9 Apr
2007
9 Apr
'07
5:54 p.m.
I've recently been looking at setting up an old HP Vectra P-90 to run Linux
(or some form of *nix) and started wondering what ports exist for "classic"
systems.
Looking around I see that "NetBSD" in particular supports quite a few
architectures including VAX, SGI, NeXT etc etc, but I've struck out
regarding Linux ports.
So, can anyone point me at a website listing Linux ports to architectures
other than PC's. And what modern *nix ports, if any, do other list members
use on their classic iron?
TTFN - Pete.
9 Apr
9 Apr
7:36 p.m.
OI a p-90 is anything but vintage. If you want to talk
about vintage Linux, get a 386 and we'll consider it
maybe. OI
I did pick up a book entitled "Plug and Play Linux"
last year at TCF. The disk was included *bad* but the
cd was not unfortunately. I can't seem to remember
what distro was included, I want to say Yggdrasil, but
I'm probably wrong. In any event it probably should
have been dubbed plug-n-pray. Anyone know what I'm
talking about, or have the cd?
The cover had this illustration on it:
http://www.chessbase.com/images2/2003/weinberger04.jpg
--- Ensor <classiccmp at memory-alpha.org.uk> wrote:
I've recently been looking at setting up an old
HP
Vectra P-90 to run Linux
(or some form of *nix) and started wondering what
ports exist for "classic"
systems.
Looking around I see that "NetBSD" in particular
supports quite a few
architectures including VAX, SGI, NeXT etc etc, but
I've struck out
regarding Linux ports.
So, can anyone point me at a website listing Linux
ports to architectures
other than PC's. And what modern *nix ports, if any,
do other list members
use on their classic iron?
TTFN - Pete.
____________________________________________________________________________________
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
11:27 p.m.
Hi,
OI a p-90 is anything but vintage....
I know, I wasn't suggesting it was.... ;-)
It's just that it's the only machine I have lying around at the moment,
capable of running *nix, which is relatively complete (anyone got a spare
set of mounting rails for a floppy drive and a CD-ROM drive for an HP
Vectra, I've mislaid mine).
....If you want to talk about vintage Linux, get a 386
and we'll consider it maybe. OI
Fresh out of '386s, would an "XT-286" do?
I was more concerned with running it on a VAX/SGI/Sun/NeXT box
though....rather have a single distribution for all of them rather than
having to learn the niggles and vagueries of several different
distributions.
TTFN - Pete.
10 Apr
10 Apr
1:07 a.m.
On 10 Apr 2007 at 4:27, Ensor wrote:
It's just that it's the only machine I have
lying around at the moment,
capable of running *nix, which is relatively complete (anyone got a spare
set of mounting rails for a floppy drive and a CD-ROM drive for an HP
Vectra, I've mislaid mine).
When HP went to the PII Vectra VL systems, they got rid of the need
for mounting rails (just plain old screw-through-a-hole mounting), so
they're pretty hard to find in my experience. While it's not hard to
make up a set if you have access to a sheet metal brake, it'd be nice
to have an extra "factory original" set.
FWIW, the old Vectra VL's are just the ticket for fooling around with
old cards. PCI and ISA slots on a horizontal daughterboard and
they're easy to get at. A nice reminder of how well HP PCs used to
be built.
Cheers,
Chuck
1:14 a.m.
Ensor wrote:
I was more concerned with running it on a
VAX/SGI/Sun/NeXT box
Your only serious consideration is netBSD, as you've found out. Linux's
roots were x86 so it hasn't been ported to nearly as many platforms.
For low-resource x86 computing, you can run Minix on an 808x, and
several variants of AT&T or SCO on 286, and there's an older version of
Coherent that runs on 286 (3.x and earlier). I'm biased toward Coherent
of course...
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
2:57 a.m.
Jim Leonard wrote:
Ensor wrote:
Jim,
I evaluated and still have an original set of Coherent disks and manuals
with the DDK. I never used for it anything real because of it's 64K
limitation. Cute system though, a lot like Minix. Did you work for Mark
Williams?
Jim Davis.
I was more concerned with running it on a
VAX/SGI/Sun/NeXT box
Your only serious consideration is netBSD, as you've found out.
Linux's roots were x86 so it hasn't been ported to nearly as many
platforms.
For low-resource x86 computing, you can run Minix on an 808x, and
several variants of AT&T or SCO on 286, and there's an older version
of Coherent that runs on 286 (3.x and earlier). I'm biased toward
Coherent of course...
12:51 p.m.
davis wrote:
I evaluated and still have an original set of Coherent
disks and manuals
with the DDK. I never used for it anything real because of it's 64K
The 286 version, yes. You could use up to 16MB RAM, just in 64K
segments :-)
limitation. Cute system though, a lot like Minix. Did
you work for Mark
Williams?
I was director of tech support before I left, yes.
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
2:12 p.m.
I evaluated
and still have an original set of Coherent disks and manuals
with the DDK. I never used for it anything real because of it's 64K
The 286 version, yes. You could use up to 16MB RAM, just in 64K
segments :-) 
2:27 p.m.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 01:12:46PM -0500, dave06a at dunfield.com wrote:
I've still got a couple copies of early QNX which
ran on 8088 machines,
Are they up for downloads some where? I'd love to give them a try on
some of my 8088 and 8086 boxes.
Cheers,
?ngel
--
Angel @ Granada, Spain
PGP Public key: http://www.ugr.es/~ama/ama-pgp-key
3EB2 967A 9404 6585 7086 8811 2CEC 2F81 9341 E591
------------------------------------------------------
() ASCII Ribbon Campaign - http://www.asciiribbon.org/
/\ Against all HTML e-mail and proprietary attachments
3:09 p.m.
