It's all about finding time to re-write code that's already written in the bios, and
space tradeoffs in the 64k codeseg limit for the kernel... Not to mention
portability issues.
On Wednesday, May 12, 1999 7:27 AM, Ansel [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
easily handle. Personally I'm of the
On Wed, 12 May 1999, Ansel wrote:
easily handle. Personally I'm of the opinion that using the BIOS for
everything possible is a great shortcut. Lots of device drivers talk to
Shouldn't ELKS ultimately be able to run on systems without a BIOS?
If you write the code... :-)
Jakob
Jakob,
Jakob Eriksson wrote:
I don't understand the question.
Do you mean if there is AppleII+ support in ELKS?
Sorry, my english is very bad.
My question is: Already have ELKS for these plataforms:
Intel 8088 (xt compatibles),
Zilog z80 (msx,
--
Van: Dan Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aan: Diversia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: Linux 8086 Mailinglist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Onderwerp: Re: NanoX version 0.3 released (Pretty much off-topic)
Datum: donderdag 13 mei 1999 23:19
I (Erik Smit, AKA Diversia)'m new to this list.
I don't
Um, the pics come up fine on my machine.
On Wed, 12 May 1999, Curtis Weyant wrote:
http://www.angelfire.com/ny2/dylan38/peng.html
seems like you forgot to put the pics.
--
Arnaud Launay [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com
Well - for the first version, there's nothing from preventing a program
from issuing the int10 without making the ioctl().
At some point on an 8086 we have to trust programmers not to break the
rules. Without some sort of device driver lock for video, even if it's
an unenforceable
On Wed, 12 May 1999, Curtis Weyant wrote:
Hello,
I'm new to this mailing list, but a friend and I have been working on getting an
ELKS machine running for awhile. Anyway, the other night we were screwing around
with some images, and we wondered why no one had taken the traditional
I don't think you understand, the whole point of having a BIOS file is
because different systems *aren't* the same, instead of having to
re-write
or re-compile the OS for each system, a BIOS file is used instead which
has the correct information for that given system. Like you said, all
--
Van: Dan Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aan: Diversia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: Linux 8086 Mailinglist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Onderwerp: Re: NanoX version 0.3 released (Pretty much off-topic)
Datum: vrijdag 14 mei 1999 1:54
I don't think you understand, the whole point of having a BIOS
Doesn't anybody remember what a pain it was to write a new CP/M bios? Its
specific to the hardware (thats why its there!) If you want to support
non-IBMPC hardware, you either need to 1) write a translation layer, "IBM"
bios to whatever is on your box
2) write a BIOS, arrange to load it somehow,
Hello all,
I got three questions:
1.
Wouldn't it be possible that some of the maintainers of the kernel could
send this mailinglist a message when a new kernel comes out so we don't
have to look everytime and thereby decreasing some of the internet load of
the routers and servers. Because
Hi all,
I've got a question. Is it possible to compile programs under ELKs itself
or do I have to keep cross-compiling?
Erik Smit (AKA Diversia)
On Wed, 12 May 1999, Curtis Weyant wrote:
Anyway, we basically took a penguin .gif from -- uh, well, from somewhere (my friend
got it), and added some antlers. We also took the liberty of modifying Mr. Riddoch's
ELKS-LOGO.gif by adding our penuin onto it (hope you don't mind). Of course,
13 matches
Mail list logo
