Re: xt?
On 5 Mar 1997, David Stein wrote: Can debian Linux run on an xt? If not is there another linux that can run on an xt? a http: link in the right direction would be appreciated. Take a peek at Minix: ftp.cs.vu.nl:/pub/minix www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/minix.html I had it running on a 1 meg 286, it's supposed to work on an XT. -!-
Re: xt?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in article [EMAIL PROTECTED]... Craig writes: No Linux will ever work on an xt or a 286. They are missing neccessary bits of hardware called a MMU which protects the memory. A 386SX is the minimum. The 8088 used in the XT is lacking an MMU, but the 80286 used in the AT is not. Several versions of Unix were available for the AT. The differences in the memory management architechture on the 286 and the 386 are major. Virtual memory paging and segments larger than 64K just two important things that the 386 has that are missing on the 286. I'm not saying that the 286 is not a superneato processor which was quite impressive (16?, 17? ) years ago, but there is a reason that The Great One (LT) chose the 386 for his initial experiments. One could write something for the 286 based on the Linux Philosophy and even call it the Linux kernel, but its executable format is not going to look a lot like ELF. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think ATT System V ever ran on 286s. Xenix, Minix, and Coherent are the main derivatives I can think of that ran on 286s. - Marsh
Re: xt?
On 7 Mar 1997, marsh wrote: I'm not saying that the 286 is not a superneato processor which was quite impressive (16?, 17? ) years ago, but there is a reason that The Great One (LT) chose the 386 for his initial experiments. So, is it true that there is nothing newer on the space shuttle and other spacecraft newer than a 286? I've heard this a couple of times. One explanation was that the newer chips are so dense that cosmic forces (radiation, etc?) adversely effect the electronics, whereas such things pass through the spaces on a 286 without creating havoc. (Please don't flame me for my lay explanation). Of course, we all know that Linux was on a Thinkpad last year, and will be on another notebook with a Debian/Linux installation in the near future. These obviously aren't 286's... ...RickM...
Re: xt?
Marsh writes: Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think ATT System V ever ran on 286s. You may be correct, but Unix did not start with System V. Xenix, Minix, and Coherent are the main derivatives I can think of that ran on 286s. Xenix is real licensed Unix, as is SCO. There was at least one other vendor whose name I have forgotten. John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI
Re: xt?
marsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in article [EMAIL PROTECTED]... Craig writes: No Linux will ever work on an xt or a 286. They are missing neccessary bits of hardware called a MMU which protects the memory. A 386SX is the minimum. The 8088 used in the XT is lacking an MMU, but the 80286 used in the AT is not. Several versions of Unix were available for the AT. The differences in the memory management architechture on the 286 and the 386 are major. Virtual memory paging and segments larger than 64K just two important things that the 386 has that are missing on the 286. I'm not saying that the 286 is not a superneato processor which was quite impressive (16?, 17? ) years ago, but there is a reason that The Great One (LT) chose the 386 for his initial experiments. More like 10 years ago; the IBM PC was introduced 16 years ago. One could write something for the 286 based on the Linux Philosophy and even call it the Linux kernel, but its executable format is not going to look a lot like ELF. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think ATT System V ever ran on 286s. Xenix, Minix, and Coherent are the main derivatives I can think of that ran on 286s. Okay, you are wrong:) I used to own a version of ATT System V unix (from Microport) that I ran on a 80286 system. Of course most people define System V as being V.3, and that version was the original V.0 (or V.2?). The major problem with it was that most software available was BSD software, and of course all BSD programmers knew that int, pointers and longs were all 32 bits. Unfortunately the 286 version of unix used ints as 16 bits, so many programs had to be modified. The system did use the 286 protected mode, so it had full memory management. You could use more than 64K of memory, but it was a pain since you had to compile using Intel large model. -- Carl Johnson[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xt?
On 7 Mar 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marsh writes: Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think ATT System V ever ran on 286s. From what I understand some 6300's, not 7300's, ran SV on 286's. Coherent is nice if you can get a copy. Jason KillenQuestion Stupidity Monolith : driven by inner daemons RPS : better living through world [EMAIL PROTECTED]domination
Re: xt?