Fresh out of '386s, would an "XT-286" do?
"Clasic" Linux (and there I am making an assumption)
won't run on a '286. Sure there are newer ports that
will I guess, but that's not what you're interested in
evidently. There are of course other flavuz of NIX
that'll run on that...but you're likely not interested
in them either :).
Some people (possibly many) complain about how
bloated Linux is these days. Is it possible to get by
on an older distro (w/the net being what it is these
days)? Features you can do w/o, but w/o security and
"fresh" source code might not be such a good idea.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for earth-friendly autos?
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
3:44 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris M" <chrism3667 at yahoo.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: *nix on "classic" systems
Some people (possibly many) complain about how
bloated Linux is these days. Is it possible to get by
on an older distro (w/the net being what it is these
days)? Features you can do w/o, but w/o security and
"fresh" source code might not be such a good idea.
You can still run Debian sarge (the second-last version; it was the most
current release until a few days ago) with a 2.2.20 kernel. Even with a
2.4.x or 2.6.x kernel it isn't that bloated. It runs fine on my 486sx25
with 32 MB of RAM, and would run okay with 16MB.
I've always felt the BSD distributions are better if you want something
really bare and basic, though.
Jim
5:33 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Chris M once stated:
My home system is a 160MHz AMD/586 (a glorified 486) with 32M RAM and
several gigs of harddrive space [1] running RedHat 5.2 and it's still
usable. Of course, I have upgraded some of the more critical packages (like
ssh) from source, and I'm running stuff like Postfix and Apache (1.3---2.0
is a bit of a hog to tell the truth).
I use it for development and maintaining my website [2] using XSLT. Okay,
browsing the web is a bit iffy these days (I have a Mac for that) but
everything else (like email [4]) it's fine.
-spc (Oh, and run X on it ... )
[1] I'd check, but I'm currently without DSL at the house [3].
[2] http://www.conman.org/
[3] Curse BellSouth.
[4] Well, it *was* handling email until I lost DSL [1].
Fresh out of
'386s, would an "XT-286" do?
"Clasic" Linux (and there I am making an assumption)
won't run on a '286. Sure there are newer ports that
will I guess, but that's not what you're interested in
evidently. There are of course other flavuz of NIX
that'll run on that...but you're likely not interested
in them either :).
Some people (possibly many) complain about how
bloated Linux is these days. Is it possible to get by
on an older distro (w/the net being what it is these
days)? Features you can do w/o, but w/o security and
"fresh" source code might not be such a good idea.
4:40 p.m.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 01:12:46PM -0500, dave06a at
dunfield.com wrote:
Quantum is still very much in business, so I would not feel comfortable in
posting even old versions. There's also an issue that the disks are copy
protected - I don't know if they would image or not - I do recall that at least
one of the copy programs from the era would copy them.
Their copy protection was a bit odd, and I really didn't like it because they
required you to allow the floppy to be written - When you installed on a
hard drive, it marked the floppy as having been installed - you could still
boot from it, but you could not install to a hard drive again. If you wanted
to move, they had a program which would erase it from the hard drive and
put the marker back on the floppy - no allowance at all for a hard drive
failure etc. - I liked QNX and probably would have continued with it had it
not been for such an unreasonable CP system.
There is a bootable demo disk that they used to give away - this might
be OK for you to try.
Dave
--
dave06a (at) Dave Dunfield
dunfield (dot) Firmware development services & tools: www.dunfield.com
com Collector of vintage computing equipment:
http://www.classiccmp.org/dunfield/index.html
I've still got a couple copies of early QNX
which ran on 8088 machines,
Are they up for downloads some where? I'd love to give them a try on
some of my 8088 and 8086 boxes.
6:43 p.m.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 03:40:47PM -0500, dave06a at dunfield.com wrote:
Quantum is still very much in business, so I would not feel comfortable in
posting even old versions. There's also an issue that the disks are copy
I though they could be up to be downloaded legally. I didn't mean to
get an ilegal copy, of course.
I've still got a couple copies of early QNX which
ran on 8088 machines,
Are they up for downloads some where? I'd love to give them a try on
some of my 8088 and 8086 boxes. There is a bootable demo disk that they used to give
away - this might
be OK for you to try.
I have a copy of them which I donloaded from the QNX web site long ago.
But I wouldn't have though they could run on a 386... I might try,
though.
Chhers,
?ngel
--
Angel @ Granada, Spain
PGP Public key: http://www.ugr.es/~ama/ama-pgp-key
3EB2 967A 9404 6585 7086 8811 2CEC 2F81 9341 E591
------------------------------------------------------
() ASCII Ribbon Campaign - http://www.asciiribbon.org/
/\ Against all HTML e-mail and proprietary attachments
9:37 p.m.
I though they could be up to be downloaded legally. I
didn't mean to
get an ilegal copy, of course.
Not that I'm aware of - The QNX OS is still their main product, and although
it's changed a lot from the early 1.x versions that I have, it's still close
enough that I think they'd care.
There is a
bootable demo disk that they used to give away - this might
be OK for you to try.
I have a copy of them which I donloaded from the QNX web site long ago.
But I wouldn't have though they could run on a 386... I might try,
though.
11 Apr
11 Apr
2:13 a.m.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 08:37:09PM -0500, Dave Dunfield wrote:
They've had several demos over the years,
including CD versions of their
more recent offerings - the one I have is one of their earliest and I'm
pretty sure it runs on an 8088 - It's a single 5.25" floppy.
