Re: A question
Alan Cox wrote: > hybrid crossing between the V7 and the linux method. Like allocating a > relatively small struct, but then make it an option to grow the struct by > making a linked list of these structs. Given the low computative power of The struct size is fixed - I dont follow you If I understand him correctly, the idea is to make the struct one node of a Btree -like construct. IE: (struct-of 2-or3-processes)(link to next struct) That way, with a minimal amount of processes (2,3,4, or 5) you would have one struct, just as you described. But, if you try to have more, the struct chain grows by another struct (2,3,4,or 5), etc... If you are crazy enough to have MANY processes, the chain would grow accordingly and so would the time necessary to traverse it. But with a small amount, (small being relative to personal taste), the response would be acceptable. -- == Never cross a Dragon, for you are crunchy and taste delicious! My Interests are: Ham Radio (N8MGU) | Opera | Theater | Sailing | Judaica
ELKS and TCP/IP
Is the TCP/IP project totally dead, or is someone still working on it? I have an AT&T PC6300 just waiting for me to install ELKS on it, but without a TCP/IP stack, it is of limited use to me. I **really** want to put it back into service!! Thanks - Larry -- == Never cross a Dragon, for you are crunchy and taste delicious! My Interests are: Ham Radio (N8MGU) | Opera | Theater | Sailing | Judaica
Re: Lots of questions from someone.
Greg Haerr wrote: > > I have spent considerable effort trying to make sure that the Microwindows > system will run on 16 bit systems, and it should continue to do so, > although currently the application must be bound with the server > since we lack UNIX sockets. This limits the application size. > Could you please explain what you mean by the above statement? (bound?...UNIX sockets?) Thank you. -- Never cross a Dragon, for you are crunchy and taste delicious! My Interests are: Ham Radio (N8MGU) | Opera | Theater | Sailing | Judaica
Stability
Taken from the ELKS web site - road map page > After 0.1 more elaborate features will be added, in particular networking. At this stage it may be desirable to maintain a 0.1 stable > series, and do all new development in the 0.2 series. It may reduce confusion to maintain the convention of numbering the > development series kernel with an odd minor number, and stable series with an even minor number. This appears contradictory - ie: how can 0.1 be a stable kernel and 0.2 be development when you state that the development kernels will have an ODD minor number and stable will have an EVEN minor number? -- Never cross a Dragon, for you are crunchy and taste delicious! My Interests are: Ham Radio (N8MGU) | Opera | Theater | Sailing | Judaica
Getting ELKS
I have an old AT&T PC6300. It has 640Kb RAM and a 40Mb RLL Hard drive. The processor is a NEC V20. I would like to use the machine for something other than a oversized door-stop. 1) Will ELKS work on this machine? 2) What do I need to download to get the entire ELKS package (including an Xwindow environment package)? 3) Where do I find the package(s)? 4) What, if any, documentation is available? 5) What is the current state of interconnectivity in ELKS (ie: ppp, terminal emulator, TCP/IP, etc...) Thank you very much. -- Never cross a Dragon, for you are crunchy and taste delicious! My Interests are: Ham Radio (N8MGU) | Opera | Theater | Sailing | Judaica
Re: new rrd.c ?
Blaz, I see what MAY be an error, at least an inconsistency. I think you
need to
add a multiply 4 (*4) to the calculation like you did in the printf. - Larry
Mittman
==
Never cross a dragon - for you are crunchy and taste delicious!
My major interests are:
Amateur {Ham} Radio - N8MGU | Opera-Jazz-Musical Theater | Sailing | Judaica
- Original Message -
From: Blaz Antonic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 1999 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: new rrd.c ?
> > I got the code, and merged it into CVS, but did not have time to test
it. I
> > am deeply involved in lots of other code at the moment. Please try
mailing
> > it to the list and see if you get someone there to test it. CVS is not
>
> I have attached newest versions of ramdisk driver. In few words, driver
> should be able to support variable size disks now and disk, larger than
> one segment (64 KB). There were few bugs too that prevented the old
> version to compile under 0.0.77.
>
> I really _need_ people to test it out as i can't find one stupid bug
> somwehere inthere. Creating/removing disks with sizes that are multiples
> of 64 KB seems to work just fine while using other sizes (10 KB, 70 KB,
> ... for example) crashes the kernel at unexpected point (no crash with
> stack info or anything). So what i need people to do is to test it out,
> maybe it works on someone else's box .. You need some basic C skills to
> do that though and understanding of kernel source is required too in
> order to be able to follow source execution.
>
> If you don't want to see all the messages from kernel and just want to
> try it out for yourself #undef DEBUG in rd.c (but you won't be able to
> debug it then either).
>
> Put rd.c in arch/i86/drivers/block/rd.c, rd.h in include/linuxmt/rd.h,
> ramdisk.c in elkscmd/disk_utils/ramdisk.c, recompile, update your root
> disk and test it out.
>
> BTW: is there some way to actually debug (step by step mode with fulkl
> registers dump) ELKS ?? Afaik pcemu was able to do something like that,
> anyone has any clues on that ??
