Re: [Freedos-user] ssd on eeepc
Hi. I'm relativity new to Linux, I work well with debian distro. Tried centos didn't work out well... João On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 5:30 AM dmccunney wrote: > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 7:34 PM Joao Silva wrote: > > > > I'm from Portugal and here a ssd are around 39.67 us dollars / 34 euros > for 240gb, and i don't know if there are lower sizes anymore... still > expensive. > > That's about what I'd expect to pay in the US for a 240GB SSD, > depending upon brand. > > But "expensive: is relative. Prices on such things have been steadily > falling. About a year ago, a chap elsewhere recounted upgrading a > server he managed. It was a database machine running a "NoSQL" > database like MongoDB. He replaced 16TB of SATA HDs with 16TB worth of > 2TB Samsung SSDs. He got a quantum increase in performance. The > machine *screamed* through queries and updates. The significant bit > for me was that prices had dropped enough that he could *afford* to do > that upgrade. Two years ago he wouldn't have been able to afford it, > but poces fell a lot, and still are.. > > > To install 2 OS, i would go with Windows 95 SE or 98 SE to copy files > (games for me), i don't know but i'm sure that freedos will read pen drives > as long they are plugged in before booting. > > Linux is quite capable of doing the copies. You *dn't* need Win95 or > 98 SE just for that. You will need a FAT file system to install them > to, which is why I suggested partitioning, but Linux and read and > write FAT file systems and place stuff on them. > > > Linux would do, but has you said, had to be a very low resources. > > Lubuntu using Lxde, or Xubuntu using XFCE is one option. Another is > something like TinyCore Linux. > > > The idea was for freedos to be the main OS, but i will take in mind your > recommendation. > > If you can get it working and all that is needed is FreeDOS, fine. > But having an actual Linux distro installed gives you the option of > doing things that *can't* be done with FreeDOS. > __ > Dennis > > > João > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 12:17 AM dmccunney > wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 6:15 PM Joao Silva wrote: > >> > > >> > I have a eeepc laptop originally came with windows xp and i switched > to windows 10 N, but sadly is too slow... turtle mode. > >> > >> Win10 needs 4GB RAM *minimum*. The sweet spot is 6GB. No surprise > >> performance was poor. > >> > >> > I was thinking of installing Linux Xubuntu for it's low resources. > >> > >> I did that on an ancient notebook that had a whopping *256MB* RAM. > >> Xubuntu would install, but performance left a lot to be desired. > >> Posters on the Ubuntu list said Ubuntu had a steadily increasing idea > >> of what "low end" was, and that too much Gnome had crept into XFCE. > >> What I wound up doing was following their suggestions and installing > >> from the Linux Minimal CD. That gave me a working command line Linux > >> installation, with networking and video. From there I could install > >> apt-get, and DL specific packages. I used Lxde as the lowest resource > >> GUI desktop, and Lxde brought along Xorg. I installed to an ext4 file > >> system. The result actually ran, though it wasn't anything you would > >> call fast. > >> > >> The ancient notebook came to me with WinXP SP2. XP wants 512MB > >> RAM minimum. I reformatted, repartitioned, installed Win2K Pro (which > >> would sort of run in 256MB RAM,) two flavors of Linux, and FreeDOS, > >> multi booting under Grub2. Win2K was on an NTFS slice, Linux was on > >> ext4, and FreeDOS was on FAT32. It was mostly an experiment to see > >> what performance I could wring out of ancient hardware *without* > >> throwing money at it. I haven't booted it in a long time. > >> > >> > A friend of my IT guy "is nagging" me a year now to get an ssd, so i > was thinking get one ssd 240, stick it to eeepc and install freedos. > >> > >> You don't even need 240. I got a 120GB budget SSD from my preferred > >> retailer for $20 US. The intended use is in another old notebook > >> device replacing the HD. > >> > >> > My issues are: > >> > > >> > 1 - Will freedos work well with atom cpu > >> > >> Sure. The Atom CPU is an Intel x86 design, and FreeDOS will run on > >> any of them. (Getting it to *boot* is another matter unrelated to the > >> CPU.) > >> > >> > 2 - Can freedos detect 2Gb of ram > >> > >> I believe so, but for FreeDOS, how much do you *care*? > >> > >> FreeDOS will use 640K as user RAM where it and your programs will load > >> and run. With EMS/XMS, you may be able to use RAM beyond 1MB for > >> things like disk cache and RAMdisk. > >> > >> > The idea is to carry the eeepc with me to play and to also to show my > 7 year old girlfriend nephew the games I played back in 1988 and forward. > >> > >> I'd install a low resource requirement version of Linux on ext4, carve > >> out a separate FAT partition for FreeDOS, and multi-boot. > >> > >> I wouldn't try to make FreeDOS the primary OS. > >>