The ones I have are two (NIC or Modem) 3,5" 1,44MB floppy images. They
are also included on "The ultimate boot CD". I doubt they'd run on
anything older than a 486 or, maybe, a 386.
Cheers,
?ngel
--
Angel @ Granada, Spain
PGP Public key: http://www.ugr.es/~ama/ama-pgp-key
3EB2 967A 9404 6585 7086 8811 2CEC 2F81 9341 E591
------------------------------------------------------
() ASCII Ribbon Campaign - http://www.asciiribbon.org/
/\ Against all HTML e-mail and proprietary attachments
10 Apr
10 Apr
2:58 a.m.
Your only serious consideration is netBSD, as
you've found out.
Linux's roots were x86 so it hasn't been ported to nearly as many
platforms.
NetBSD's roots were in x86 too; it's just put a lot more work into
curing that. :-)
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
1:27 p.m.
On Tuesday 10 April 2007 01:14, Jim Leonard wrote:
Ensor wrote:
There's platforms that Linux runs on that NetBSD doesn't, and there's
platforms that NetBSD runs on that Linux doesn't...
For example Linux runs on 64-bit POWER/PPC machines, and (some) ESA/390
architecture machines, which lack a NetBSD port.
I just named those two off the top of my head, because architectures
that I've got, and which I want to be able to run a [free] UNIXy OS on.
Pat
--
Purdue University Research Computing --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
I was more concerned with running it on a
VAX/SGI/Sun/NeXT box
Your only serious consideration is netBSD, as you've found out.
Linux's roots were x86 so it hasn't been ported to nearly as many
platforms.
11:48 p.m.
Hi,
For low-resource x86 computing, you can run Minix on
an 808x....
I dabbled with Minix on my Atari ST around 1988(ish), surprisingly I've
never come across a copy of the x86 version though.
....and several variants of AT&T or SCO on 286....
<synapses sluggishly coming to life> Now you mention it, I have an unopened
copy of SCO *SOMEWHERE* which I picked up about 15 odd years ago....I knew
it would come in handy one day! ;-)
Might be worth digging out....
And I'm pretty sure I have an IBM "Xenix" development kit stashed away
somewhere too!
....there's an older version of Coherent that runs
on 286....
Yikes, I'd forgotten all about "Coherent". I remember the ads they used to
take out in "Byte" (in fact I think there's a review of it in one of my old
Bytes).
TTFN - Pete.
11:29 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ensor" <classiccmp at memory-alpha.org.uk>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: *nix on "classic" systems
A P90 will do. I have Debian running on a 486sx25 with 32 MB of RAM. It's
quite luxurious for a low-end 486, but it's still pretty slow. :)
My firewall machine is a P133.
You almost certainly won't want to run a GUI on such a machine unless you
have a lot of RAM (and even then probably not), but you can put these
machines to other uses. A lot of useful software runs with shell-only
installations.
Jim
OI a p-90 is
anything but vintage....
I know, I wasn't suggesting it was.... ;-)
It's just that it's the only machine I have lying around at the moment,
capable of running *nix, which is relatively complete (anyone got a spare
set of mounting rails for a floppy drive and a CD-ROM drive for an HP
Vectra, I've mislaid mine). 
11:59 a.m.
On 4/10/07, Jim MacKenzie <jim at photojim.ca> wrote:
A P90 will do. I have Debian running on a 486sx25
with 32 MB of RAM. It's
quite luxurious for a low-end 486, but it's still pretty slow. :)
My firewall machine is a P133.
You almost certainly won't want to run a GUI on such a machine unless you
have a lot of RAM (and even then probably not), but you can put these
machines to other uses. A lot of useful software runs with shell-only
installations.
I have an IBM PS/2-e running RedHat 5.2, text-only. It's last use was
with 4 PCMCIA cards in its special IBM adapter, to simulate certain
features of a Cisco PIX (internal "private" network, with 2 DMZs and
an outside interface). Of course one could just throw 4 PCI NICs into
a modern box and run a full-on install of whatever *NIX one chooses,
but it wouldn't be the size of a dictionary nor consume under 100W.
http://www.nothingtodo.org/classiccmp/ps2e.htm
Since the 486SLC tops out at 16M, it severely limits how modern of a
distro will fit on it. RH5.2 seems to work nicely, but I'm sure an
older version of Slackware would do well, too.
I should see about finding a 387SX-25 for mine.
-ethan
13 Apr
13 Apr
9:32 p.m.
Hi,
A P90 will do. I have Debian running on a 486sx25 with
32 MB of
RAM. It's quite luxurious for a low-end 486, but it's still pretty
slow. :)
Yeah, when I last tinkered with Linux in 1996 I ran it on a 486DX-50. It ran
well enough, but then I wasn't running X (I could never get it to drive the
VGA card or monitor properly).
My firewall machine is a P133.
As it turns out, the Vectra is actually a P-120. I have another old (home
built) P-90, which I'm thinking about setting up as a firewall, maybe....
You almost certainly won't want to run a GUI on
such a machine....
Noooo...!
A shell prompt will be more than sufficient for my purposes at the moment;
though being able to log in remotely from my M$ box would be immensely
useful.
TTFN - Pete.
14 Apr
14 Apr
3:21 p.m.
1994-6:
Generic ISA/VESA motherboard, 486DX-33, 16Mb RAM, 64Mb swap, VESA w/
8Mb RAM, 1280x1024x24 colour.
Linux 0.99, fvwm, X11R3, one local X session + one remote X session (@
1600x1200x24) simultaneously.
