11 Apr
2007
11 Apr
'07
11:33 a.m.
Subject: Dreaming of a lean installation method [was
Re: *nix on
"classic" systems]
I'll expand on my original suggestion: fork something from the NetBSD 1.x
line, call it ClassicBSD or OldSchoolBSD or whatever, pick a fairly fixed
set of hardware to support and commit to keeping things small and stable.
This includes the painful process of throwing things out (in the kernel and
in userland) that aren't essential to keeping old gear running or flat too
big to keep around. Something vaguely like the 4.3BSD-Quasijarus
philosophy, but with less....weirdness.
To be survivable, you'll need to make sure what you roll out is the most
conservative set of things that can actually be maintained. You need to
have the guts to put the foot down and say things like "Your favorite
program is too big, too slow and way too much work to keep current on the
kind of machines we support, so we won't even try to support it" and "even
though one of the machines we want to support theoretically could have a USB
card in it, almost all don't and we can save X amount of memory and Y amount
of support time by stripping the whole subsystem out, so that's what's going
to happen" or "SMP? No. Just no.".
ClassicBSD would need to be about 'have to have' functionality, not 'nice to
have' functionality. Just as long as we all agree NetHack stays.
Note that "fork" != "stagnate". You'd need to build a community,
but for a
handful of committed folks folding security and other patches back in is
straightforward if very time consuming, especially if you've already
stripped out big, impractical stuff. Lots of projects do it with more or
less success.
BTW...if you aggressively avoid eye candy, even X11 can be relatively useful
on old hardware. Strip out all the bloaty modules and drivers (you probably
don't need OpenGL and font smoothing is a luxury you can't afford) turn off
all the fancy options (no, you can't have opaque moves...not yours) and keep
to a bare minimum WM.
There are even lighter choices...fork a "classic" X release (like 11.3...as
if your hardware supports any of the functionality added since then) or
someone could raise from the dead/port MGR or some such.
Ken
11 Apr
11 Apr
12:08 p.m.
BTW...if you aggressively avoid eye candy, even X11
can be relatively
useful on old hardware.
It can indeed. I've run X on Suns with 16M. It's a little painful,
but usable. 32M is enough to be fully usable, I find.
This is without bloat. No KDE, Gnome, GNU Emacs, OpenGL, smoothed
fonts, translucency, Xt, Xinerama, anything - it probably helps that
I've written fairly minimalist versions of enough X clients that
everything on my screen comes from one of my own clients: terminal
emulator, clock, window manager, security front-end, picture
displayer....
It's also X11R6.4 patchlevel 3, not "modern" X.
/~\ 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
1:45 p.m.
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 12:08:48PM -0400, der Mouse wrote:
It can indeed. I've run X on Suns with 16M.
It's a little painful,
but usable. 32M is enough to be fully usable, I find.
I run OpenBSD 3.8 (I might upgrade to 4.0 soon, unless something
better comes out earlier than I do it :-) on my Sun Sparc Classic. I
most of the time use it at the console and, when I use X, I run Ion as
my window manager, of course. It works quite well, although I would
really like a leaner, faster, more adequate for the hardware, but
not stagnated (I've just learned this word from another email on
this tread, so I like to use here noew :-).
I've written fairly minimalist versions of enough
X clients that
everything on my screen comes from one of my own clients: terminal
emulator, clock, window manager, security front-end, picture
displayer....
That sounds really interesting. Are you distributing them some how?
Are they included on some operating system or (Linux) distribution or
something? Would you care to do so (make them available/distribute
them/something on that line)?
It's also X11R6.4 patchlevel 3, not
"modern" X.
What about smallX (formerly tinyX)? Has somebody used/looked at
it/made an opinion of it? What about of Microwindows? W? MGR?
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
2:26 p.m.
I've
written fairly minimalist versions of enough X clients that
everything on my screen comes from one of my own clients: terminal
emulator, clock, window manager, security front-end, picture
displayer....
That sounds really interesting. Are you distributing them some how?
Are they included on some operating system or (Linux)
distribution or
something?
