Re: Re: Inactivity timeouts
By: Knight to Poindexter Fortran on Fri Apr 22 2016 18:18:54

This is identical to my timeline/experience. I put minix on the same system, and maybe even an 8088 (I think minix worked on 8088, but the linux kernel did NOT). I put that 20MB MFM harddrive to good use.

Yeah Minix worked on an 8088, I had it running on an Epson Equity I XT for awhile. I don't remember if the version with the virtual memory patches worked on it or not, though. I had a 30MB RLL on that one. ;)

-D/K

---
Borg Burgers: We do it our way; your way is irrelevant.
þ Synchronet þ Tinfoil Tetrahedron BBS telnet://tinfoil.synchro.net

Re: Minix, etc
By: Khelair to Knight on Sat Apr 23 2016 12:27 am

Yeah Minix worked on an 8088, I had it running on an Epson Equity I XT for awhile. I don't remember if the version with the virtual memory patches worked on it or not, though. I had a 30MB RLL on that one. ;)

OH that's right. It was the 0.1 kernel (~ 1990 IIRC) that wouldn't run on the 8088, so I had to use minix on that system instead. I was able to use Linux on my 286 though.

Oooh, RLL, I never got one of those.

Knight

---
þ Synchronet þ The Phunc BBS -- Back from the dead! -- telnet to bbs.phunc.com

Re: Minix, etc
By: Knight to Khelair on Sat Apr 23 2016 10:15:26

OH that's right. It was the 0.1 kernel (~ 1990 IIRC) that wouldn't run on the 8088, so I had to use minix on that system instead. I was able to use Linux on my 286 though.

Wait the 0.1 kernel for Linux? Wow I thought I was pretty special just for starting out with 1.0.x. Heh. So those 0.x kernels would run on a 286? I thought that the Linux kernel always didn't handle working with anything less than a 386DX, but that could well just have been a misunderstanding, or maybe it only applied to the 1.x+ kernels.

Oooh, RLL, I never got one of those.

It was great, I really miss that thing. It sounded like a Chinook helicopter starting up, then the access sounds were this great little soft bonking sound that I really miss. Heh. I get nostalgic over some weird things, I suppose. Anyway RLL was just an MFM drive that was compressed for an extra 50% of storage space, if I remember correctly, with compression done by the controller.

-D/K

---
Borg Burgers: We do it our way; your way is irrelevant.
þ Synchronet þ Tinfoil Tetrahedron BBS telnet://tinfoil.synchro.net

Re: Minix, etc
By: Knight to Khelair on Sat Apr 23 2016 10:15 am

Linux on my 286 though.

Linux always needed a 80386 or better processor.

Maybe you are thinking of ELKS?

http://elks.sourceforge.net/

The 286 was such a major screw up, it really held the industry back. Even in the OS/2 days we all 'learned' that Microsoft was the bad guy, but then this ancient OS/2 prototype called 'football' shows OS/2 using the 386's ability to run multiple VDM's at once.

http://www.os2museum.com/wp/playing-football/


Intel dropped the ball with the 80286, and IBM just followed suit with the IBM AT. Dark times indeed.

---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ telnet://vert.synchro.net

Re: Re: Minix, etc
By: Khelair to Knight on Sat Apr 23 2016 03:16 pm

Wait the 0.1 kernel for Linux? Wow I thought I was pretty special just for starting out with 1.0.x. Heh. So those 0.x kernels would run on a 286? I thought that the Linux kernel always didn't handle working with anything less than a 386DX, but that could well just have been a misunderstanding, or maybe it only applied to the 1.x+ kernels.

No, you are correct the Linux kernel has always been an 80386 or better thing. Yes it'd run on the 80386s, I used to run X11 on one, and it was insanley slow.

You can check out all the old linux stuff on http://www.oldlinux.org/

And if you want some crazy old linux fun on Windows, check this out: http://virtuallyfun.superglobalmegacorp.com/2015/10/09/building-linux-0-11-on-w indows-10/

It's a gcc 1.37 cross compiler that'll compile Linux 0.11 . It's the first real 'usuable' version of Linux, even though its much linux 32v or early Xenix. Don't even dream about TCP/IP.. or a login program!

