of windows
software compiled for x86, i should say
>>54047332
so when microsoft and linux were making their dos and unix were they planning on making it complilable with a lot of different architectures?
Also, is unix and linux shit able to support operating systems with the multicore processors such as the arm 8 core chips and the intel 4 core processors?
like does the os of android operating kernal because of the unix based system it's able to do multi-threaded functions? like the os being multi-threaded meaning it uses uhh multi-cores?
>>54047382
all right (suck sucks ucks cuskcuskjksucksku)
>>54047433
(grabs anons head and explodes) AAAAAAHHHHHH you're such a sexy cocksucker anon
now what were you asking again kek
>>54047460
thanks! I was asking about how these compilers work and if microsoft and linux desided their unix and dos with capability to have support for oses that rely on multi-threaded functions basically what im asking is did they design unix and dos to support oses that can turn a single task into multi-threaded functions?
>>54047418
>so when microsoft and linux were making their dos and unix were they planning on making it complilable with a lot of different architectures?
not really sure if either initially planned to make them work on multiple platforms
quite often it's just easier to write arch-independant code
>Also, is unix and linux shit able to support operating systems with the multicore processors such as the arm 8 core chips and the intel 4 core processors?
>like does the os of android operating kernal because of the unix based system it's able to do multi-threaded functions? like the os being multi-threaded meaning it uses uhh multi-cores?
i'm not certain what language this was written in
yes linux/android support multiple cores, yes it's up to the kernel to support it for programs to be able to use it
>>54047418
>kernal
You should finish high school first before going into these things.
>>54047489
unix and dos are examples of operating systems, they don't "support" operating systems
and it's not up to the OS to turn a single task into multiple jobs, that's the job of the application
>>54047493
so you're not sure, thanks for the answers.
>>54047516
too cool for school
>>54047526
>too cool for school
that much is evident
>>54047489
No. Stop asking stupid questions faggot. It was bad enough you gave another anon a fucking blowjob over the Internet
And no there is no way to make your games run faster or whatever it is you have in mind
>>54047489
you're welcome baby, the way the compilers work is by interpreting the programming languages they are compiling and converting them to instructions the processor can understand (put 8 into this memory address, add 2 to it, print the result etc). At the beginning no OS was designed for multithreading because nobody could even imagine a computer doing more than one thing at once. About single tasks turning into multithreading functions, software needs to be designed in a way to use all the cores, otherwise no matter the amount of cores they'll be single-stepped.
>>54047537
>it was bad enough you gave another anon a fucking blowjob over the internet
getting mad over someone else getting a bj on the internet is much more pathetic desu
>>54047531
he's not getting mad, you failed son move on
>>54047518
so does the system os itself make use of the uhh, multicore processors? I wanna know because my phone has a octi core processor and im not sure of the android operating system is making use of all of it while doing independent tasks.
>>54047526
>too dumb for school
ftfy
>>54047555
yes, linux/android supports multiple cores (why would you think they'd make a phone with multiple cores if the OS didn't support it?)
>>54047559
i bet you repeated special ed
>>54047555
What the fuck am i reading
>>54047575
Stfu op
>>54047588
>shutting up over the internet
wow you're so butthurt you can't even logic anymore xd (im the anon who got cyber bj)
>>54047241
Win95 was still a DOS program.
>>54047588
that's not me.
>>54047595
Can you post with a trip so that i can filter you?
>>54047598
windows 95 is version 4.0
>>54047206
wrong.
i don't know about unix, but the linux kernel has a bunch of cpu specific code and a lot of assembly code.
>>54047609
wow, I didn't realize I would rustle your jimmies this hard m8, your tears are delicious XD
>>54047625
sure, in the architecture-specific sections
>>54047603
looks like I drove him off the thread, I am bored now. See you later sexy cocksucker *slaps ass* <3
most programs that are actually useful and more than two lines of codes will take some work to compile on another architecture
>>54047653
yw!!! <3
>>54047666
Why is that? If you're careful about following your language's specification and not relying on compiler/interpreter-specific features and you're careful about addressing and endianness most software should be happy on any architecture that there's a compiler/interpreter for your language for.
>>54047206
well almost but no, you cant code all the kernel in 'architecture agnostic' mode since different architecture have different shit, like embedded systems will not have pagination. Also most of the boot and maybe other parts are done in raw assembly which are again, not architecture agnostic.
>>54048042
sure, i'm being really brief
linux works on multiple archs because a good amount of it isn't arch-specific, and the parts that are arch-specific have versions written for many arch's
>>54047382
>>54047433
>>54047460
You need to be over 18 to browse this website.
>>54048242
What makes you think this is happening now.
>>54048258
I don't fucking care when it happened.
>>54048242
Nah, this is a blue board. So simple and safe to use that even you can do it.
>>54048283
Read the fucking rules retard, global rules apply to all boards, regardless if it's blue or not.
>2. You will immediately cease and not continue to access the site if you are under the age of 18.
Fuck off.
>>54048298
Chill out kid, no need to have an emotional meltdown because some supposed underage people intruded your refuge from real life. You should get a hobby or something instead of trying to track down rule breaking on the internet lmao, or see a psychiatrist as soon as possible.
>>54048310
So you don't deny you're underage?
>>54048323
Making assumptions without proof: check. Yeah man, you really need to see that shrink, It's looking bad
>>54048330
Idk man, most people would deny being under 18 if they actually weren't.
The fact that you don't tells me that you're actually are.
The way you type is also a big indicator, no mature person types like that.
>>54048358
Wrong, you need to get your psychology game up man, the underage ones would lash out at the accusation. I appreciate the effort and maybe you'll have better luck next time, this time it's a fail though. I'm sorry to break it to you.
>>54047460
>grabs hand
Made me *blush*
>>54048298
>m-m-muh u-underage
kill yourself retard, probably more than half the userbase of /g/ is underage, this place is nothing more than /v/ support, smartphone general and 16yo edgy freetardism
>>54048573
good boy, be aggressive
>>54048520
are you my little tech illiterate sexy bitch boi (aka OP)?
>>54047278
You've got to download the right one. The source code is basically the same for both. They just have to be compiled in another way
>>54048581
Nope, guess I'm an over-literate programmer who happens to like boys doing cute things.
UNIX is just a trademark, there is no code, and the single UNIX specification itself is platform agnostic.
>>54048642
by the way it was his head that I grabbed to make him suck my cock lol, not hand
>>54048727
Head is fine too.
>>54047206
>this is what C fags actually believe
lmfao
>>54047206
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/arch
so agnostic :)
>this thread
so? anybody interesting in this thread?
>>54048358
>most people would deny being under 18 if they actually weren't.
Pffff yeah, no way in hell a 17 year old would come up with the idea of denying he's under 18. There's just no way.
>>54049161
it's actually cute how naive and gullible he is
>>54049161
you're not very smart are you
>>54049271
If you're the guy asking this shitty questions though, calling you underage is actually giving you the benefit of doubt, because if you're older than 18, you're actually pretty fucking stupid, boyo.
>>54049287
i am the guy that made him suck my cyber dick kek, im hanging around out of boredom
also calling him stupid betrays some obliviousness to whats going on, this guy succesfully made people explain shit to him without researching using the rage and autism of /g/