Not that I know of, though I suppose such a distro could exist and I've
just not heard about it. (Probably not a popular distribution, though,
or I would have heard from *someone*.)
It's also
X11R6.4 patchlevel 3, not "modern" X.
What about smallX (formerly tinyX)?
5:25 p.m.
On Apr 11, 2007, at 1:45 PM, Angel Martin Alganza wrote:
What about smallX (formerly tinyX)? Has somebody
used/looked at
it/made an opinion of it? What about of Microwindows? W? MGR?
Wow, MGR, I haven't heard of that in a while. I ran it for a bit
on an AT&T 3B1 back in the 80's. It was tiny and very fast!
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
6:23 p.m.
New subject: UNIX PCs was Re: Dreaming of a lean installation method [was Re: *nix on
--- Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
On Apr 11, 2007, at 1:45 PM, Angel Martin Alganza
wrote:
I have a feeling this thread has existed already, but
searching the archives rendered no hits. What should
be considered the first UNIX PC? Now there is some
form of UNIX available for just about everything (even
vintage ports), but what computer was made run UNIX
What about smallX (formerly tinyX)? Has somebody
used/looked at
it/made an opinion of it? What about of
Microwindows? W? MGR?
Wow, MGR, I haven't heard of that in a while. I
ran it for a bit
on an AT&T 3B1 back in the 80's. It was tiny and
very fast!
-Dave from the getgo? And please let's not get into
exhaustive definitions of UNIX, although frankly that
might add delightfully to the conversation.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
1:33 p.m.
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 11:33:54AM -0400, Ken Seefried wrote:
I'll expand on my original suggestion: fork
something from the NetBSD 1.x
I didn't understand what you meant by your original suggestion of
forking.
ClassicBSD would need to be about 'have to
have' functionality, not 'nice
to have' functionality. Just as long as we all agree NetHack stays.
I couldn't have though of a better way of saying it: 'have to have' is
exactly what I would love to see on an OS which I would use a lot.
Note that "fork" != "stagnate".
You'd need to build a community, but for a
Again, I didn't find the words to express what I said before (...kept
current or modern...); not to stagnate is the right word for the idea I
had in mind.
BTW...if you aggressively avoid eye candy, even X11
can be relatively
useful on old hardware. Strip out all the bloaty modules and drivers (you
probably don't need OpenGL and font smoothing is a luxury you can't afford)
turn off all the fancy options (no, you can't have opaque moves...not
yours) and keep to a bare minimum WM.
I, for one, don't need anything else than Ion, a framed, tiled, tabbed
window manager which allows me to cut out my screen on frames to keep
as many xterms (with screen and ssh connections) as I can fit; or to
have just one frame with one xterm on it, when the screen is small
(640x480, for instance).
There are even lighter choices...fork a
"classic" X release (like 11.3...as
if your hardware supports any of the functionality added since then) or
someone could raise from the dead/port MGR or some such.
I'd love to use MGR, or W (I still keep a PicoBSD+W floppy which I
very much like), or whatever which allows what I've just described
before. Nothing fancy, eye candy or whatever.
Cheers,
Angel
--
Angel Martin Alganza Tel +34 958 248 926
Departamento de Genetica Fax +34 958 244 073
Universidad de Granada mailto:ama at ugr.es
C/ Fuentenueva s/n http://www.ugr.es/~ama/
E-18071 Granada, Spain JabberID alganza at jabber.org
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
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments
http://linux.sgms-centre.com/advocacy/no-ms-office.php
2:47 p.m.
ClassicBSD
would need to be about 'have to have' functionality, not
'nice to have' functionality.
I couldn't have though of a better way
of saying it: 'have to have'
is exactly what I would love to see on an OS which I would use a lot. > Just as long as we all agree NetHack stays.
...this is clearly a "have to have" for one of us - but definitely not
for another (me). I consider FORTRAN support and S/Key totally
junkable frills - but a C compiler is not optional. I'm sure there are
those that disagree with each of those, and quite possibly some who
disagree with all of them.
/~\ 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
3:18 p.m.