Typically 5 or 6 desktops w/ 4 windows each, about 10 xterms, some
miscellaneous X apps, a couple X clients or so on the VAXen, etc.
Much better than the officially approved motif and DECWindoze at the time.
Worked just fine, even while running batch jobs for the report stuff
the VAX could not do.
Also had a few telnet sessions going on rather frequently from remotes.
And ran the http server on the box, too. Almost forgot about that one...
Used the Andrew Mail System. Heyyuva lot better than the garbage-gui
clients now available. Certainly better than Netscape Mail at the
time, too.
That was just one of the several 486DX and 386DX systems I used for
Linux at the time. They worked so well that it was not until after the
Celeron came out that I got new hardware.
Maybe I was just too ignorant at the time to know that all this was
impossible. Come to think of it, a lot of people didn't believe that
all that stuff happened in that tiny box that
looked-like-a-windoze-computer.
Never tried sysV or Xenix: The price to feature ratio was a bad joke.
And support, especially from SCO... Well, I've seen cowpies provide
better tech support.
BSD wouldn't run well, if at all.
--
jd
Malek's Law:
Any simple idea will be worded in the most complicated way.
9 Apr
9 Apr
7:46 p.m.
Ensor wrote:
So, can anyone point me at a website listing Linux
ports to
architectures other than PC's. And what modern *nix ports, if any, do
other list members use on their classic iron?
Debian runs on HP PA-RISC, SPARC (Sun workstations and servers mainly), MIPS
(SGI kit), PowerPC (PowerMacs) and the DEC Alpha, among others:
<http://www.debian.org/CD/netinst/>
Linux-VAX runs on VAXen:
<http://linux-vax.sourceforge.net/>
Google is your friend...
--
Phil. | (\_/) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny
classiccmp at philpem.me.uk | (='.'=) into your signature to help him gain
http://www.philpem.me.uk/ | (")_(") world domination.
11:33 p.m.
Hi,
Debian runs on HP PA-RISC, SPARC (Sun workstations and
servers
mainly), MIPS (SGI kit), PowerPC (PowerMacs) and the DEC Alpha,
among others:
Thanks, I'll take a look. I remember Debian from the last time I dabbled
with Linux in 1996 (gave up after 6 months and switched to Win95).
Linux-VAX runs on VAXen:
That's the one I had at the back of my mind when I asked the question, I'll
go do some digging around their site.
Google is your friend...
First place I looked....too much information though....
TTFN - Pete.
10 Apr
10 Apr
11:31 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ensor" <classiccmp at memory-alpha.org.uk>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 9:33 PM
Subject: Re: *nix on "classic" systems
I don't think the kernel for Linux-VAX is very modern...
I run OpenBSD 4.0 on my VAXstation 4000-60 (32 MB RAM although it ran okay
with 16 MB). I'm tempted to try NetBSD on it though now that the VAX
version of gcc is more bleeding-edge.
Jim
Linux-VAX runs
on VAXen:
That's the one I had at the back of my mind when I asked the question,
I'll go do some digging around their site.
11 Apr
11 Apr
3:35 p.m.
Jim MacKenzie <jim at photojim.ca>
You can still run Debian sarge (the second-last
version; it was the most
current release until a few days ago) with a 2.2.20
kernel. Even with a
2.4.x or 2.6.x kernel it isn't that bloated. It runs
fine on my 486sx25
with 32 MB of RAM, and would run okay with 16MB.
I've always felt the BSD distributions are better
if
you want something
really bare and basic, though.
Jim
I really don't think it's realistic to operate a
modern computer w/a non-windowed environment these
days. Many will disagree, and that's their
prerogative, someone said something about eye-candy,
but I think it comes down to cheating yourself of
functionality. Additional resources are necessary of
course, and if you're talking about a 486, you're
going to want to trim as much as possible (you can't
tell me Debian w/a gui will run on one). What most
impressed me (and the diehards will call this all
opinion) with the Unix boxes I had seen in the
early-mid 90s was their ability to do windows, and do
them right.
Not for anything (man I hate that expression) but
hasn't the version following sarge been out for 6+
months, and UIM it was based on the 2.6 kernel?
Thought I even had it on DVD somewhere.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091
4:12 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris M" <chrism3667 at yahoo.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: *nix on "classic" systems
Not for anything (man I hate that expression) but
hasn't the version following sarge been out for 6+
months, and UIM it was based on the 2.6 kernel?
Etch has been in testing mode for awhile, but it was just released at the
beginning of April.
Jim
4:37 p.m.
Etch has been in testing mode for awhile, but it was
just released at the
beginning of April.
whoops you are right. Sarge followed woody. my mistake
____________________________________________________________________________________
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
4:47 p.m.
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 02:12:47PM -0600, Jim MacKenzie wrote:
Three days ago, actually.
A.
--
Angel @ Granada, Spain
PGP Public key: http://www.ugr.es/~ama/ama-pgp-key
3EB2 967A 9404 6585 7086 8811 2CEC 2F81 9341 E591
------------------------------------------------------
() ASCII Ribbon Campaign - http://www.asciiribbon.org/
/\ Against all HTML e-mail and proprietary attachments
Not for
anything (man I hate that expression) but
hasn't the version following sarge been out for 6+
months, and UIM it was based on the 2.6 kernel?
Etch has been in testing mode for awhile, but it was just released at the
beginning of April.
5 p.m.