---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ telnet://vert.synchro.net

Neozeed wrote to Knight <=-

The 286 was such a major screw up, it really held the industry back.
Even in the OS/2 days we all 'learned' that Microsoft was the bad guy,
but then this ancient OS/2 prototype called 'football' shows OS/2 using the 386's ability to run multiple VDM's at once.

Yes, the 80286 was not much chop, the 386, OTOH, was a decent chip.


... If you can't laugh at yourself, make fun of other people.
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49
þ Synchronet þ Freeway BBS in Bendigo, Australia.

Neozeed wrote to Khelair <=-

No, you are correct the Linux kernel has always been an 80386 or better thing. Yes it'd run on the 80386s, I used to run X11 on one, and it was insanley slow.

My first Linux box was a 386 with 4M RAM. Took 6 hours to compile the kernel, and X was practically unusabe. :)


... These are the voyages of the starchip Enterkey...
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49
þ Synchronet þ Freeway BBS in Bendigo, Australia.

Re: Re: Minix, etc
By: Vk3jed to Neozeed on Sun Apr 24 2016 09:16 pm

My first Linux box was a 386 with 4M RAM. Took 6 hours to compile the kernel, and X was practically unusabe. :)

I was lucky back then, I may have had crap hardware, but I did have a seperate controll and disk for swapping. It made things notibly better compared to people who ran their OS and swap on the same disk.

now I have a laptop with 16GB of ram, with a swap file... the more things change, the more they stay the same...

---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ telnet://vert.synchro.net

Re: Re: Minix, etc
By: Vk3jed to Neozeed on Sun Apr 24 2016 09:16 pm

Neozeed wrote to Khelair <=-

No, you are correct the Linux kernel has always been an 80386 or
better thing. Yes it'd run on the 80386s, I used to run X11 on one,
and it was insanley slow.

My first Linux box was a 386 with 4M RAM. Took 6 hours to compile the kernel, and X was practically unusabe. :)

why did you run it on such an outdated computer? a 386 was pretty much useless at that time and you could have got a pentium.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Neozeed wrote to Vk3jed <=-

I was lucky back then, I may have had crap hardware, but I did have a seperate controll and disk for swapping. It made things notibly better compared to people who ran their OS and swap on the same disk.

Yes, that would have been a lot better, a lot less thrashing. :)

now I have a laptop with 16GB of ram, with a swap file... the more
things change, the more they stay the same...

I don't have a lot of swap files on Linux, heaps of RAM and SD cards tends to move one away from running swap. :)


... This tagline is restricted to day VFR use only.
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49
þ Synchronet þ Freeway BBS in Bendigo, Australia.

Mro wrote to Vk3jed <=-

why did you run it on such an outdated computer? a 386 was pretty much useless at that time and you could have got a pentium.

A little thing called money. Pentiums were still fairly new then, and quite pricey, and I was doing this on a shoestring budget. No Raspberry Pis to buy cheaply! :)


... What a man needs in gardening is a cast iron back with a hinge in it.
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49
þ Synchronet þ Freeway BBS in Bendigo, Australia.

Re: Re: Minix, etc
By: Khelair to Knight on Sat Apr 23 2016 03:16 pm

Wait the 0.1 kernel for Linux? Wow I thought I was pretty special just for starting out with 1.0.x. Heh. So those 0.x kernels would run on a 286? I thought that the Linux kernel always didn't handle working with anything less than a 386DX, but that could well just have been a misunderstanding, or maybe it only applied to the 1.x+ kernels.

That might be true. This was like 25 years ago, so I certainly could have it wrong. I certainly had Linux running on my 486 several years later too.

Linux kernel 0.1 was a pain in the ass, because there was no distro around it. You had to build your userland from scratch. It took me a full week to get it working without crashing the first time I gave it a go.

Knight

---
þ Synchronet þ The Phunc BBS -- Back from the dead! -- telnet to bbs.phunc.com

Re: Re: Minix, etc
By: Vk3jed to Neozeed on Sun Apr 24 2016 09:16 pm

My first Linux box was a 386 with 4M RAM. Took 6 hours to compile the kernel, and X was practically unusabe. :)

Yep! And remember recompiling the kernel multiple times due to a kluged configuration (an ah ha moment that you forgot to enable the soundcard driver, or whatever). But it was always a little exciting.