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 02:47:57PM -0400, der Mouse wrote:
The problem, of course, is, whose idea of "have to have" controls? For
example...
Of course me :-) Seriously, that's why I said on another email on this
tread that having an installer which would install a very minimal
system (NetBSD?) but packages and/or ports would be available could be
a good idea. We all might agree on things like the system should run
(w/o X on 2MB RAM), for example, but some might want to run X and some
not; or that the base system should not take more than (just to say
something) 40MB of HDD, but some might have 80MB HDD and some 2GB HDD
and might want to install an amount of software according to it; that
vi should be the editor and mwm (m for Mouse, not for Motif ;-) the
window manager per defauls, but some might want to use Vim ans Ion ;-)
instead. No one is allowed to install/run/use/talk about KDE, of
course. :-)
ClassicBSD would need to be about 'have to
have' functionality, not
'nice to have' functionality.
I couldn't have though of a better way
of saying it: 'have to have'
is exactly what I would love to see on an OS which I would use a lot. ...this is clearly a "have to have" for one
of us - but definitely not
for another (me). I consider FORTRAN support and S/Key totally
junkable frills - but a C compiler is not optional. I'm sure there are
those that disagree with each of those, and quite possibly some who
disagree with all of them.
Couldn't both of them, FORTRAN and a C compiler be optional
packages/ports? many people (I for one, most probably) wouldn't need
to run either (or any other compiler) on such a system, anyway.
Cheers,
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
10:32 p.m.
New subject: Dreaming of a lean installation method
Hi,
Couldn't both of them, FORTRAN and a C compiler be
optional
packages/ports?
While I agree that a FORTRAN compiler could be optional, how exactly do you
expect to get any useful (or in fact *ANY*) software installed without
access to a "C" compiler?
Since we're talking about a non-mainstream, minimalist distribution, it's
unlikely in the extreme that any particular package you want would be
available as a binary distribution.... It's for this very reason that, back
in the late 80's, "Minix" was utterly useless as anything more than an
educational tool/curiosity!
Much though I hate the language, a "C" compiler is most definitely *NON*
optional.
TTFN - Pete.
12 Apr
12 Apr
12:30 a.m.
New subject: Dreaming of a lean installation method
On 4/11/07, Ensor <classiccmp at memory-alpha.org.uk> wrote:
Much though I hate the language, a "C" compiler is most definitely *NON*
optional.
From a porting standpoint, I'd agree
wholeheartedly. Looking from the
other direction, that of a machine whose purpose
isn't to compile
anything, it might be better to keep the compilers in a development
add-on. Have base, dev, network, X, et al as separate pieces. Don't
go the Slackware route of having _everything_ separate, but bundle
like things together as a functioning, if basic, package that can be
added onto later with custom programs or the other bundle packages.
(if desired)..
(On a note tangent to this discussion, I personally have a lot of
trouble adapting to unixy editors. When asked "vi or emacs?" I
responded "JOE", much to the confusion of the group present. So for
me, an early version of Joe's Own Editor would be almost a must-have.
Long Live Wordstar!)
--
"I laugh because I dare not cry. This is a crazy world
and the only way to enjoy it is to treat it as a joke."
-- Hilda "Sharpie" Burroughs,
"The Number of the Beast" by Robert A. Heinlein
13 Apr
13 Apr
8:37 p.m.
New subject: Dreaming of a lean installation method
Hi,
From a porting standpoint, I'd agree
wholeheartedly. Looking from
the other direction, that of a machine whose purpose isn't to compile
anything, it might be better to keep the compilers in a development
add-on. Have base, dev, network, X, et al as separate pieces....
Personally, I still think a compiler is pretty essential, but you make a
good point.
As long as a compiler is available, that's all that really matters.
BTW Just to be clear, I don't consider the compiler to be a part of the OS,
rather a fairly essential part of the overall package.
TTFN - Pete.
12 Apr
12 Apr
12:46 a.m.
New subject: Dreaming of a lean installation method
While I agree that a FORTRAN compiler could be
optional, how exactly do you
expect to get any useful (or in fact *ANY*) software installed without
access to a "C" compiler?