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 12:35:27PM -0700, Chris M wrote:
I really don't think it's realistic to
operate a
modern computer w/a non-windowed environment these
days. Many will disagree, and that's their
Of course many will disagree. I for one, use several boxes w/o a gui
even installed on them. What about servers? What do you want a gui on
a web server, an FTP server, a file server, a print server?
But even for a workstation. What do I need a gui for reading mail
(mutt), Unenet news (tin), IRC (irssi) or Jabber (centralicq),
editing (Vim) and composing (LaTeX) documents or programming ? Even
browsing I many times do with elinks.
prerogative, someone said something about eye-candy,
I did. But I could go further, I not only don't need (nor I want) eye
candy, but graphic acceleration, transparencies, or even menus, icons
or applications bars, etc.
but I think it comes down to cheating yourself of
functionality. Additional resources are necessary of
course, and if you're talking about a 486, you're
I was thinking more about a 386. For slower systems there is ELKS,
which I would like to have in production on my 8086, 8088 and 286
boxes. A 486 is powerful enough as to ran Debian GNU/Linux or any of
the BSD. In fact, one of mine is running OpenBSD with Apache and
PostgreSQL for a small web server on a 486DX2-66 64MB RAM and 2x4GB HDD.
going to want to trim as much as possible (you
can't
tell me Debian w/a gui will run on one). What most
I've just told you :-)
impressed me (and the diehards will call this all
opinion) with the Unix boxes I had seen in the
early-mid 90s was their ability to do windows, and do
them right.
Sure. They do it, and they do it very well. But even most impressive
is the server/client nature of X. Why should i be forbidden to run,
let say Iceweasel, or The Gimp, or whatever program I like to on a more
powerful box, but display it on a Pentium 90 or 60, or even a 486 or a
386 as a lean X terminal if I can do so?
Not for anything (man I hate that expression) but
hasn't the version following sarge been out for 6+
months, and UIM it was based on the 2.6 kernel?
Is is Debian GNU/Linux 4.0, akaa Etch, released three days ago :-)
Thought I even had it on DVD somewhere.
No wonder, I also had it a few months ago, while it was still the
testing branch. :-)
Cheers,
Angel
--
Angel @ Granada, Spain
PGP Public key: http://www.ugr.es/~ama/ama-pgp-key
3EB2 967A 9404 6585 7086 8811 2CEC 2F81 9341 E591
------------------------------------------------------
() ASCII Ribbon Campaign - http://www.asciiribbon.org/
/\ Against all HTML e-mail and proprietary attachments
6:02 p.m.
--- Angel Martin Alganza <ama at ugr.es> wrote:
Ok, I respect your opinion. As long as you do mine.
Forget about ELKS. What about XENIX! YAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
(I think we're way off topic by the way).
You didn't need to. It was simply my point. I had an
instructor who HATED anything MS$, but who preached
Linux w/a religious fervor. ALL YA NEED IS THAT OLD
486! Ok, fine, but if you want to run a respectable
windowing OS, you'll going to need some more power.
Before ever even touching a Linux cd I figured that
must have been the case.
You are not forbidden. You officially have my
blessing :)
I goofed. I was referring to sarge, which, correct me
if I'm wrong (again) is based on the 2.6 kernel. I
made a mistake and I said so.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 12:35:27PM -0700, Chris M
wrote:
True. Little need for a gui depending on what the
"computer" is being used for. It goes w/o saying that
my use of the word denoted a workstation.
I really don't think it's realistic to
operate a
modern computer w/a non-windowed environment these
days. Many will disagree, and that's their
Of course many will disagree. I for one, use
several boxes w/o a gui
even installed on them. What about servers? What
do you want a gui on
a web server, an FTP server, a file server, a print
server? But even for a workstation. What do I need a gui
for reading mail
(mutt), Unenet news (tin), IRC (irssi) or Jabber
(centralicq),
editing (Vim) and composing (LaTeX) documents or
programming ? Even
browsing I many times do with elinks.
Otay panky. Have it your way. LOL LOL
prerogative,
someone said something about
eye-candy,
I did. But I could go further, I not only don't
need (nor I want) eye
candy, but graphic acceleration, transparencies, or
even menus, icons
or applications bars, etc. but I think it
comes down to cheating yourself of
functionality. Additional resources are necessary
of
course, and if you're talking about a 486,
you're
I was thinking more about a 386. For slower systems
there is ELKS,
which I would like to have in production on my 8086,
8088 and 286
boxes. A 486 is powerful enough as to ran Debian
GNU/Linux or any of
the BSD. In fact, one of mine is running OpenBSD
with Apache and
PostgreSQL for a small web server on a 486DX2-66
64MB RAM and 2x4GB HDD. going to want
to trim as much as possible (you
can't
tell me Debian w/a gui will run on one). What
most
I've just told you :-) impressed me
(and the diehards will call this all
opinion) with the Unix boxes I had seen in the
early-mid 90s was their ability to do windows, and
do
them right.
Sure. They do it, and they do it very well. But
even most impressive
is the server/client nature of X. Why should i be
forbidden to run,
let say Iceweasel, or The Gimp, or whatever program
I like to on a more
powerful box, but display it on a Pentium 90 or 60,
or even a 486 or a
386 as a lean X terminal if I can do so? Not for
anything (man I hate that expression) but
hasn't the version following sarge been out for 6+
months, and UIM it was based on the 2.6 kernel?
Is is Debian GNU/Linux 4.0, akaa Etch, released
three days ago :-)
Thought I even had it on DVD somewhere.
No wonder, I also had it a few months ago, while it
was still the
testing branch. :-) 
5:07 p.m.
