Linux distro request
in [ASM]
|
From: Rod Pemberton on 10 Apr 2008 10:42 "Phat Sam" <phatsam(a)nym.net> wrote in message news:p10sv39uaklkuqojnngl5p31845fj3qr9a(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 13:43:22 -0400, "Rod Pemberton" > <do_not_have(a)nohavenot.cmm> wrote: > > >That would work for a newer PC... add +$30USD for USB card for old PC. > And how much to add to get the 80486 BIOS upgraded to allow booting > from a USB drive? How should I know? Okay, real prices from a store: cheapest USB flash: 256Mb USB flash $3.99 cheapest 1Gb USB flash: 1Gb USD flash $8.99 cheapest USB PCI card: 4 port USB 2.0 PCI $9.99 I thought there should be some USB cards which have the BIOS extension for older machines, but I don't see any that list a BIOS expansion rom. However, all of the USB cards are PnP PCI... Let's see, there's bootable PCI SATA cards, bootable PCI IDE cards, bootable PCI Ethernet. Yet, I don't see a bootable USB PCI card. It looks like you're correct on needing a BIOS upgrade. :-( Unless the USB PnP PCI card support it and don't list it, which I find unlikely. In the mid '90's, cards for hard disks upto 8.4Gb hard had a BIOS upgrade (EDD Int13h extensions). The BIOS expansion roms are executed prior to the BIOS boot. The BBS (Bios Boot spec.) allows additional bootable devices that don't have Int13h support (SCSI, USB, etc.) to be installed prior to booting. > Not to mention, I went to the site and found lots > of versions of linux that where not faintly related to what the > original poster wanted.... All seemed to have a GUI/xwindows, etc... Yup, the OP was XM who wanted Win95 stuff. As a sub-thread, I asked Rugxulo about Linux distro's after he posted some links... Rod Pemberton
From: Rod Pemberton on 10 Apr 2008 10:42 "Rugxulo" <rugxulo(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:0b0a4ea2-891c-4fa5-a916-1525019b7d11(a)x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > If you like only 32 MB of RAM limitations, No, I don't... I'm not completely sure, but I think that's all the MB will accept. I'd have to do some research, but, even if I found out, I'm not sure if memory is still available for it... It's odd that Linux won't run that small. Windows 98 SE will "out of the box"... albeit a bit slow. > P.S. All the major *BSDs now use GCC 4.x (last I checked). However, > they all require a 486DX or better (although the emulation is still > found in NetBSD's "LAPTOP" kernel, for example). The earliest Intel/AMD style cpu I still have (and might use again someday) is a DX2-66. That's when PC gaming (Doom, Mech Warrior) started to take off. Everything prior to that was real slow. I gave my small collection of earlier 86 cpu's to a former friend. Most of mine and my immediate family's machines prior to AMD K6-2 500Mhz and Pentium II 450Mhz have been retired, even if they were still useable. Windows 98 didn't run too well on pre-450/500Mhz cpu's. So, I'd probably set the DX2-66 as a minimum useable cpu for a modern OS without heavy GUI use. But, for a decently performing OS with GUI and without 3D graphics, I'd probably set the minimum baseline to the 450/500Mhz. Rod Pemberton
From: Evenbit on 10 Apr 2008 11:50 On Apr 10, 7:58 am, Phat Sam <phat...(a)nym.net> wrote: > On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 13:43:22 -0400, "Rod Pemberton" > > <do_not_h...(a)nohavenot.cmm> wrote: > >That would work for a newer PC... add +$30USD for USB card for old PC. > > And how much to add to get the 80486 BIOS upgraded to allow booting > from a USB drive? He didn't specify "a non-USB" solution in the original specs. > Not to mention, I went to the site and found lots > of versions of linux that where not faintly related to what the > original poster wanted.... All seemed to have a GUI/xwindows, etc... But did you even bother to read any of the tutorials? It certainly will not hurt Rod to gain some experience in using Anvin's SYSLINUX family of tools. Nathan.