Knight

---
þ Synchronet þ The Phunc BBS -- Back from the dead! -- telnet to bbs.phunc.com

Knight wrote to Vk3jed <=-

Re: Re: Minix, etc
By: Vk3jed to Neozeed on Sun Apr 24 2016 09:16 pm

My first Linux box was a 386 with 4M RAM. Took 6 hours to compile the kernel, and X was practically unusabe. :)

Yep! And remember recompiling the kernel multiple times due to a kluged configuration (an ah ha moment that you forgot to enable the soundcard driver, or whatever). But it was always a little exciting.

Yes, you had to compile the kernel in those days, ot spend 5-10 minutes waiting for the stock kernel to probe non existent devices. :) No such thing as kernel modules in those days, I think they arrived with the 2.0.x series, IIRC. :)


... A crises is when you CAN'T say let's forget about the whole thing!
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49
þ Synchronet þ Freeway BBS in Bendigo, Australia.

Re: Re: Minix, etc
By: Khelair to Knight on Sat Apr 23 2016 03:16 pm

things, I suppose. Anyway RLL was just an MFM drive that was compressed for an extra 50% of storage space, if I remember correctly, with compression done by the controller.

RLL wrote more sectors per track than MFM. Somf MFM drives worked, most RLL drives were just MFM drives that met the MFM spec. :)

---
þ Synchronet þ realitycheckBBS -- http://realitycheckBBS.org

Re: Re: Minix, etc
By: Vk3jed to Neozeed on Sun Apr 24 2016 09:14 pm

Yes, the 80286 was not much chop, the 386, OTOH, was a decent chip.

The AMD 386es were no slouches. My 386/40s felt like they held their own against the first 486SX chips.

---
þ Synchronet þ realitycheckBBS -- http://realitycheckBBS.org

Poindexter Fortran wrote to Vk3jed <=-

Re: Re: Minix, etc
By: Vk3jed to Neozeed on Sun Apr 24 2016 09:14 pm

Yes, the 80286 was not much chop, the 386, OTOH, was a decent chip.

The AMD 386es were no slouches. My 386/40s felt like they held their
own against the first 486SX chips.

There were some good 386s around, the 40 MHz ones used to fly in their day. I think my 386 was a 25 MHz processor from memory (it was 20 years ago! ;) ).


... I stayed in a really old hotel last night. They sent me a wake-up letter. --- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49
þ Synchronet þ Freeway BBS in Bendigo, Australia.

Poindexter Fortran wrote to Khelair <=-

RLL wrote more sectors per track than MFM. Somf MFM drives worked, most RLL drives were just MFM drives that met the MFM spec. :)

I did run RLL for a while, and it worked fine. The extra 50% storage was handy. :)


... Join Taglines Anonymous. We can help.
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49
þ Synchronet þ Freeway BBS in Bendigo, Australia.

The AMD 386es were no slouches. My 386/40s felt like they held their own against the first 486SX chips.

I remember my 386/40. That was an awesome motherboard/CPU combo back in the day. It could typically outperform a 486SX CPU. I believe it was an AMD chip if I remember correctly.

Have always been an AMD fan for custom builds.

- Mark

--- WWIVToss v.1.51
* Origin: http://www.weather-station.org * Bel Air, MD -USA (33:1/3.0)
þ Synchronet þ curmudge.hopto.org

Re: Re: Minix, etc
By: Mro to Vk3jed on Sun Apr 24 2016 10:08 am

why did you run it on such an outdated computer? a 386 was pretty much useless at that time and you could have got a pentium.

A pentium in 1993? Those cost some serious money man!

I didn't get a pentium until 96 for quake.

---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ telnet://vert.synchro.net

Re: Re: Minix, etc
By: Mro to Vk3jed on Sun Apr 24 2016 10:08 am

why did you run it on such an outdated computer? a 386 was pretty much useless at that time and you could have got a pentium.

A pentium in 1993? that cost some serious money back then!

---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ telnet://vert.synchro.net