On 4/11/07 9:35 PM, Chris M wrote:
I really don't think it's realistic to operate
a modern computer w/a
non-windowed environment these days. Many will disagree, and that's their
prerogative, someone said something about eye-candy, but I think it comes down
to cheating yourself of functionality.
You give up some functionality, gain other functionality. Like almost
everything, a GUI is a trade-off.
,xtG
.tsooJ
--
Hofstadter's Law:
Everything always takes longer than expected,
even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.
--
Joost van de Griek
<http://www.jvdg.net/>
6:04 p.m.
On 11 Apr 2007 at 23:07, Joost van de Griek wrote:
On 4/11/07 9:35 PM, Chris M wrote:
Excuse me, but we're talking about two different things, aren't we?
Or is my age showing again?
Unless I've got my wires crossed (again), "windowing" and "GUI"
have
very little to do with another. That is, you can have text-mode
winodws and windowless graphics, no?
So what's meant here?
Cheers,
Chuck
I really don't think it's realistic to
operate a modern computer w/a
non-windowed environment these days. Many will disagree, and that's their
prerogative, someone said something about eye-candy, but I think it comes down
to cheating yourself of functionality.
You give up some functionality, gain other functionality. Like almost
everything, a GUI is a trade-off.
7:20 p.m.
--- Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
Excuse me, but we're talking about two different
things, aren't we?
Or is my age showing again?
Unless I've got my wires crossed (again),
"windowing" and "GUI" have
very little to do with another. That is, you can
have text-mode
winodws and windowless graphics, no?
So what's meant here?
essentially what we've come to know as a graphically
oriented/windowed environment. That's what I was
talking about anyhoo...
____________________________________________________________________________________
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
8:23 p.m.
Unless I've got my wires crossed (again),
"windowing" and "GUI" have
very little to do with another. That is, you can have text-mode
winodws and windowless graphics, no?
My take on it -
In principle, you're right.
In practice, you're wrong.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
10:35 p.m.
On 11/04/07, der Mouse <mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca> wrote:
I think I have to go with Chuck (assuming he is the poster of the
first quotation). At least for home computers both text-mode windows
and graphical computers with text interface a plenty: The latter
encompasses every 8-bit of the home computer wars; for my C64 I had
many application programs that were graphical in nature (pre-GEOS of
course). The former is admittedly more rare - but I think one has to
allow programs such as Norton Commander and WP5 that had multiple
somewhat independant text areas. And not to forget the plethora of
TSRs that could throw up dialog boxes on the PC's text screen...
Joe.
Unless
I've got my wires crossed (again), "windowing" and "GUI" have
very little to do with another. That is, you can have text-mode
winodws and windowless graphics, no?
My take on it -
In principle, you're right.
In practice, you're wrong.
10:49 p.m.
On 11 Apr 2007 at 20:23, der Mouse wrote:
My take on it -
In principle, you're right.
In practice, you're wrong.
So you're saying that I'm not getting any useful work done with my
copy of (text windowing) IDA disassembler and that I accomplished
absolutely nothing with my old copies of Orcad and Schema SDT
(nonwindowing graphics)?
Uh, okay. Whatever you say...
Cheers,
Chuck
12 Apr
12 Apr
4:02 a.m.
In principle,
you're right.
In practice, you're wrong.
So you're saying that I'm not getting any
useful work done with my
copy of (text windowing) IDA disassembler and that I accomplished
absolutely nothing with my old copies of Orcad and Schema SDT
(nonwindowing graphics)? 
11 Apr
11 Apr
5:20 p.m.
On Apr 11, 2007, at 3:35 PM, Chris M wrote:
Interesting. I'm assuming from this statement that you haven't
been in many datacenters.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
You can still
run Debian sarge (the second-last
version; it was the most
current release until a few days ago) with a
2.2.20
kernel. Even with a
2.4.x or 2.6.x kernel it isn't that bloated. It runs
fine on my 486sx25
with 32 MB of RAM, and would run okay with 16MB.
I've always felt the BSD distributions are
better if
you want something
really bare and basic, though.
Jim
I really don't think it's realistic to operate a
modern computer w/a non-windowed environment these
days.
6:20 p.m.
--- Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
<snip>
no, but frankly it's irrelevant. Datacenters w/all
their computing power comprise an utter minute
fragment of the earth's total computing power. Some
would rather not utilize a gui, and in some instances
it's better not to, no argument. It's not that there
aren't instances where you shouldn't make use of one,
just that it's practical these days to do so. You
wouldn't want to have little Johnny remembering scores
of arcane cryptic commands just to run StickyBears,
would you? (is StickyBears still around even LOL LOL).
____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast
with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather
I really
don't think it's realistic to operate a
modern computer w/a non-windowed environment these
days.
Interesting. I'm assuming from this statement
that you haven't
been in many datacenters.
-Dave 
7:49 p.m.
Dave McGuire wrote:
On Apr 11, 2007, at 3:35 PM, Chris M wrote:
Interesting. I'm assuming from this statement that you haven't been
in many datacenters.
Or used a mainframe.
Peace... Sridhar
You can
still run Debian sarge (the second-last
version; it was the most
current release until a few days ago) with a
2.2.20
kernel. Even with a
2.4.x or 2.6.x kernel it isn't that bloated. It runs
fine on my 486sx25
with 32 MB of RAM, and would run okay with 16MB.
I've always felt the BSD distributions are
better if
you want something
really bare and basic, though.
Jim
I really don't think it's realistic to operate a
modern computer w/a non-windowed environment these
days.
10:13 p.m.
