Re: Linux for a really old computer
Hi folks. Hi. Well, looks like there aren't any other folks out there with an answer, so why don't I take a shot at this one :) I have a little problem. I got an Amstrad PC1640 HD20. Real old. Well, really old means a lot of different things to different people. I thought the couple origional IBM PCs I had around were old until I bought a late 70s TRS-80 :) *Anyway*, if it's something old enough that it won't run plain old Linux, but is new enough to be X86 / X88 based, you're in the right place. I don't even know how much RAM it has. So tell me, any hope for porting Lunux to it, or do I have to find myself a 386 with 4 MB of RAM? What do you want in the end, exactly?? Elks and Linux aren't really quite the same, despite what the name implies. Elks doesn't have things like networking that you may want, and due to the type of CPU it's targeted to, memory protection / security really isn't there either. If you want a more advanced Linux install, your 386 suggestion is a good one. If you just want to have a little fun running the old machine, Elks may work for you. I don't know for sure, but I have an Amstrad manual around somewhere for one of their Z80 based (8 bit) machines. If you're still lost, I could see if it just happens to be the sam model. Good luck! Dan
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: old wreck
Okay...the harddisk burned out, yet it still loads DOS and a graphic shell? Isn't dosshell the one that DOS 5.00 and later included? I suggest starting with at boot disk, and if that works move on to a hard drive install, or a boot loader (I had trouble with a 8086 PS/2, so testing off of floppy first might be wise). Good luck. Dan On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Christian Theil Have wrote: Hi. I've got this old IBM wreck (it's actually a 386 sx, PS/1 type thingy) in my closet. It hasn't been of much use the last couple of years, because the harddisk burned out. I't still got a diskdrive, so I thought i't would be fun trying out elks. Problem is, the computer loads some sort of graphic shell when I try to boot. It runs on top of some sort of (ibm) DOS. My question is if you can load elks from DOS, in the same way that you can load linux with loadlin? Regards, Christian Theil Have.
Re: X-Server
I recall mention of DesqViewX allowing an X-server for a 286, but I can't say I've ever seen it. Dan On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, LORENTZ Istvan wrote: Hi! I just heard about the elks project; Does anybody know about an X-Window R11 Server running on 16 bit systems ? I want to transform my old 286 to an X-terminal. Is it possible ?
Re: ELKS Networking
On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, Riley Williams wrote: Hi Ed. I am a programmer and would like to help out I can. I have a 4 computer ethernet local area network at home I would be happy to test out any network drivers you come up with. I would also be willing to help on the coding if needed. The obvious question is what network adapters do you use? 3Com Etherlink and Etherlink II (3c501 and 3c503). I guess I have some Arcnet cards toothough I don't see arcnet in Elks' near future :) Dan
Re: Linux on 486 without fdd/hdd
Hi there, Sorry to bother you again. Is it possible to run a browser on linux running on 286 or lower cpu m/c? Can I connect CDROM drives to those m/cs. For the record, I used a CDROM with my 286 with no problem, I used a SoundBlaster cd drive, but IDE and SCSI should work fine as well. There is really little reason to have a CDROM on a 286 though :) At this point, I don't know that any browsers are ported...even Lynx. And if there was, there's no networking yet, so you'd only be browsing local files. If you still interested, I'm sure someone else on the list can point you towards more information. Dan
RE: ELKS 0.0.78 released
A few of us had this exact same problem on PS/2 machines, and I believe the problem ended up not being the disk drive but rather the keyboard not being detected. A simple test, if you can do it, would be to try the combo boot/root image, and see if it hangs or not. Sence you are using 5.25" disks (right?) I take it you don't have a PS/2 as they came with 720k drives. I believe the combo image requires at least 720k disk space, so if you have a machine that can read a 720k disk, it may be a good test. Hope this helps, good luck. Dan On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Jeff Stanton wrote: The problem is that the system does not mount the root disk (AFAIK) I let it spin the root disk for 5 minutes after pressing enter, but nothing happens. But since it works for you, it's probably a problem with my disks. I found another pair of disks, and will try it again tomorrow. -Jeff
Re: Technical question boot problem