Re: [Freedos-user] Run Linux & Linux binaries on DOS
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 12:53 PM Jason Pittman wrote: > > I know nothing about BusyBox, so I'm going to ask a dumb question. Does DSL > allow you to, say, install apt (or another package manager), gcc, make, etc., > or does it only allow you to run the common linux commands shown on the > BusyBox website? Busybox collects cut down versions of standard Linux utilities and provides them as a single archive file. You can run commands in the busybox file as "busybox ", but the usual installation will create symlinks to the commands in the busybox archive. Busybox is popular in cases where you have low end machines where disk space may be a scarce resource. It is a program you can install the same way you install any other program, and unrelated to what you can install. Apt is a package manager for flavors of Linux built on Debian, like Ubuntu. Red Hat Linux uses on called yum. Package managers are specific to distros, and you use whatever your distro provides. > (And on a side note, has anyone actually gotten it to work? I'd already know > the answer to my question above if I could get it to do something other than > crash the VM when I run "dsl.com") What is dsl.com? It is not a command in busybox. What VM are you in when you try to run it and what are you attempting to do? If DSL refers to Damn Small Linux, see http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/wiki/index.html Installing stuff not part of the DSL installation appears to require using MyDSL extensions. __ Dennis ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Run Linux & Linux binaries on DOS
I've never used DSL, but I have used BusyBox back in my Android dev days. So: Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, September 29, 2020 12:33 PM, Jason Pittman wrote: > I know nothing about BusyBox, so I'm going to ask a dumb question. Does DSL > allow you to, say, install apt (or another package manager), gcc, make, etc., > or does it only allow you to run the common linux commands shown on the > BusyBox website? > > (And on a side note, has anyone actually gotten it to work? I'd already know > the answer to my question above if I could get it to do something other than > crash the VM when I run "dsl.com") > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Wednesday, September 23, 2020 11:33 AM, Jim Hall wrote: > >> After poking around the GitHub project, this is actually a very clever >> thing. Looks like he's using VM86 mode (requires '386 or later CPU) to >> instantiate a dedicated Linux kernel with BusyBox to run the Linux commands. >> This is not bringing up a full Linux installation in a VM - this is only the >> kernel + BusyBox. So that keeps it small. >> >> Now, what would you *do* with this? Why would you need DSL under FreeDOS? >> I'm not sure. But it's a neat idea that is well done. Good job! >> >> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:41 AM Louis Santillan wrote: >> >>> The author freely admits running DOS & Linux side-by-side this way is >>> a fragile coordination [0]. I doubt that redirection would work as >>> one might desire. The recently updated ascii demo [1] shows calling >>> various DOS and Linux commands, and, shows creating a text file with >>> `dsl vi hello.txt` and then later opening that same file with `edit >>> hello.txt`. Interestingly, the file appears written to the filesystem >>> as `HELLO.TXT`, as MS-DOS 6.22 is case insensitive (w/o a LFN driver). >>> I wonder what would happen if an LFN driver was added to the mix. >>> >>> [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24556801 >>> [1] >>> https://camo.githubusercontent.com/deb8f6b6cc59686ba91a3758daeb047fccdf05dd/68747470733a2f2f636861726c69652e73752f7265636f7264696e672d61633565396166353936613931382e676966 >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Eric Auer wrote: Hi everybody, I would predict doslinux to be a variant of a Linux loader, so my questions here are: Can Linux safely write to the DOS partition while running? What are the limitations to return to DOS after using Linux? Is it possible to switch between DOS and Linux without having to reboot Linux each time? Are direct interactions possible, e.g. run single apps and pipe their output from Linux to DOS or from DOS to Linux? As Jim writes about modifications to make doslinux work with FreeDOS, it can probably do more than just load Linux, but I would be happy to read more about the details here on the list. Thanks :-) Eric ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user >>> >>> ___ >>> Freedos-user mailing list >>> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Run Linux & Linux binaries on DOS