On Wednesday 11 April 2007 19:49, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Dave McGuire wrote:
One particularly twisted individual could run a UNIXy OS on a mainframe,
have a VNC X-windows server running as a process, and use that to host a
KDE/GNOME session.
Less twisted individuals may point out that IBM has sold graphical
terminals that are attached to mainframes (such as my 3279-S3G or older
ones that aren't 3270 devices) long before any GUI from the likes of
Microsoft or Apple has been around.
Granted, most mainframes don't have GUIs (though a lot of people seem to
be pushing "web interfaces" for everything which are 1000x worse), but
it's not impossible...
Pat
--
Purdue University ITAP/RCAC --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
Interesting. I'm assuming from this
statement that you haven't
been in many datacenters.
Or used a mainframe.
10:54 p.m.
Patrick Finnegan wrote:
On Wednesday 11 April 2007 19:49, Sridhar Ayengar
wrote:
That kind of person would be me. I've done that kind of twisted stuff,
like running OpenGL Quake on my mainframe, but that's *far* from normal.
Dave McGuire wrote:
One particularly twisted individual could run a UNIXy OS on a mainframe,
have a VNC X-windows server running as a process, and use that to host a
KDE/GNOME session. Interesting. I'm assuming from this
statement that you haven't
been in many datacenters.
Or used a mainframe. Less twisted individuals may point out that IBM has
sold graphical
terminals that are attached to mainframes (such as my 3279-S3G or older
ones that aren't 3270 devices) long before any GUI from the likes of
Microsoft or Apple has been around.
I would point out that many (most?) graphical consoles on mainframes
aren't used to display GUIs. Although, by some stretch of an
imagination, a CAD drawing could, I suppose, be considered a GUI.
Peace... Sridhar
11:20 p.m.
On Wednesday 11 April 2007 22:54, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
I'd argue that any CAD program that has its UI on the Graphical display
is a GUI by definition. :)
Pat
--
Purdue University ITAP/RCAC --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
Patrick Finnegan wrote:
It's also something I might do, just to have done once. :)
On Wednesday 11 April 2007 19:49, Sridhar Ayengar
wrote:
That kind of person would be me. I've done that kind of twisted
stuff, like running OpenGL Quake on my mainframe, but that's *far*
from normal. Dave McGuire wrote:
One particularly twisted individual could run a UNIXy OS on a
mainframe, have a VNC X-windows server running as a process, and use
that to host a KDE/GNOME session. Interesting. I'm assuming from this
statement that you haven't
been in many datacenters.
Or used a mainframe. Less twisted
individuals may point out that IBM has sold graphical
terminals that are attached to mainframes (such as my 3279-S3G or
older ones that aren't 3270 devices) long before any GUI from the
likes of Microsoft or Apple has been around.
I would point out that many (most?) graphical consoles on mainframes
aren't used to display GUIs. Although, by some stretch of an
imagination, a CAD drawing could, I suppose, be considered a GUI. 
11:24 p.m.
Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Patrick Finnegan wrote:
You know that Quake runs native, full 3D, on AIX v4.3.x, right?
Doc
On Wednesday 11 April 2007 19:49, Sridhar Ayengar
wrote:
That kind of person would be me. I've done that kind of twisted stuff,
like running OpenGL Quake on my mainframe, but that's *far* from normal. Dave McGuire wrote:
One particularly twisted individual could run a UNIXy OS on a
mainframe, have a VNC X-windows server running as a process, and use
that to host a KDE/GNOME session. Interesting. I'm assuming from this
statement that you haven't
been in many datacenters.
Or used a mainframe.
11:58 p.m.
Doc Shipley wrote:
Really. Cool!
It took some doing for me to get it to compile on Linux/390. I can only
imagine what someone had to do to get it to work in something as
different from Linux as AIX 4.3.
Peace... Sridhar
That kind of
person would be me. I've done that kind of twisted
stuff, like running OpenGL Quake on my mainframe, but that's *far*
from normal.
You know that Quake runs native, full 3D, on AIX v4.3.x, right? 
12 Apr
12 Apr
1:28 a.m.
That kind of
person would be me. I've done that kind of twisted stuff,
like running OpenGL Quake on my mainframe, but that's *far* from normal.
You know that Quake runs native, full 3D, on AIX v4.3.x, right? 
4:34 p.m.
--- Sridhar Ayengar <ploopster at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dave McGuire wrote:
>> Interesting. I'm assuming from this statement
that you haven't
>> been in many datacenters.
> Or used a mainframe.
Nope. Have. Not to any large degree. Simply logging
in and typing FORTRAN stuph, compiling, and waiting
for the batch to spit out my printout. Was fun :)
To read into my statement that there's no place for,
or that I particularly loathe command line stuff is
simply incorrect. But the suggestion that I should
despise guis because many identify such with M$ is
patently absurd. I'm not speaking for anyone in
particular, just that I feel oftentimes that's the
underlying sentiment. Prior to it's widespread
acceptance (Windoze), the popular expression amongst
"geeks" of that period was "I don't do windows!".
Well...they weren't doing much of anything other then
peecee stuff to realize there was more out there. And
I'm not simply talking about Macs either.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
9 Apr
9 Apr
7:58 p.m.
"Ensor" <classiccmp at memory-alpha.org.uk> wrote:
I've recently been looking at setting up an old HP
Vectra P-90 to run Linux
(or some form of *nix) and started wondering what ports exist for "classic"
systems.
Looking around I see that "NetBSD" in particular supports quite a few
architectures including VAX, SGI, NeXT etc etc, but I've struck out
regarding Linux ports.