BTW: Do you, Jakob, or somebady else know, whether one has to "park" the xt-disk before shutting down the computer? The guy who gave me the xt insisted that I had to use the "park" utility that he had written for the disk before switching power off. AFAIR it "parks" the head of the disk on track 1. Is this neccessary, and if, how do I do this with linux and/or ELKS? Parking the drive is a good idea if you plan to move it around becasue I think it helps prevent dammage to the the drive when transported. I don't know that it'd make a difference if the computer is just moving around the house or something though. My solution would be to make a DOS boot disk with park on it, stick the disk in drive A, and re-boot and run park just before shutting the power off. Dan
Re: Technical question boot problem
I've got a 808[68] maschine with a 40 MB harddisk with MS-DOS 3.3 installed. I want to use this maschine with ELKS in future so I decided to make a backup of the disk first. Can I just move the whole disk with it's adapter card to my Pentium? I noticed that there is a xt disk driver for linux. I suspect that this will probably not work...but you may be lucky. XT's use jumpers or software on the card for determining hard drive parameters, where all AT class machines have this in some sort of BIOS setup. If you have a card which can be jumpered (I've got a couple like that) between XT or AT you'll be alright. Also, if your Pentium has an IDE controller on board, make sure you shut it off or it may conflict (though didn't xt and at controllers use different interupts or something??). I'd say your best bet is a 16 bit AT MFM controller card, that should work in your Pentuim for sure. Dan
RE: SV: Capabilities
Surely the point of ELKS is that it's an *embedded* Linux system (routers, settop boxen, etc), so even if multi-user is a possibility, it's not a major design feature, eh? And if we're sticking the netstack in userspace, this re-enforces the principle that "C2 compliant" multi-user environment is a secondary point. Let alone the programming nightmare a netstack in userspace presents to a coder fx:unfond memories of coding network daemons for BeOS, who's netstack is also in userspace I have to agree that in the interest of speed and code size that security isn't that important, and especially on an embedded system. My suggestion would be to use a 386 or other system is if that's really an issue, or maybe find a way to add memory protection to a special version of ELKs destened for the 286 (the 186 doesn't have memory protection as well, does it?). Dan
RE: ELKS video drivers...
On Wed, 19 May 1999, David Murn wrote: On Mon, 17 May 1999, Greg Haerr wrote: 1. IBM MDA. no graphics support... Umm, are you sure? We used to run windows 3.0 on amber monochrome monitors at college. It's not that the monitors wouldn't work, but that the mono cards origionally sold by IBM were text only (I'm sure there were other clones as well). I'm not 100% sure what the history of mono graphics is, but I know that Hercules was a very proular monochrome graphics adaptor...that's what my first computer had, and I suspect they were one of the first, and that many of the other monochrome graphics cards were simply made compatable with the Hercules. Dan
Re: NanoX version 0.3 released (Pretty much off-topic)
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 C128s were the same, so there was one BIOS for them, but they are different from the TRS-80 model IV, which has a different BIOS, which is different from a Kaypro, which has a different BIOS, etc. I suspect that with ELKs, a macine with a ROM BIOS could somehow have a file that made use of that BIOS instead of starting from scratch. I would also think that any machine that's hardware compatable with an IBM could more or less use the same BIOS file, I believe the issue is simple what hardware addresses to use for different things, right? Dan I think I DO understand. A BIOS is writting specificly for one and only one chipset type. I thought you mis-understood me as saying that one identical BIOS was used by all machines, where that's not the case. So using a bios for a chipset XXX on a chipset YYY system would seriously damage your whole system (if it would even boot(what it won't do)). I don't know if it would damage hardware, but you're right in that it'd be a bad idea and probably wouldn't even boot. And you don't have to re-write/compile ELKs to run on different systems. My bootfloppy works on my system (a commodore 286) and my friends a Tulip XT-III. I think it's safe to assume that it boots on these different systems because a) they are 100% IBM compatable, b) Elks is using the bios instead of direct hardware access on the machines, or probably c) a combination of both. The origional message was regarding accessing video driectly instead of using a driver, which may cause a problem on a machine which is not truly IBM compatable, and especially if that machine has no BIOS (ie embeded). You said you were new to the list, right? If so, you probably missed messages that were here a while ago stating that ELKs won't correctly run on the IBM PCjr and Tandy 1000, because they aren't compatable with the IBM PC and I believe that video memory was getting trashed...if I remember right. My whole point in suggesting the BIOS as a file was simply to allow ELKs to run on any machine that was 8088 compatable, regardless of IBM compatability, and regardless of a ROM BIOS being present. Maybe that's not the best answer, but it's just a suggestion to think about. Dan