On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, marsh wrote: Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think ATT System V ever ran on 286s. Xenix, Minix, and Coherent are the main derivatives I can think of that ran on 286s. - Marsh i Marsh, Hi folks Yes, System V did indeed run on 286s. I ran Microport's System V-AT, a derivative of System V.2, on my 286 machine (8 MHz, 2.5 MB RAM, 40 MB disk) from 86-90. It was System V.2, with a few drivers from Microport. My machine was a PC's Limited 286 (later Dell...) Xenix and Venix were both licensed from ATT later USL, because Unix was a strongly protected trademark. I think a company called Interactive did the ports to the 286 and 386 architectures. There were several folk who sold 'real' Unix for 286 in those days. ATT ran a version of System V.2 on their 6300 Plus, which was a 286 machine. David - LINUX: the FREE 32 bit OS for [345]86 PC's available NOW! David B Teague | User interface copyrights software patents make [EMAIL PROTECTED] | programing a dangerous business. Ask me or [EMAIL PROTECTED] spy counter-intelligence wild porno sex gold bullion Soviet Bosnia clipper
Re: xt?
Carl Johnson writes: The system did use the 286 protected mode, so it had full memory management. You could use more than 64K of memory, but it was a pain since you had to compile using Intel large model. And I walked 12 miles to school, uphill *both* ways :) I had (still have) an Onyx with a Z8002 cpu and a TTL MMU. It had a a full Meg of RAM, but no process could address more than 64k. I ported lots of BSD stuff to it, though. -- John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain. [EMAIL PROTECTED]Do with it what you will. Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind. Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address. Received: (qmail 29717 invoked by uid 888); 7 Mar 1997 21:14:47 - Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 29715 invoked by uid 888); 7 Mar 1997 21:14:47 - Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: (qmail 29713 invoked from network); 7 Mar 1997 21:14:47 - Received: from golem.pixar.com (138.72.27.59) by master.debian.org with SMTP; 7 Mar 1997 21:14:46 - Received: by golem.pixar.com (Smail3.1.29.1 #2) id m0w36ow-00MKNgC; Fri, 7 Mar 97 13:04 PST Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 7 Mar 97 13:04 PST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], Klee Dienes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: debstd strips static libraries? Reply-To: Bruce Perens [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's clear from the conditional that avoids stripping libraries with _g in their names that he intended to strip debugging symbols. --strip-debug would indeed be appropriate. Bruce -- Bruce Perens K6BP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510-215-3502 Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP public key. PGP fingerprint = 88 6A 15 D0 65 D4 A3 A6 1F 89 6A 76 95 24 87 B3
Re: xt?
On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Rick Macdonald wrote: On 7 Mar 1997, marsh wrote: So, is it true that there is nothing newer on the space shuttle and other spacecraft newer than a 286? did we not all just hear about debian being on the shuttle? whatever it's running on must be newer than a 286... or has that not happened yet? brad [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://weber.u.washington.edu/~maximill
Re: xt?
David Stein typed: Can debian Linux run on an xt? If not is there another linux that can run on an xt? a http: link in the right direction would be appreciated. No Linux will ever work on an xt or a 286. They are missing neccessary bits of hardware called a MMU which protects the memory. A 386SX is the minimum. - Craig -- // /\ | | | Craig Small VK2XLZ @home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ||==||===|==|=| [44.136.13.17] @play: [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\ \/ | | | finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP key!
Re: xt?
Craig writes: No Linux will ever work on an xt or a 286. They are missing neccessary bits of hardware called a MMU which protects the memory. A 386SX is the minimum. The 8088 used in the XT is lacking an MMU, but the 80286 used in the AT is not. Several versions of Unix were available for the AT. -- John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain. [EMAIL PROTECTED]Do with it what you will. Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind. Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
Re: xt?
David Stein wrote: Can debian Linux run on an xt? If not is there another linux that can run on an xt? a http: link in the right direction would be appreciated. The minimum Linux requirement is a 386. If you have some kind of upgrade chip/package to allow the XT to use a 386, then yes. Else, no. I believe one reason is its a 32-bit PROTECTED mode OS. I don't believe that the 286 chip has that feature available. Debian is just an install tool for getting Linux and applications installed and configured. (Of course we'll all tell you its great.) Enjoy -- Greg.
