tobiasu

Sure. The fastest small coding model is probably Mellum2 12B-A2.5 by Jetbrains. It matches or beats all Qwen models in this class.

Can even run on a notebook CPU and comes in Base (best for FIM), Instruct and Thinking variants. mradermacher has imatrix quants for people who can't run it at Q8.

IQ4 should fit, but even if it doesn't, llama.cpp has options to partially offload models to system memory.

I don't think anything bad happens, it just doesn't react to the power button and people mistakenly junk them.

The O2 shouldn't need a PSU capacitor replacement yet.

If you want to give the SCSI disk a better chance, place it flat on a table and rotate rapidly, then stop. You should feel the spindle spin.

Hardware of this era is still quite reliable so I don't think you will have problems.

Probably will not start. It requires a working clock chip to turn on and the battery is way past its expiration date.

There are plenty of tutorials on where to dig into the epoxy and add a cr2032 battery holder to fix it permanently.

Same deal with various SPARC machines (those will at least power on)

Nuclear and shale gas shill writes how technology will solve everything.

Gentoo also has instructions. Linux/ia64 works fine for the most part, it's not an architecture that causes much drama for userspace applications.

Servers are cheap on ebay and the older Intel boards (also sold by Dell, Fujitsu,..) can be upgraded to newer CPUs that are either less power hungry or faster with more cores and sort-of HT. HP are generally not upgrade-able and SGI/ia64 is a special case with lots of other custom hardware as usual.

Annoyingly many Linux / gcc developers want to remove ia64 support from their source trees because the architecture is no longer commercially relevant.

As a necrocomputing enthusiast it's quite sad, but not much one can do about.

If only this old junk was as popular as the various homecomputers...

> I suggest you consult your legal advisor.

So do I.

> Adacore holds at least the copyright of their own contributions and therefore can decide whether they want to release their version of GNAT with or without the runtime library exception.

Indeed.

> the FSF version eventually inherits also the contributions of Adacore, but the Adacore version is more current.

AdaCore contributes to GCC, with some contributions copyright FSF, some copyright AdaCore.

AdaCore retains full rights on the later, limited by whatever private agreement they have with the FSF.

Whether it is more current or not is not relevant to the discussion, and given that GNAT CE has release cycles of 1 year it stands to reason that FSF GNAT gets bugfixes that GNAT CE will only get in 2022.

> This doesn't have anything to do with source or binary version.

I'm now pretty convinced you're reading things that I didn't write.

You seem to be under the impression that dual licensing only works because AdaCore GNAT contains newer files.

However, AdaCore can download stock upstream gcc, remove the linking exception from files they hold copyright over, and distribute this result in source and binary form on their website.

This is due to their unique status with the FSF, something that other companies and private contributors can not do.

Finally, I have never suggested recompiling AdaCore GNAT CE sources will result in a GNAT compiler with runtime exception.

Instead I've pointed out the mechanism of how they achieve this dual licensing: A) unique status as copyright holders alongside the FSF B) strategic inclusion or removal of the runtime exception in each and every file they hold copyright over.

this is unclear to me, what source do you need?

Yes, that's exactly how it works.

You can build gnat and gnatprove yourself, including runtime exception.

This is a bit painful (intentionally so) but it can be done.

The downvotes are utterly ridiculous.

Unlike other parts of GCC, GNAT copyright is held by AdaCore due to some special arrangement with the FSF.

For the compiled CE releases on their website, AdaCore strips the runtime exception:

  -- As a special exception under Section 7 of GPL version 3, you are granted --
  -- additional permissions described in the GCC Runtime Library Exception,   --
  -- version 3.1, as published by the Free Software Foundation.               --

So yes, binaries compiled with that particular compiler are de-facto under GPLv3, and you have to abide by its terms (eg. if a customer using these binaries requests the source code)

You are of course free to build the compiler yourself, or use the Ada compiler that comes with your distro.

The sources are available, you just don't get a tag that tells you which exact combination of files AdaCore used to build and verify their binaries.

This is a strategic PITA, and AdaCore have in recent years made some moves to improve the situation, with being active on github and responding to issues in general.

Related: Can anyone share the google search to find instructions how to get started with firefox development?

Have they removed it all? I can find old stuff in the archived github repo, but that's about it. What's the official entry point?