. . . and how could you even call it an OS until it has a port of
ADVENTURE, PONG, FLIGHT SIMULATOR, LODE RUNNER, or SOLITAIRE?
12 Apr
12 Apr
5:43 a.m.
New subject: Dreaming of a lean installation method
Ensor wrote:
Hi,
I bought the MINIX version for the Atari ST and installed it, but I used
it as a toy, I don't remember recompiling the kernal.
It had full kernal source, and all the tools to rebuild. I think you're
mistaken saying it was useless. Any development environment
that supplied device access and process management was a good base to
develop. Anything with a prompt.
Jim Davis.
Most of my projects consist of bare hardware, data sheets and a cross
development environment..
Couldn't both of them, FORTRAN and a C
compiler be optional
packages/ports?
While I agree that a FORTRAN compiler could be optional, how exactly
do you expect to get any useful (or in fact *ANY*) software installed
without access to a "C" compiler?
Since we're talking about a non-mainstream, minimalist distribution,
it's unlikely in the extreme that any particular package you want
would be available as a binary distribution.... It's for this very
reason that, back in the late 80's, "Minix" was utterly useless as
anything more than an educational tool/curiosity!
Much though I hate the language, a "C" compiler is most definitely
*NON* optional.
TTFN - Pete.
1:35 p.m.
New subject: Dreaming of a lean installation method
davis wrote:
I bought the MINIX version for the Atari ST and
installed it, but I used
it as a toy, I don't remember recompiling the kernal.
It had full kernal source, and all the tools to rebuild. I think you're
mistaken saying it was useless. Any development environment
that supplied device access and process management was a good base to
develop. Anything with a prompt.
Jim Davis.
The only problem was/is that that you don't have the source for the
C compiler with the orginal Minix. Other than that it was a NICE little
OS.
Most of my projects consist of bare hardware, data
sheets and a cross
development environment..
How ever hidesight tells us that 32K words is just minium for a GOOD os.
I still would of liked to see a 18 bit PDP-11. :)
13 Apr
13 Apr
8:54 p.m.
New subject: Dreaming of a lean installation method
Hi,
I bought the MINIX version for the Atari ST and
installed it, but
I used it as a toy, I don't remember recompiling the kernal. It had
full kernal source, and all the tools to rebuild....
It sure came with the sources, but I'm 99.999999999999% certain you could
not rebuild the kernal because no compiler was included in the distribution.
....I think you're mistaken saying it was useless.
It certainly fulfilled it's aim of being a platform to learn about modern OS
design and implementation, but without applications or a way to develop
them, it's usefulness is ultimately limited (by what is included in the
distribution).
Don't forget, very few people had 'net access back then, those of us who
were on-line were mostly on FidoNet and there was nothing online for Minix
that I could find (and I tried pretty hard).
....supplied device access and process management was a
good base to
develop....
As long as you have a development tool.... :-)
....Anything with a prompt.
LOL, the 6809 assembler I'm using at the moment is run from the command line
(though I'm firing it up through a batch file and editing the source with
"notepad" - who needs an IDE?).
TTFN - Pete.
9:08 p.m.
New subject: Dreaming of a lean installation method
On 14 Apr 2007 at 1:54, Ensor wrote:
LOL, the 6809 assembler I'm using at the moment is
run from the command line
(though I'm firing it up through a batch file and editing the source with
"notepad" - who needs an IDE?).
I can honestly claim that the closest thing to an IDE that I've ever
used for any language was the "Electric C" extension for emacs. And
even then, I didn't use it for long. It just got in the way.
Cheers,
Chuck
14 Apr
14 Apr
12:15 p.m.
New subject: Dreaming of a lean installation method
On Apr 13, 2007, at 9:08 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
I'm right there with you. I've tried a few IDEs...some are kinda
nice, but they definitely get in the way.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
LOL, the 6809
assembler I'm using at the moment is run from the
command line
(though I'm firing it up through a batch file and editing the
source with
"notepad" - who needs an IDE?).