Re: xt?
On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, Greg Vence wrote: David Stein wrote: Can debian Linux run on an xt? If not is there another linux that can run on an xt? a http: link in the right direction would be appreciated. There was once a project of porting Linux to XT. There is also a free Unix clone called Minix (http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/minix.html), which runs on XTs; maybe you should try it. The minimum Linux requirement is a 386. If you have some kind of upgrade chip/package to allow the XT to use a 386, then yes. Else, no. I believe one reason is its a 32-bit PROTECTED mode OS. I don't believe that the 286 chip has that feature available. You're right. I believe :) Vadik. -- Vadim Vygonets [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sysadmin? Me?! Naah... I think that I shall never see a poem as lovely as a binary tree.
Re: xt?
On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, Vadim Vygonets wrote: I believe one reason is its a 32-bit PROTECTED mode OS. I don't believe that the 286 chip has that feature available. You're right. I believe :) Nop. The 80286 has protected mode (that's why it can adress up to 16 Mb). But Linux is a 32 bit operating system, and won't run in a 286. Nicolás Lichtmaier.- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xt?
Greg Vence writes: The minimum Linux requirement is a 386. If you have some kind of upgrade chip/package to allow the XT to use a 386, then yes. Else, no. I believe one reason is its a 32-bit PROTECTED mode OS. I don't believe that the 286 chip has that feature available. The XT used an 8088. Its feature was a 10M hard drive. You are thinking of the AT, which had an 80286. The 80286 had support for multitasking, including protected mode. The big feature of the AT was going to be its multitasking OS. It took until 1995 for Microsoft to finish the OS they promised to have ready by the time IBM released the AT, so everyone ran the AT in its 8088 emulation mode (except a few hackers who ran Unix on it). It would probably not be a huge project to get Linux running on the 80286, but why bother? -- John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain. [EMAIL PROTECTED]Do with it what you will. Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind. Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
Re: xt?
On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, Vadim Vygonets wrote: On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, Greg Vence wrote: David Stein wrote: Can debian Linux run on an xt? If not is there another linux that can run on an xt? a http: link in the right direction would be appreciated. There was once a project of porting Linux to XT. There is also a free Unix clone called Minix (http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/minix.html), which runs on XTs; maybe you should try it. The project dealing with porting Linux is called ELKS (Embedded Linux Kernel Subset). Last I knew, it wasn't very far along. That was a while ago, though, so maybe they have something new by now. The minimum Linux requirement is a 386. If you have some kind of upgrade chip/package to allow the XT to use a 386, then yes. Else, no. I believe one reason is its a 32-bit PROTECTED mode OS. I don't believe that the 286 chip has that feature available. Actually, the 286 does have protected mode. The problem is, it's only a 16-bit chip, so protected mode really doesn't do much. (It provides memory protection and such, but still has the 64 kb segment size limit.) When Intel released the 286 with protected mode, the protected mode features never really caught on for this reason, so they made a 32-bit chip with protected mode (the 386)...and that REALLY caught on. So, it should be easier (though still difficult) to port Linux to the 286. As far as I know, no one is working on that currently. Of course, Intel chips are all backwards compatible, so ELKS or Minix should run on a 286, or 386, or whatever, in addition to an 8086. --Jon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (http://cc.usu.edu/~jonh/)
Re: xt?
Jon:
The project dealing with porting Linux is called ELKS (Embedded Linux
Kernel Subset). Last I knew, it wasn't very far along. That was a while
ago, though, so maybe they have something new by now.
They have it booting, and it actually runs a program after it boots. Not
init, but it boots directly into a shell or some other program. It's still
very experimental. Minix is a much better choice right now for XT's and
286's.
--
#!/usr/bin/perl -i=-/*/~%*~%/~~%/~~~-/*/_/=~~~-/~~! # [EMAIL PROTECTED]
$o=35;$_=$^I-*!=_!/;s/~/!*/g;s~%~-/ / ~g;$_.='--- Joey Hess
';s/=/__/g;y|*!| \\|;for(split/-/){print' 'x$o--.$_\n}# a M.C. Escher fan
true - do nothing, successfully - - true (1)