From: Evenbit on 10 Apr 2008 12:36 On Apr 9, 2:59 pm, Frank Kotler <fbkot...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > Now the other one you recommended, Linux from Scratch, appeared at first to > > just be a how to book. But, if you click LiveCD and then "download" (it > > switches between a number of "download" pages, that's odd...), it had .iso's > > for a LiveCD. I tried lfslivecd-x86-6.3-r2145-min.iso under QEMU (very > > slow), but had _many_ of the things I listed!! Bootable CD, current GCC, > > current Kernel, had C includes, actual fdisk etc., compiled for 486, no > > /dev/hdx or /dev/cdrom in /etc/fstab. > > I suppose they "work through the examples" of how this live CD was > created. If you *have* to "roll your own", you *can*. I didn't see anything in the book about creating a live CD (maybe I haven't looked in the right place?). The LFS CD images are intended to provide all the source code needed during the build -- so that you can skip the step of downloading all those tarballs individually. In the case of the LiveCD images, they also function as the "build environment" since LFS requires a Linux-based host in order to conduct the build. > There was a gizmo in... "Vector" Linux (a "cut down" Slackware), which > allowed me to boot an installation disk straight from the .iso, without > having to burn it to a "coaster". I *think* that's where I saw it. IIRC, Anvin has that "covered" here: http://syslinux.zytor.com/wiki/index.php/Boot_an_Iso_image > [do these things reflect enough sunlight to build a "solar furnace" from > an array of 'em? I envision 'em being supported around the edge and > pulled into a slightly "parabolic" shape from the center... doubt if > they're actually reflective enough for that...] Target practice is a better usage. If it doesn't break, you "know" it is because your bullet passed through the hole in the center! :-) > Next try was a "custom install". You can create a "minimal" system even > from an "everything but the kitchen sink" distro. For example, there's > more to gcc than gcc! Support for C++, Java, Ada, and god knows what > else are separate packages from the "base" gcc package (they're all > "huge", IMO). Same with most of it. There are "dependencies", of course.. The "custom install" for Red Hat 7.2 was EXTREMELY flexible in this manner. I do not know if the Fedora project has continued this practice... but it might be something to look into. > At the extreme end of the spectrum, there's that "alinux" distro which > uses the "asmutils" utilities. A one-floppy job, but a little *too* > spartan to be useful... except as a "proof of concept", perhaps. I've looked at Tom's Root-Boot and I believe it shouldn't be too difficult to "shoehorn" asmutils into it. NASM could be added and would work as long as the programmer used Herbert's method of generating the binary directly. Or, if we remove the "single floppy" requirement, we could add the needed GCC items, add AsmIDE, etc... and we'd have "alinux" on steroids! :) Nathan.
From: Rugxulo on 10 Apr 2008 18:08
Hi, On Apr 10, 1:58 pm, Evenbit <nbaker2...(a)charter.net> wrote: > On Apr 10, 10:42 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...(a)nohavenot.cmm> > wrote: > > > "Rugxulo" <rugx...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:0b0a4ea2-891c-4fa5-a916-1525019b7d11(a)x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > > If you like only 32 MB of RAM limitations, > > > No, I don't... I'm not completely sure, but I think that's all the MB will > > accept. I'd have to do some research, but, even if I found out, I'm not > > sure if memory is still available for it... It's odd that Linux won't run > > that small. Windows 98 SE will "out of the box"... albeit a bit slow. > > I find it odd that Vista won't run that small! :) Vista is picky, mostly for reasons like ACPI motherboard support and fancy gfx cards for Aero. > > The earliest Intel/AMD style cpu I still have (and might use again someday) > > is a DX2-66. That's when PC gaming (Doom, Mech Warrior) started to take > > off. Everything prior to that was real slow. I gave my small collection of > > earlier 86 cpu's to a former friend. Most of mine and my immediate family's > > machines prior to AMD K6-2 500Mhz and Pentium II 450Mhz have been retired, > > even if they were still useable. Windows 98 didn't run too well on > > pre-450/500Mhz cpu's. So, I'd probably set the DX2-66 as a minimum useable > > cpu for a modern OS without heavy GUI use. > > Do you have any evidence to support your claim that Windows Vista will > run on a DX2-66 box??? It won't, even XP needs at least a Pentium 1. http://www.winhistory.de/more/386/386vers.htm > > But, for a decently performing > > OS with GUI and without 3D graphics, I'd probably set the minimum baseline > > to the 450/500Mhz. > > Again, do you have any evidence to support your claim that Windows > Vista will run on a 450/500Mhz box??? You need a newer-style motherboard with ACPI support, I think (among other things). So, it's unlikely it'll work on older cpus. (Even the Asus EEE has to run XP because Vista isn't appropriate. And yet MS is *still* going to stop selling XP after June 30.) |