>
> bye, Ab
>
...[snip]
>
> if ((size < 1) || (size > MAX_SIZE)) {
> fprintf(stderr, "ramdisk: invalid size; use integer in range of 1 .. %d,
ramdisk will round it up to nearest multiple of 4 KB\n", MAX_SIZE);
> exit(1);
> }
> if (( fd = open(argv[1], 0) ) == -1) {
> perror("ramdisk");
> exit(1);
> }
> if (strcmp(argv[2],"make") == 0) {
> /* recalculate size to # of 4 KB pages */
> if ((size % 4) != 0) {
> fprintf(stdout, "ramdisk: rounding size up to %d KB ...\n", ((size / 4) +
1) * 4);
> size = size / 4 + 1;
***
> } else {
> size = size / 4;
***
> }
>
> if (ioctl(fd, RDCREATE, size)) {
> perror("ramdisk");
> exit(1);
> }
> fprintf(stdout,"ramdisk: %d KB ramdisk created on %s\n", size * 4,
argv[1]);
> exit(0);
> }
> if (strcmp(argv[2],"kill") == 0) {
> if (ioctl(fd, RDDESTROY, 0)) {
> perror("ramdisk");
> exit(1);
> }
> fprintf(stdout,"ramdisk destroyed on %s\n", argv[1]);
> exit(0);
> }
> }
>
Re: Can someone explain (or point me towards an explaination for) the
I am sorry, but in my copy of MS Outlook Express 5, there is no path such as
you have shown. After extensive detection, I have come to the definite
conclusion that there is NOT a method to do what has been requested.
==
Never cross a dragon - for you are crunchy and taste delicious!
My major interests are:
Amateur {Ham} Radio - N8MGU | Opera-Jazz-Musical Theater | Sailing | Judaica
- Original Message -
From: Greg Haerr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 'Simon Wood' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 12:58 PM
Subject: RE: Can someone explain (or point me towards an explanation for)
the
> On Tuesday, June 29, 1999 4:13 AM, Simon Wood [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> : see below...
> :
> : PS (Pre-script) does anyone know how to get MS outlook to append your
reply
> : to the END of the quoted message, rather than put it at the beginning?
> :
> "Tools->Options->Internet Email->Email reply format"
>
> We call that program "LookOut" around here for reasons obvious to its
users...
>
Re: Capabilities
I really don't see where this is a problem. User level processing does not
need
hardware memory protection; it could be implemented as a strictly software
solution. For example, a table defined within the OS giving the user and the
level. Then, all memory access could interrogate this table and give pseudo
memory level security.
==
Never cross a dragon - for you are crunchy and taste delicious!
My major interests are:
Amateur {Ham} Radio - N8MGU | Opera-Jazz-Musical Theater | Sailing | Judaica
- Original Message -
From: Perry Harrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Luke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 1999 9:11 PM
Subject: Re: Capabilities
> >
> > > In addition, the user programs could be protected from the kernel and
vice
> > > versa...
>
> Note, without memory protection we really have no lower priviledged users,
all users
> are the equivelent of root. Users exist merely to provide some logical
division.
>
> >
> > And that would be a big bonus, especially for embeded systems
> > Luke(Boo) Farrar.
> >
>
>
> --
> Perry Harrington Linux rules all OSes.APSoft ()
> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Think Blue. /\
>
Hello?????
What has happened to this list? The last message I received in my mailbox
was
June 3. Since then, nothing. Has it truly been this quiet, or is it ANOTHER
one
of the on-going problems I have with my ISP?
==
Never cross a dragon - for you are crunchy and taste delicious!
My major interests are:
Amateur {Ham} Radio - N8MGU | Opera-Jazz-Musical Theater | Sailing | Judaica
Re: will it eventually run X
Ken, you are totally missing the point. Yes, Linux with X runs very well on a 486DX or better. Nobody here is disputing that claim. That is the purpose for Slackware, RedHat, Suse, Caldera, etc The reason for being of the ELKS project is to try to port Linux (with any and all apps that can be ported) back down to the 8086 architecture. The stated reason is for impoverished 3rd world countries. Yes, here we can pick up discarded 486DX boards mere pennies on the dollar (or even free out of dumpsters), yet in many neglected parts of the world, even discarded 8086 machines are expensive. When your yearly net worth is less than $100.00, a $200.00 cast-off 486 is totally out of the question. THAT is why this project exists. The added bonus to us is the fun of trying to hack the end result. If you do not want to consider the 8086, then the normal Linux listserves will serve you most adequately. Just please, do not hinder our progress (or would it be regress? :> ) - Original Message - From: Ken Yap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Eric J. Korpela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 7:21 PM Subject: Re: will it eventually run X > >> About the lowest platform I would consider X on is a 386-DX-25 or so > >> with at least 16 MB of memory running a tiny mono X server or something > >> like that. > > > >I don't suppose you ever used X on an 8 MHz 68010 (like early Sun machines). > >I wonder if it's still possible to get X10 or X11R<3 source code anywhere. > >X wasn't always as bloated as it is now. > > I have actually. You will find a couple of utilties that I wrote in the > X10 distribution. It's just that my expectations have gone up since then; > the "I would consider" signals a personal point of view. It may be "fun" > to try to shoehorn X into a 286 in PM, but why be masochistic when I can > pick up a 486DX for next to nothing and turn it into an X-terminal with > a bootrom. >
Elks Current Status?
I am new to the Elks Project. I have an AT&T PC6300 (8086 clone machine) that I
would like to eventually network with my Linux machine. What is the current
status of ELKs, how useful is it, and what do I need to do to implement it? I
assume I have to at least compile the kernel, but what else? How far is it
from releasing a 1.0 version? Inquiring minds want to know.
--
Larry
Computers are what I do - Not who I am!
My major interests are:
Amateur {Ham} Radio - N8MGU | Opera, Jazz, Musical Theater | Sailing | Judaica