I can honestly claim that the closest thing to an IDE that I've ever
used for any language was the "Electric C" extension for emacs. And
even then, I didn't use it for long. It just got in the way. 
13 Apr
13 Apr
11:27 p.m.
New subject: Dreaming of a lean installation method
And thusly were the wise words spake by Ensor
LOL, the 6809 assembler I'm using at the moment is run from the command line
(though I'm firing it up through a batch file and editing the source with
"notepad" - who needs an IDE?).
I use vedit as my editor for C in my day job.. When I do GUI work I use
PhAB (while still using vedit for the C files). For debugging I use
fprintf ()'s.
Cheers,
Bryan
14 Apr
14 Apr
5:48 a.m.
New subject: Dreaming of a lean installation method
Bryan Pope wrote:
And thusly were the wise words spake by Ensor
Get a copy of brief, Best editor ever, excluding teco.
I still use a simple printf for debug. It's hard to get a symbolic
debugger working on broken, ROM based hardware.
Jim.
You gold key kids are all the same! LOL
LOL, the 6809 assembler I'm using at the
moment is run from the command line
(though I'm firing it up through a batch file and editing the source with
"notepad" - who needs an IDE?).
I use vedit as my editor for C in my day job.. When I do GUI work I use
PhAB (while still using vedit for the C files). For debugging I use
fprintf ()'s.
Cheers,
Bryan
5:36 a.m.
New subject: Dreaming of a lean installation method
Ensor wrote:
Hi,
Pete,
I can't believe that MINIX lacked a C compiler and a 68K assembler.
That's like giving away free cigarettes without matches. I googled
around and as far as I can tell, the tools did exist. I'm going to
install it on a emulator and see if you're correct.
Jim
To Be Continued....
I bought the MINIX version for the Atari ST and
installed it, but
I used it as a toy, I don't remember recompiling the kernal. It had
full kernal source, and all the tools to rebuild....
It sure came with the sources, but I'm 99.999999999999% certain you
could not rebuild the kernal because no compiler was included in the
distribution.
....I think you're mistaken saying it was
useless.
It certainly fulfilled it's aim of being a platform to learn about
modern OS design and implementation, but without applications or a way
to develop them, it's usefulness is ultimately limited (by what is
included in the distribution).
Don't forget, very few people had 'net access back then, those of us
who were on-line were mostly on FidoNet and there was nothing online
for Minix that I could find (and I tried pretty hard).
....supplied device access and process management
was a good base to
develop....
As long as you have a development tool.... :-)
....Anything with a prompt.
LOL, the 6809 assembler I'm using at the moment is run from the
command line (though I'm firing it up through a batch file and editing
the source with "notepad" - who needs an IDE?).
TTFN - Pete.
11 Apr
11 Apr
5:16 p.m.
On Apr 11, 2007, at 2:47 PM, der Mouse wrote:
The problem, of course, is, whose idea of "have to have" controls?
For
example...
This is an easy problem to solve. Resist the temptation to bundle
non-OS software with the OS. Far too many people these days confuse
OS vs. non-OS...and we get such stupidity as, for example, Solaris
shipping with Postgres installed, whether you want Postgres or not.
If I want Postgres (and I often do) I WILL INSTALL IT. It's a
database server, it's not a part of the operating system.
This is just an example, but you get the idea.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
ClassicBSD would need to be about 'have to
have' functionality, not
'nice to have' functionality.
I couldn't have though of a better way
of saying it: 'have to have'
is exactly what I would love to see on an OS which I would use a lot. > Just as long as we all agree NetHack stays.
...this is clearly a "have to have" for one of us - but definitely not
for another (me). I consider FORTRAN support and S/Key totally
junkable frills - but a C compiler is not optional. I'm sure there
are
those that disagree with each of those, and quite possibly some who
disagree with all of them.
8:21 p.m.
> ClassicBSD would need to be about 'have to
have' functionality,
> not 'nice to have' functionality.
The problem, of course, is, whose
idea of "have to have" controls?
12 Apr
12 Apr
2:49 a.m.
