From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins)
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux
Subject: Running linux in < 500kB
Date: 1 Mar 92 23:27:12 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
If someone's got the time and inclination, please modify the kernel so that
it can run in < 500kB RAM. No UNIX has any business using more than that.
Maybe better algorithms (that's what Coherent prides itself on, justifiably)
or something need to be used. If I have to go out and buy memory extensions,
then I might as well just save the trip and spend money on a Coherent or the
like.
The idea of free public domain software is to get something that can run on
most machines without having to spend any money. Far too many machines are
being excluded by the 2MB limitation.
From: S3679988@deimos.ucc.umass.edu (S3679988)
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Running linux in < 500kB
Date: 2 Mar 92 01:27:44 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Amherst
In-Reply-To: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu's message of Sun, 1 Mar 1992 23:27:12 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20
In <1992Mar1.232712.18444@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes:
> If someone's got the time and inclination, please modify the kernel so that
> it can run in < 500kB RAM. No UNIX has any business using more than that.
> Maybe better algorithms (that's what Coherent prides itself on, justifiably)
> or something need to be used. If I have to go out and buy memory extensions,
> then I might as well just save the trip and spend money on a Coherent or the
> like.
This would be nice, but, IMHO, the amount of time spend using virtual memory
would be almost absurd, its bad enough in 2MB.
> The idea of free public domain software is to get something that can run on
> most machines without having to spend any money. Far too many machines are
> being excluded by the 2MB limitation.
Please don't take this as a flame, i don't intend on it being that.
I feel that if we restrain the operating system form being able to take
advantage of some of the newer technologies that have come about over
the last few years (of note, the i386, and cheaper RAM).
I personally like hearing that the 8088, and 286 are finally being
acknowledged as being 'obsolete' -- IBM and Microsoft are making
their own operating systems, NT, and OS/2 -- which i am *sure*
will require more than 512K.
I feel that the time that would be spend hacking linux down to being
able to run in 512K would be better spend making it run X11,
distributed processing, or maybe do something we all haven't though
of. If we make it run in 512K, why not make it run on an 8088?
After all, countless amounts of those have been sold. Even if the kernel
were to run in 512K, what would you be able to use it for? emacs
loves memory, and gcc chews it like popcorn. In fact, windows doesn't
like 512K all that much. In then end, you would probably end up
upgrading your RAM (if not your cpu, also).
I agree with your point about using more efficient algorithms, but,
Linux is currenlt 0.12, and _anything_ at 0.12 that works is pretty
impressive (give yourself a pat, linus!). I would hope that by 1.0,
things start to settle down, and people start debating about which
algorithm should be used, as opposed to "$@#$ !! we need ??'s to
run X-cows".
Craig Hagan
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Running linux in < 500kB
Date: 2 Mar 92 16:47:55 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
In article <1992Mar2.012744.7387@nic.umass.edu> S3679988@deimos.ucc.umass.edu
(S3679988) writes:
>In <1992Mar1.232712.18444@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes:
>> If someone's got the time and inclination, please modify the kernel so that
>> it can run in < 500kB RAM. No UNIX has any business using more than that.
>> Maybe better algorithms (that's what Coherent prides itself on, justifiably)
>> or something need to be used. If I have to go out and buy memory extensions,
>> then I might as well just save the trip and spend money on a Coherent or the
>> like.
>This would be nice, but, IMHO, the amount of time spend using virtual memory
>would be almost absurd, its bad enough in 2MB.
>> The idea of free public domain software is to get something that can run on
>> most machines without having to spend any money. Far too many machines are
>> being excluded by the 2MB limitation.
>Please don't take this as a flame, i don't intend on it being that.
>I feel that if we restrain the operating system form being able to take
>advantage of some of the newer technologies that have come about over
>the last few years (of note, the i386, and cheaper RAM).
>I personally like hearing that the 8088, and 286 are finally being
>acknowledged as being 'obsolete' -- IBM and Microsoft are making
>their own operating systems, NT, and OS/2 -- which i am *sure*
>will require more than 512K.
>I feel that the time that would be spend hacking linux down to being
>able to run in 512K would be better spend making it run X11,
>distributed processing, or maybe do something we all haven't though
>of. If we make it run in 512K, why not make it run on an 8088?
>After all, countless amounts of those have been sold. Even if the kernel
>were to run in 512K, what would you be able to use it for? emacs
>loves memory, and gcc chews it like popcorn. In fact, windows doesn't
>like 512K all that much. In then end, you would probably end up
>upgrading your RAM (if not your cpu, also).
>I agree with your point about using more efficient algorithms, but,
>Linux is currenlt 0.12, and _anything_ at 0.12 that works is pretty
>impressive (give yourself a pat, linus!). I would hope that by 1.0,
>things start to settle down, and people start debating about which
>algorithm should be used, as opposed to "$@#$ !! we need ??'s to
>run X-cows".
Coherent might run on a 512k machine. The docs seem to say that you must
have at least 640k. The kernel seems to allocated about 250k of memory for
buffers and drivers. When I am expiring news and doing compiling and data
transfers simultaneously, I get up in the 3 to 3.5 meg area of memory usage.
I guees a 512k machine could be used if swapping was enabled, but it would
be like watching paint dry.
