03-17-2010 #11thirdq Guest
Ok, is this meant to be serious at all??
first, which ppc/cell based blade computers was HPUX ported to? please reference this as this would be a real bold move by HP (Ive seen they do cracy stuff before, but still)
second, why should IBM license hpux, when its just as easy to strip a monolitic kernel than a microkernel, especially one that all services are written for large systems, with schedulers built for alot of cpu cores (8 spu is not that much), highly optimised for pa-risc, and later slow ported to itanium. filesystem service built for being posix compatable and if my memory is right, log based for accountability. Userspace libs never built for embedded, and hackish implementation of GNU world of tools. Yeah that makes sense?
third, microkernel is based on a tiny kernel with userspace services doing as much as possible, while monolothic kernel is based on a large binary, with often a hackish implemention of runtime modules which just replaces reference adresses with usefull code in runtime (kernel modules)(hackish is a little mean, since its pretty clean when you use it ) Ubuntu = linux = monolitic (this is usually the first lesson in any OS class you take (linus torvalds being called a moron for using monolitic design))
spp-ux is a predecessor for HPUX 11 (10 years + old system, hot in 2000) by a company that HP bought. pa-risc is dead and burrowed by HP (we as customers was told to migrate to itanium or try that cracy linux thing, allmost everyone dropped HP for that cracy linux thing )
saying that since pa-risc is a risc arch then everything related to using risc is the same as talking about HPUX is as near as saying that if it has four wheels it has to be a pontiac, CISC and RISC are to ways of designing cpus (actually itanium is none of them but that another discussion), all high end computer plattform was based on RISC in the past. since Complex Intruction Set Computer would always be slower and less predictable than Reduced Instruction Set Computers, Well see how slow X86 (CISC) got MIPS/PPC/PA-RISC/SPARC is all RISC, and PA-RISC was probably the least successfull of them
But as always, If anyone gets to dump gameos, please _PLEASE_ leak a dump, I have a little too much time 6 weeks from next week
03-17-2010 #12sapperlott Guest
Oh boy - where do I begin *sigh*
The only blade systems supported by HP-UX are the Intel Itanium based HP Integrity blades - no Cell processor in there:
Now for the second link:
RISC is a way of designing processors - not an actual architecture. According to your logic HP-UX would also run perfectly fine on an iPhone.
It doesn't help to cobble together internet pages without actually reading and understanding them. What you're doing is more of "Pin the Tail on the Donkey" than serious research.
Again - I really don't want to sound condescending but I think it's not in your best interest writing about stuff you don't have a thorough understanding of. The newbies will believe you because they don't know better but not in front of the people who actually know their stuff.
If you're only in this for your 15 minutes of e-fame on the other hand - go on.
03-17-2010 #13DemonHades Guest
i wait arguments lv1 goĦĦ
Fame? dont need fame, need mute your stupids arguments
lv1 is you friend,waiting u fantastic response i and all people
super/master/mega/hiper/ultra hacker light me
0x00002c00 - 0x000043FF
wowwĦĦĦ a master hacker for only coments 2 areas in privilege ram layout,only know do it? what is u mistical school? typical informed
1saludo and wait u....
03-17-2010 #14lilstevie Guest
On Topic: I find it highly unlikely that sony would not go for an entirely custom system on their games consoles, Reasoning behind this is that no unix has been proven to be totally bullet proof, and its more sane to say work with a base and strip and customise as needed (Note: the most common base used is BSD 4.4 kernel) most are based from a single kernel and customised, seeing traces of say the BSD4.4 kernel you could just as easily say that sony used AIX, or even *cough*Darwin*cough* in reality this system is highly customised, and any hope of seeing where its based from would be long gone.
Best bets for seeing what sony used as a base would be to see where Sony paid licence fees too, or who has the most generous licensing that would allow for such heavy customisations.
03-17-2010 #15r3pek Guest
forget this.. there's no hp-ux on ps3 (thank god for that)
03-18-2010 #16sapperlott Guest
I've given enough proof already and don't owe you anything. Besides you've done a pretty throrough job discrediting yourself - no need for additional facts.
03-18-2010 #17DemonHades Guest
yes dont know... dont response true?
dont need lost me time with yuu, dont demostrate the strings called lv1.
dont need fame and nothing out my comunity ppl at spain or real ppl english community (dont teachers).
the rest ppl thanks, cjpc friend sorry i cant coment in you forum, dont respect investigations and my english is bad, you have my msn for you need
03-18-2010 #18ModderFokker Guest
I feel like im in spain on holiday and cant understand a word they're saying to me
Mas Cerveza, Por Favor
03-29-2010 #19ironknee Guest
Just to backup the others: I used to admin HP-UX ages ago. If you can be sure of anything, you can be sure HP-UX is not running on the PS3.
03-31-2010 #20moneymaker Guest
Well, if Aristoteles the Greek were right PS3 runs Windows...
Check this out --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix
Besides the jokes, the copyrights note reports that libungif, libtiff and fdlibm.h (this last from Sun Microsystems) are present in the software and belongs to their respective owner....
Could help to flip an eye at those ?