Re: 8086/88 80286 ||| 80386 80486 Pentium ...
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Bruce Irving wrote: I have a 386 AND a 486 that I am unable to bring up on Linux because the current version requires more than 8 MB ram. The setup that I want requires the greater security that Linux brings over bloat 95-2k. Currently, I am waiting with baited -- er, held -- breath for ELKS to have networking capability. Well, if you want more security from ELKs that what you'll find in "bloat 95-2k" then I think you'll be holding your breath for a while. How much memory do you have? I would suggest looking around for an older version of Linux that isn't going to take up so much memory. I remember seeing a web page where someone had Linux running on a 386 with just over a meg or ram, using a 1.1.x or 1.2.x kernal I think. Maybe something like that would work for you. Dan
Re: 8086/88 80286 ||| 80386 80486 Pentium ...
"Dan" == Dan Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bruce I have a 386 AND a 486 that I am unable to bring up on Linux Bruce because the current version requires more than 8 MB ram. The Bruce setup that I want requires the greater security that Linux Bruce brings over bloat 95-2k. Currently, I am waiting with baited -- Bruce er, held -- breath for ELKS to have networking capability. Dan Well, if you want more security from ELKs that what you'll find Dan in "bloat 95-2k" then I think you'll be holding your breath for a Dan while. How much memory do you have? I would suggest looking Dan around for an older version of Linux that isn't going to take up Dan so much memory. I remember seeing a web page where someone had Dan Linux running on a 386 with just over a meg or ram, using a 1.1.x Dan or 1.2.x kernal I think. Maybe something like that would work for Dan you. You could also look into Free/OpenBSD (www.(open|free)bsd.org). If security is important obsd should be an interesting alternative. 8 MB should work (not verified though), but it probably won't be fast. FreeBSD i know for a fact works on an 8 MB machine, although the installer was prone to crashing if you played around too much with the settings. -- ___ . . . . . + . . o _|___|_ + . + . + . . Per Olofsson, konstnär o-o. . . o + [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ++. http://www.cling.gu.se/~cl3polof/
Re: 8086/88 80286 ||| 80386 80486 Pentium ...
I have a 386 AND a 486 that I am unable to bring up on Linux because the current version requires more than 8 MB ram. The setup that I want requires No. The current Linux is fine in 4Mb. The distribution installers with all their GUI garbage frequently require more. If you are trying to build a distribution on a small box I'd suggest you borrow a Debian CD from someone. Right now its the only major dist I know that will install sensibly in 4/8Mb
Re: 8086/88 80286 ||| 80386 80486 Pentium ...
On 29 Feb, Alan Cox wrote: I have a 386 AND a 486 that I am unable to bring up on Linux because the current version requires more than 8 MB ram. The setup that I want requires No. The current Linux is fine in 4Mb. The distribution installers with all their GUI garbage frequently require more. If you are trying to build a distribution on a small box I'd suggest you borrow a Debian CD from someone. Right now its the only major dist I know that will install sensibly in 4/8Mb Actually, I recently installed RedHat 6.1 on a 486/8Mb. The trick was to do a NFS install, and forget about the installation program the moment the shell-prompt appeared on the second console. I installed the necessary packages by using RPM 'manually'. Some familiarity with RedHat is necessary for this, I guess. Bart -- Bart Hartgers - TUE Eindhoven Get my GPG key at http://etpmod.phys.tue.nl/bart/pubkey.gpg
Re: Is ELKS a good idea for teaching O.S.
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Alegria Loinaz. Inaki wrote: I am a new participant in the list and after reading FAQs I have a couple of questions: - Is ELKS able to run executable programs from standard Linux? Not directly, since standard Linux programs are in 32bit code, ELKS is mainly for 16bit CPUs. Also, Linux uses ELF headers, ELKS doesnt. However, if your Linux code is small enough, there is no reason you cant compile it for ELKS, depending on what it does. - Is possible with ELKS to read the File System in the hard disk (I suposse no, but I don´t know sure) You can read the minix filesystem on the harddisk. As yet this is the only fs that ELKS really supports. Both Linux and ELKS can read this, as can many other systems. I am looking for a simple OS to use teaching (modifying the kernel) and despite simplicity is very important, I'd like to be possible to load pre-compiled programs and to have a file system in hard disk. Is ELKS a good choice for this or it is better an old version of the Linux kernel? Either would be good. The main benefit of ELKS is that it is a LOT smaller and easier to demonstrate parts of the kernel. For example, the floppy driver in ELKS is ~1500 lines, in Linux, its around ~4500 lines. Which would you rather try and explain? :) Davey
Re: 8086/88 80286 ||| 80386 80486 Pentium ...
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Ken Yap wrote: For the definitive list of Linux distributions, go to lwn.net/bigpage.phtml There are a few tiny distributions listed there that may install and run in as little as 2 MB. We used to run a very useful system (6 concurrent users) on 3.5mb, mainly running mail clients and mud clients. The record holder may be Paul Gortmaker's 896kB on a 2.0 kernel. Because it could be done, as they say. Also as another issue, ELKS will only address 640k of RAM will it not, in which case you're better off getting a couple more 386 boards without RAM and making multiple systems with the extra memory you've got. Davey
Re: Is ELKS a good idea for teaching O.S.