"Does DSL allow you to, say, install apt (or another package manager), gcc, make, etc.," No. "or does it only allow you to run the common linux commands shown on the BusyBox website?" Yes. Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, September 29, 2020 12:33 PM, Jason Pittman wrote: > I know nothing about BusyBox, so I'm going to ask a dumb question. Does DSL > allow you to, say, install apt (or another package manager), gcc, make, etc., > or does it only allow you to run the common linux commands shown on the > BusyBox website? > > (And on a side note, has anyone actually gotten it to work? I'd already know > the answer to my question above if I could get it to do something other than > crash the VM when I run "dsl.com") > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Wednesday, September 23, 2020 11:33 AM, Jim Hall wrote: > >> After poking around the GitHub project, this is actually a very clever >> thing. Looks like he's using VM86 mode (requires '386 or later CPU) to >> instantiate a dedicated Linux kernel with BusyBox to run the Linux commands. >> This is not bringing up a full Linux installation in a VM - this is only the >> kernel + BusyBox. So that keeps it small. >> >> Now, what would you *do* with this? Why would you need DSL under FreeDOS? >> I'm not sure. But it's a neat idea that is well done. Good job! >> >> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:41 AM Louis Santillan wrote: >> >>> The author freely admits running DOS & Linux side-by-side this way is >>> a fragile coordination [0]. I doubt that redirection would work as >>> one might desire. The recently updated ascii demo [1] shows calling >>> various DOS and Linux commands, and, shows creating a text file with >>> `dsl vi hello.txt` and then later opening that same file with `edit >>> hello.txt`. Interestingly, the file appears written to the filesystem >>> as `HELLO.TXT`, as MS-DOS 6.22 is case insensitive (w/o a LFN driver). >>> I wonder what would happen if an LFN driver was added to the mix. >>> >>> [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24556801 >>> [1] >>> https://camo.githubusercontent.com/deb8f6b6cc59686ba91a3758daeb047fccdf05dd/68747470733a2f2f636861726c69652e73752f7265636f7264696e672d61633565396166353936613931382e676966 >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Eric Auer wrote: Hi everybody, I would predict doslinux to be a variant of a Linux loader, so my questions here are: Can Linux safely write to the DOS partition while running? What are the limitations to return to DOS after using Linux? Is it possible to switch between DOS and Linux without having to reboot Linux each time? Are direct interactions possible, e.g. run single apps and pipe their output from Linux to DOS or from DOS to Linux? As Jim writes about modifications to make doslinux work with FreeDOS, it can probably do more than just load Linux, but I would be happy to read more about the details here on the list. Thanks :-) Eric ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user >>> >>> ___ >>> Freedos-user mailing list >>> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Run Linux & Linux binaries on DOS
I know nothing about BusyBox, so I'm going to ask a dumb question. Does DSL allow you to, say, install apt (or another package manager), gcc, make, etc., or does it only allow you to run the common linux commands shown on the BusyBox website? (And on a side note, has anyone actually gotten it to work? I'd already know the answer to my question above if I could get it to do something other than crash the VM when I run "dsl.com") ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Wednesday, September 23, 2020 11:33 AM, Jim Hall wrote: > After poking around the GitHub project, this is actually a very clever thing. > Looks like he's using VM86 mode (requires '386 or later CPU) to instantiate a > dedicated Linux kernel with BusyBox to run