RE: some questions [OT]
On Mon, 10 May 1999, Klas Axelsson wrote: There was a Z80 add-on chip that could be purchased for a C64 or a C128. I think few people used it, tho... :-) z80 is standard in c128, it's used only by the CP/M mode. I don't know if it's possible to access it at all under normal operation. Yes! I've been reading the replies and finally someone got it! The C128 came with 2 processors, an 8502 (6502 compatable) as well as a Z80 used for running CP/M. This processor is an add-on for the C64 only, and is built into every C128. Huh, this is really offtopic... or... c128-elks... Well, I don't think it's that far off, the origional comment I made was regarding porting ELKs to Z80 machines. I was pointing out that there are a few different machines out there with Z80 CPUs and 128k of ram, bankswitched using their own scheme, and the C128 was one example I mentioned. There is acctually something called lunix (little UNIX) for the c64 and c128. I don't know very much about it's status but I heard it's able to do some version of multitasking on a c128. http://www.heilbronn.netsurf.de/~dallmann/lunix/lunix.html I've also heard people talking about a TCP/IP implemntation for the c64... I've seen a little about it too, it may prove useful elks ideas. Dan
Re: Mail List Archives? Term program?
I thought I remembered someone making a small simple terminal program...maybe it was just for testing serial support. I probably have the mail sitting around somewhere, but it'd take forever to find it. Am I remembering right?? Dan On Thu, 15 Apr 1999, Chris Starling wrote: What happened to the mailing list archives? If I could search the archives, I could probably find the answer to my next question: Is there a terminal emulator program for ELKS yet? For those keeping count, I've got ELKS running on a Compaq 286 'lunchbox' machine (1.5megs, 40 meg HD), and a Amstrad PC640 "portable computer" (640k RAM, 2 720k floppies, NEC V30 processor). The Amstrad is neat because it can run on 10 C sized battery cells or a car cigarette lighter adapter. I'm thinking about making a small solar panel array to power it. Solar powered ELKS! -chris
Re: Network Adapter?
Since I've mangled the 3c503 driver to bits, I could re-create that code from scratch again if there was interest. The main reason I didn't bother was because people were more interested in plip/slip/ppp, than the 3c503, even when I offered to mail cards to those who were interested in the development. From memory, the only response I got was someone who wanted a card for his Linux box since he thought I was giving them away. Just for the record, I'd rather see support for the 3c503 than ppp or slip, but unfortunatly I can't say I have either the time or knowledge at this point to be of any help, but if that changes in the near future I'll do what I can. Dan
Re: Boot success on PCjr
How common are these PCjr machines? If they are quite rare it may only be worth including support for them as an option. If there are alot about, then we should support them out of the box. Just a few comments about the PCjr. 1) Unlike others on the list, I have only seen 1 or 2 at thrift stores, so I guess the number of these around varies from place to place. 2) I think someone also mentioned the Tandy 1000 series as being compatable, I personally have seen more of these around, if they are compatable as far as ELKS is concerned, then we should concider them when concidering how many PCjrs are out there. 3) I'm a little confused about the video memory issue. Don't video cards on PCs and compatables use a memory range somewhere between 640k and 1024K? Sence it would be nice to get ELKS working on system other than just PCs, maybe making the video memory address configurable would be wise. On the other hand, I think I'd rather see progress made in getting ELKS working well on 100% PC compatables, and porting to other 8088s and 8086s later. I've got an IBM PS/2 model 30 which I believe currently has keyboard problems under ELKS, there are probably going to be a handful of different systems that will have problems with ELKS, but I'd gladly forget about ELKS on the PS/2 for the time being if I had a usefull system using an origional PC (and I really need to get a PC connected some day soon so I can try out the latest and greatest version of ELKS too). Dan