On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 01:10:52AM +1100, David Murn wrote: On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Alegria Loinaz. Inaki wrote: I am a new participant in the list and after reading FAQs I have a couple of questions: - Is ELKS able to run executable programs from standard Linux? Not directly, since standard Linux programs are in 32bit code, ELKS is mainly for 16bit CPUs. Also, Linux uses ELF headers, ELKS doesnt. However, if your Linux code is small enough, there is no reason you cant compile it for ELKS, depending on what it does. Just to add to the above, it is very easy to build executables on a Linux system using a cross-compiler to run on ELKS. - Is possible with ELKS to read the File System in the hard disk (I suposse no, but I don´t know sure) You can read the minix filesystem on the harddisk. As yet this is the only fs that ELKS really supports. Both Linux and ELKS can read this, as can many other systems. I am looking for a simple OS to use teaching (modifying the kernel) and despite simplicity is very important, I'd like to be possible to load pre-compiled programs and to have a file system in hard disk. Is ELKS a good choice for this or it is better an old version of the Linux kernel? Either would be good. The main benefit of ELKS is that it is a LOT smaller and easier to demonstrate parts of the kernel. For example, the floppy driver in ELKS is ~1500 lines, in Linux, its around ~4500 lines. Which would you rather try and explain? :) One of the initial goals of ELKS was to make something suitable for use in teaching. The kernel is tiny compared to even early version of Linux, and all the subsytems have been written to be as simple as possible. Al
Re: 8086/88 80286 ||| 80386 80486 Pentium ...
Actually, I recently installed RedHat 6.1 on a 486/8Mb. The trick was to do a NFS install, and forget about the installation program the moment the shell-prompt appeared on the second console. I had to custom-create the boot disk and root fs, but I've got Slackware 7.0 running on a 386 with 2mbs of ram. At least as far as slack is concerned, 1 meg is all that's needed to run, but 4 megs is required for the install process. I could be completely mistaken about that, however. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shadow Daemon, aka Matt Balaun WWW: http://www.gsu.edu/~gs25mrb/index.html ICQ: 7802922 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: Is ELKS a good idea for teaching O.S.
Iñaki, I am looking for a simple OS to use teaching (modifying the kernel) and despite simplicity is very important, I'd like to be possible to load pre-compiled programs and to have a file system in hard disk. I think that Minix may be a better option for teaching because there are books (well, 2 editions of one book) written for this purpose. The book is titled "Operating Systems: Design and Implementation". The author of the first Edition is A.S. Tanenbaum and the authors of the second one are A.S. Tanenbaum and A. S. Woodhull. The good point is that they have been translated into Spanish (I don't know if there is a Basque translation) The translation is called "Sistemas Operativos: Diseño e Implementación". Both editions are published by Prentice Hall. It's very likely that you can find copies of the 1st edition in the library of your CS faculty. The ISBN of the 2nd edition is 970-17-0165-8 Anyway, If you are very interested in ELKS, you can find some technical papers on the ELKS site. We (at least me!!!) would be very grateful if you wrote some essays that help people to learn how ELKS works. About Linux, there are some documents and books about the kernel. There is a translation of David Rusling's "The Linux Kernel" avalaible in any mirror of LuCAS (LinUx en CAStellano). And there is a translation of a French (or maybe English) book, called "Porgramación Linux 2.0", Editorial Gestión 2000, de Rémy Card, Eric Dumas and Franck Mével. Hope this help you, Greetings from Sevilla Juanjo
Re: Is ELKS a good idea for teaching O.S.
Le Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 04:29:47PM +0100, Juanjo Marin a écrit: About Linux, there are some documents and books about the kernel. There is a translation of David Rusling's "The Linux Kernel" avalaible in any mirror of LuCAS (LinUx en CAStellano). And there is a translation of a French (or maybe English) book, called "Porgramación Linux 2.0", Editorial Gestión 2000, de Rémy Card, Eric Dumas and Franck Mével. It is a french book at first. Was translated later. It's called "Programmation Linux 2.0", from Eyrolles (France). Arnaud.
Re: 8086/88 80286 ||| 80386 80486 Pentium ...
last i checked freelsd required 5Mb to install/4Mb to run. on the linux front the least demanding has allways been slackware since you can setup swap before the instalation, and (at least for slackware 3.6) you didn't have to load the install image into a ramdisk OK i have to get in somewhere, but there is a sort of dist called small-linux (kernel-2.0.somethingorother). It works on my 386sx16Mhz 3 Meg ram. YES THREE MEG OF RAM. It is desigen for under 4 meg systems. It was on the pcplus cover cd a while back? Whether or on you would call it a proper dist is an other story, but would you call a 386sx16Mhz a proper pc? tom __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Re: 8086/88 80286 ||| 80386 80486 Pentium ...
I have a 386 AND a 486 that I am unable to bring up on Linux because the current version requires more than 8 MB ram. The setup that I want requires the greater security that Linux brings over bloat 95-2k. Currently, I am waiting with baited -- er, held -- breath for ELKS to have networking capability. :-) Funny, indeed. Now go get one of 2.0.x kernels. I had one of these booting on 386/40 with 8 MB ram + swap. It wasn't fast but it worked. bye, Ab
Re: 8086/88 80286 ||| 80386 80486 Pentium ...
You might also try using a Slackware release as they have install floppies for ow memory and some docs on installing with low memory. I had a 386 with 2 meg. that ran pretty good. For graphics I used X-win with Twm. Regards Helm. --- Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a 386 AND a 486 that I am unable to bring up on Linux because the current version requires more than 8 MB ram. The setup that I want requires No. The current Linux is fine in 4Mb. The distribution installers with all their GUI garbage frequently require more. If you are trying to build a distribution on a small box I'd suggest you borrow a Debian CD from someone. Right now its the only major dist I know that will install sensibly in 4/8Mb __ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com