the Linux commands. This is not > bringing up a full Linux installation in a VM - this is only the kernel + > BusyBox. So that keeps it small. > > Now, what would you *do* with this? Why would you need DSL under FreeDOS? I'm > not sure. But it's a neat idea that is well done. Good job! > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:41 AM Louis Santillan wrote: > >> The author freely admits running DOS & Linux side-by-side this way is >> a fragile coordination [0]. I doubt that redirection would work as >> one might desire. The recently updated ascii demo [1] shows calling >> various DOS and Linux commands, and, shows creating a text file with >> `dsl vi hello.txt` and then later opening that same file with `edit >> hello.txt`. Interestingly, the file appears written to the filesystem >> as `HELLO.TXT`, as MS-DOS 6.22 is case insensitive (w/o a LFN driver). >> I wonder what would happen if an LFN driver was added to the mix. >> >> [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24556801 >> [1] >> https://camo.githubusercontent.com/deb8f6b6cc59686ba91a3758daeb047fccdf05dd/68747470733a2f2f636861726c69652e73752f7265636f7264696e672d61633565396166353936613931382e676966 >> >> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Eric Auer wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi everybody, >>> >>> I would predict doslinux to be a variant of a Linux loader, >>> so my questions here are: Can Linux safely write to the DOS >>> partition while running? What are the limitations to return >>> to DOS after using Linux? Is it possible to switch between >>> DOS and Linux without having to reboot Linux each time? Are >>> direct interactions possible, e.g. run single apps and pipe >>> their output from Linux to DOS or from DOS to Linux? >>> >>> As Jim writes about modifications to make doslinux work with >>> FreeDOS, it can probably do more than just load Linux, but I >>> would be happy to read more about the details here on the list. >>> >>> Thanks :-) Eric >>> >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> Freedos-user mailing list >>> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user >> >> ___ >> Freedos-user mailing list >> Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] ssd on eeepc
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 11:48:25AM +0200, Eric Auer wrote: > > I was just pondering whether it was possible to squeeze any sound out of > > that gear using the tool like this one http://www.georgpotthast.de/dossound/ > > or any other similar > > This is an AC97 driver which provides a special interface > to output sound. For sound with old games, you will instead > need something which provides a SoundBlaster simulation. > > Also, the EEE PC has ALC662 as sound chip, [..] Indeed - but I meant *just anything* that could be heard -- regards, Zbigniew ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] ssd on eeepc
Hi again! > I was just pondering whether it was possible to squeeze any sound out of > that gear using the tool like this one http://www.georgpotthast.de/dossound/ > or any other similar This is an AC97 driver which provides a special interface to output sound. For sound with old games, you will instead need something which provides a SoundBlaster simulation. Also, the EEE PC has ALC662 as sound chip, which is HDA instead of AC97. So unless you want to run DOS inside a dosemu2 window inside Linux, the only sound you will get with classical DOS games, if any at all, is PC Speaker sound. I would be curious to know whether EEE PC has it! About the SSD: The smallest you can get in 2.5 inch SATA (the EEE PC in question is a model with harddisk) would be 120 GB at the moment. Enough for DOS and low cost. Expect Linux to be slow on a single core, slow Atom CPU, but with XFCE or the even more basic LXDE, it should be bearable. You mention having 2 GB RAM, which is 8 times more than the smallest EEE PC, so that should be okay ;-) A hint for the graphics: I assume you have the 1024x600 screen, so you could use MODE to work towards 720x400 text mode, which has similar aspect ratio, then use the built-in zoom feature of the EEE PC. For common DOS game resolutions, you will probably have quite some black bars or distortion depending on your rescale approaches. Regards, Eric PS: You will probably have a bit less than 640 kB of DOS memory size (some reserved by SATA or similar controller data by the BIOS) and less space for UMB / EMS page frame. Try JEMM386 NOEMS if no EMS 3.2 needed, EMS 4.0 remains. ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
