From: Dan Olson <dano@agora.rdrop.com>
To: linux-8086@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Help Wanted!
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:30:32 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050927132303.M61731@agora.rdrop.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200509272113.54472.dg@cowlark.com>
> The big trouble with ELKS is that it only really runs on i86 machines, and
> these are a right pain to deal with --- it's not just that they're really
> old, decrepit machines which cost more in electricity to run than a pocket
> calculator a thousand times more powerful does today, it's that no two are
> the same. Standards were pretty fuzzy in those days, and there's a huge
> variety of different kinds of hardware that needs supporting. Actually making
> ELKS work reliably would be a rather large undertaking just for test
> purposes...
I assume you're talking about PCs based on the 8088/8086, as I'm sure new
machines could be built using the processor as well. There were
standards... but a lot of hardware that came with some sort of DOS driver
to make it work (CD-ROMs, tape drives, and network cards come to mind).
> (DOS gets away with it because, basically, DOS is crap. It relies on the BIOS
> to do a lot of the work, which ELKS can't really do. Minix manages a bit
> better but it's a bit picky on the kinds of hardware it'll support for just
> this reason.)
I know the BIOS is sometimes lacking for what we're trying to do, but DOS
isn't crap for reling on it, that's the way the machine was designed, and
the idea isn't that bad at all, as hardware would have it's own BIOS and
the OS doesn't need to support everything ever built. Plus, now we have
hindsight, I mean, we can choose to support only two or three network
cards, the most popular hard drive controllers (Don't know how they work
with the BIOS bypassed), and things of that nature. If you don't have the
supported hardware, you'd have to go to eBay and buy it :)
> Can ELKS be ported to *other* architectures that i86? Would it be feasible to
> use it on a modern, flat architecture like ARM?
I suppose at some point it would be easier to start from scratch, but I'm
sure some porting could be done.
Dan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-09-27 20:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-09-24 5:30 Help Wanted! Miguel Bolanos
2005-09-24 9:35 ` Hans
2005-09-24 19:43 ` Rex Walburn
2005-09-27 18:38 ` Hans
2005-09-27 19:10 ` Isaque Galdino
2005-09-27 20:13 ` David Given
2005-09-27 20:30 ` Dan Olson [this message]
2005-09-27 21:06 ` Hans
2005-09-27 21:48 ` David Given
2005-09-28 2:32 ` Rex Walburn
2005-09-28 12:45 ` Javier Sedano
2005-09-27 19:30 ` Dan Olson
2005-09-28 9:29 ` jb1
2005-09-28 15:30 ` Gregg C Levine
2005-09-29 9:14 ` jb1
2005-09-28 9:51 ` Alexander van Heukelum
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-09-28 16:33 hansydelm
2005-09-28 16:48 hansydelm
2006-02-01 22:33 Help Wanted? Cathal Mullaney
2006-02-01 22:57 ` Lee Revell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20050927132303.M61731@agora.rdrop.com \
--to=dano@agora.rdrop.com \
--cc=linux-8086@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.