So, can anyone point me at a website listing Linux ports to architectures
other than PC's.
bash-3.00$ cd /usr/src
bash-3.00$ ls
linux-2.6.17.4 linux-2.6.17.4.tar.bz2
bash-3.00$ cd linux-2.6.17.4
bash-3.00$ ls
COPYING MAINTAINERS arch fs kernel scripts
CREDITS Makefile block include lib security
Documentation README crypto init mm sound
Kbuild REPORTING-BUGS drivers ipc net usr
bash-3.00$ cd arch
bash-3.00$ ls
alpha cris i386 m68k parisc s390 sparc v850
arm frv ia64 m68knommu powerpc sh sparc64 x86_64
arm26 h8300 m32r mips ppc sh64 um xtensa
And what modern *nix ports, if any, do other list
members
use on their classic iron?
FBOFW, modern "free" *nix ports tend to use gcc, and gcc is such
a resource hog for anything smaller than a VAX. Even on a VAX it's
colossaly slow.
Not on a VAX, but small and spritely, is Minix. The Amsterdam
Compiler Kit wasn't free, though! The thought of a Unix without
a compiler is not very well accepted in hackerdom (or, at least by
me), even though I despise C compared to high level languages like
SNOBOL and FOCAL.
Tim.
10 Apr
10 Apr
2:47 a.m.
Tim Shoppa wrote:
"Ensor" <classiccmp at
memory-alpha.org.uk> wrote:
Hi Tim,
The old distros e.g: slackware with gcc (which is OT) from the mid 90's
worked great on systems as small as 1 MB.
Just don't expect to run X or any of that other candy in one meg. You
needed 4 meg to get it up.
Jim. (remembering when one meg was HUGE.)
I've recently been looking at setting up an
old HP Vectra P-90 to run Linux
(or some form of *nix) and started wondering what ports exist for "classic"
systems.
Looking around I see that "NetBSD" in particular supports quite a few
architectures including VAX, SGI, NeXT etc etc, but I've struck out
regarding Linux ports.
So, can anyone point me at a website listing Linux ports to architectures
other than PC's.
bash-3.00$ cd /usr/src
bash-3.00$ ls
linux-2.6.17.4 linux-2.6.17.4.tar.bz2
bash-3.00$ cd linux-2.6.17.4
bash-3.00$ ls
COPYING MAINTAINERS arch fs kernel scripts
CREDITS Makefile block include lib security
Documentation README crypto init mm sound
Kbuild REPORTING-BUGS drivers ipc net usr
bash-3.00$ cd arch
bash-3.00$ ls
alpha cris i386 m68k parisc s390 sparc v850
arm frv ia64 m68knommu powerpc sh sparc64 x86_64
arm26 h8300 m32r mips ppc sh64 um xtensa
And what modern *nix ports, if any, do other list
members
use on their classic iron?
FBOFW, modern "free" *nix ports tend to use gcc, and gcc is such
a resource hog for anything smaller than a VAX. Even on a VAX it's
colossaly slow.
Not on a VAX, but small and spritely, is Minix. The Amsterdam
Compiler Kit wasn't free, though! The thought of a Unix without
a compiler is not very well accepted in hackerdom (or, at least by
me), even though I despise C compared to high level languages like
SNOBOL and FOCAL.
Tim.
9 Apr
9 Apr
8:20 p.m.
I've recently been looking at setting up an old HP
Vectra P-90 to run Linux
(or some form of *nix) and started wondering what ports exist for "classic"
systems.
Looking around I see that "NetBSD" in particular supports quite a few
architectures including VAX, SGI, NeXT etc etc, but I've struck out
regarding Linux ports.
So, can anyone point me at a website listing Linux ports to architectures
other than PC's. And what modern *nix ports, if any, do other list members
use on their classic iron?
TTFN - Pete.
OpenBSD supports a fair number of architectures as well. I'm honestly not
sure what all Linux runs on these days, as I am only interested in running
it on fast modern Intel EM64T boxes :^)
In the past I've run OpenBSD on Alpha, Sparc, and UltraSparc, including on
my Tadpole Sparcbook. I've also run NetBSD on a DEC MIPS system (bought
specifically to run NetBSD).
I personally prefer not to run Unix on classic hardware that can run a
non-Unix OS (for example an Amiga, VAX, or PDP-11). There are plenty of
systems where you're limited to Unix, and I like my Unix fast. Why on earth
should I waste a platform that will run an interesting non-Unix OS running
Unix? BTW, obviously x86 boxes don't fall under this rule.
Zane
10 Apr
10 Apr
2:51 a.m.
And what modern *nix ports, if any, do other list
members use on
their classic iron?
Well, since you asked, I run NetBSD on everything. (If it won't run
NetBSD, I mostly am not interested in keeping it. There are a few
exceptions, but not many.)
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
6291
days inactive
6296
days old
53 comments
23 participants
participants (23)
-
ama＠ugr.es -
cclist＠sydex.com -
chrism3667＠yahoo.com -
classiccmp＠memory-alpha.org.uk -
classiccmp＠philpem.me.uk -
dave06a＠dunfield.com -
davis＠saw.net -
doc＠mdrconsult.com -
ethan.dicks＠gmail.com -
gordon＠gjcp.net -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
jim＠photojim.ca -
joachim.thiemann＠gmail.com -
jvdg＠sparcpark.net -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
mouse＠Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA -
onymouse＠garlic.com -
pat＠computer-refuge.org -
ploopster＠gmail.com -
shoppa_classiccmp＠trailing-edge.com -
spc＠conman.org -
spectre＠floodgap.com -
trixter＠oldskool.org