On Apr 11, 2007, at 8:21 PM, der Mouse wrote:
This is an easy problem to solve.
Resist the temptation to bundle
non-OS software with the OS.
That doesn't really solve anything; all it does is shift the
debates to
the question of what counts as part of the OS.
True I suppose...but it would get us partway there, as, for
example, I don't think anyone (with the possible exception of Sun
Microsystems) would suggest that Postgres is a part of the OS.
For the rest...*Someone* has to make the ruling, preferably
leaning to the "not part of the OS" side more often than not, and the
people who want everything handed to them on a platter will just need
to bite the bullet and learn how to type "./configure;make;make
install"...or go run another OS.
> ClassicBSD
would need to be about 'have to have' functionality,
> not 'nice to have' functionality.
The problem, of course, is, whose
idea of "have to have" controls? For exmaple, I consider a C compiler part of the OS.
Others will
doubtless disagree. Some would consider perl part of the OS; I don't.
Incidentally, I would agree on both counts.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
9:26 a.m.
Dave McGuire wrote:
That doesn't really solve anything; all it does is shift the debates to
the question of what counts as part of the OS.
True I suppose...but it would get us partway there, as, for example, I
don't think anyone (with the possible exception of Sun Microsystems)
would suggest that Postgres is a part of the OS.
For the rest...*Someone* has to make the ruling, preferably leaning to
the "not part of the OS" side more often than not, and the people who
want everything handed to them on a platter will just need to bite the
bullet and learn how to type "./configure;make;make install"...or go run
another OS.
It still gets a bit fuzzy with things like RAIDframe.
Peace... Sridhar
>>
ClassicBSD would need to be about 'have to have' functionality,
>> not 'nice to have' functionality.
The problem, of course, is, whose idea of "have to have" controls?
This
is an easy problem to solve. Resist the temptation to bundle
non-OS software with the OS. 
5:18 a.m.
der Mouse wrote:
This is an easy problem to solve.
Resist the temptation to bundle
non-OS software with the OS.
That doesn't really solve anything; all it does is shift the debates to
the question of what counts as part of the OS.
I think I'm failing to see the problem, though. What does it matter if a
release comes on one CD or five (or DVD, or tapes, whatever)? Surely the only
issue concerning a lean install is that of what bits you need to install to
get a system up and running - so it doesn't matter if there's a C compiler (or
a database, or whatever) on the install media providing that you don't have to
install it. It's the user's choice.
I'm pretty sure a Slackware Linux system can still be installed using a kernel
and a few bits from the 'A' disk set, for instance, giving a footprint of only
a few MB.
I don't see the bloat as coming from the packages, but from the code itself -
more functionality within individual libraries (which for a particular user
might not be needed), coupled with code that's optimised for quickest time to
production rather than efficiency.
> ClassicBSD
would need to be about 'have to have' functionality,
> not 'nice to have' functionality.
The problem, of course, is, whose
idea of "have to have" controls? 
11 Apr
11 Apr
3:29 p.m.
On Wednesday 11 April 2007 11:33, Ken Seefried wrote:
the whole subsystem out, so that's what's
going to happen" or "SMP?
No. Just no.".
There's several classic SMP machines that I would like to have a UNIX
for; well, I guess the Purdue-recipe dual-VAX isn't really SMP, but it
was still MP, and ran a modified BSD as designed. :)
Likewise, I'd like to have a sane UNIX for my VAXstation "3560".
There's no reason you couldn't have an SMP and a non-SMP kernel, even
using #define's, which couldn't be reasonably small.
Pat
--
Purdue University Research Computing --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
6291
days inactive
6294
days old
27 comments
15 participants
participants (15)
-
ama＠ugr.es -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
bpope＠wordstock.com -
cclist＠sydex.com -
chrism3667＠yahoo.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
classiccmp＠memory-alpha.org.uk -
davis＠saw.net -
josefcub＠gmail.com -
julesrichardsonuk＠yahoo.co.uk -
ken＠seefried.com -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
mouse＠Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA -
pat＠computer-refuge.org -
ploopster＠gmail.com