--
Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP unixland!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP
From: d_smith@csd.brispoly.ac.uk (Dylan Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Running linux in < 500kB
Date: 3 Mar 92 10:36:22 GMT
Organization: Bristol Polytechnic, England
In article <9203021147.56@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>Coherent might run on a 512k machine. The docs seem to say that you must
>have at least 640k. The kernel seems to allocated about 250k of memory for
>buffers and drivers. When I am expiring news and doing compiling and data
>transfers simultaneously, I get up in the 3 to 3.5 meg area of memory usage.
>I guees a 512k machine could be used if swapping was enabled, but it would
>be like watching paint dry.
True. People comparing coherent with Linux aren't comparing like with like.
Coherent is an inferior OS which can only run executables 64k or smaller,
where as Linux is a real UNIX in comparison.
--
Email : JANET d_smith@brispoly.csd | Everywhere else d_smith@csd.brispoly.ac.uk
FidoNet Address 2:252/204 | Data (v22/v22bis) phone 0491 875104
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Running linux in < 500kB
Date: 4 Mar 92 03:38:08 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
In article <1992Mar3.103622.21005@csd.brispoly.ac.uk> d_smith@csd.brispoly.ac.uk
(Dylan Smith) writes:
>In article <9203021147.56@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>Coherent might run on a 512k machine. The docs seem to say that you must
>>have at least 640k. The kernel seems to allocated about 250k of memory for
>>buffers and drivers. When I am expiring news and doing compiling and data
>>transfers simultaneously, I get up in the 3 to 3.5 meg area of memory usage.
>>I guees a 512k machine could be used if swapping was enabled, but it would
>>be like watching paint dry.
>True. People comparing coherent with Linux aren't comparing like with like.
>Coherent is an inferior OS which can only run executables 64k or smaller,
>where as Linux is a real UNIX in comparison.
I wouldn't exactly call Coherent inferior, it just has different goals.
Coherent 286 is a good implementation of Version 7, while Linux is coming
up to speed as an implementation of SYSTEM V. Coherent 386 will be more
of a SYSV os, and will ship with all the tools that it has currently.
Back in 1981 there was a UNIX clone that ran on the 8088 called Coherent.
A guy named Andrew Tannenbaum decided that he wanted to develop a UNIX-like
os for teaching purposes. The development platform was Coherent. In 1991
a guy named Linus Torvald decided he was sick of Minix and wrote Linux using
Minix as the development platform. At some point, someone will decide that
they can write a much better kernel than Linux. And they will use Linux as
the development platform.
Coherent -> Minix -> Linux -> ?
There has to be a certain amount of sophistication at every level to develop
something that surpasses the previous generation.
--
Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP unixland!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP
From: kjb@cs.vu.nl (Kees J. Bot)
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Running linux in < 500kB
Date: 5 Mar 92 10:09:56 GMT
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>Back in 1981 there was a UNIX clone that ran on the 8088 called Coherent.
>A guy named Andrew Tannenbaum decided that he wanted to develop a UNIX-like
>os for teaching purposes. The development platform was Coherent.
Sorry to spoil your fun, Andy used PC-IX.
>Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP unixland!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP
--
Kees J. Bot (kjb@cs.vu.nl)
Systems Programmer, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Running linux in < 500kB
Date: 6 Mar 92 03:40:14 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
In article <13201@star.cs.vu.nl> kjb@cs.vu.nl (Kees J. Bot) writes:
>rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>Back in 1981 there was a UNIX clone that ran on the 8088 called Coherent.
>>A guy named Andrew Tannenbaum decided that he wanted to develop a UNIX-like
>>os for teaching purposes. The development platform was Coherent.
>Sorry to spoil your fun, Andy used PC-IX.
Could be. I got my information from somebody at Mark Williams ( developers
of Coherent ).
The interesting thing about Coherent, is that it is a fairly substantial
package on processors other that 80x86. There have been versions that run
on 68xxx and Z8001, where it was a full 32 bit OS. They chose small memory
mode on the 80286 because it is so brain damaged.
Coherent 386 is alive and kicking, and will be here before long. I will wait
patiently for it, as I use Coherent as a production system.
But I might buy a 386SX system and throw Linux on it. I just wish that I
didn't have to load MSDROSS first.
--
Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP unixland!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP
From: drew@cs.colorado.edu (Drew Eckhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Running linux in < 500kB
Date: 6 Mar 92 08:02:58 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder
Nntp-Posting-Host: caesar.cs.colorado.edu
In article <9203052240.04@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>
>But I might buy a 386SX system and throw Linux on it. I just wish that I
>didn't have to load MSDROSS first.
>
You don't have to. Linux loads the kernel from floppy (Between 150K and 190K
depending on which patches have been applied - so it's not that slow, and
if you want Shoelace will boot it off a hard disk) and then mounts its
root file system from wherever. DOS is no where in the picture.
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux
From: r36110m@kaira.hut.fi (Mika Matti Jalava)
Subject: Re: Running linux in < 500kB
Nntp-Posting-Host: kaira.hut.fi
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1992 11:38:50 GMT
In article <1992Mar6.080258.29908@colorado.edu> drew@cs.colorado.edu (Drew Eckhardt)
writes:
>You don't have to. Linux loads the kernel from floppy (Between 150K and 190K
>depending on which patches have been applied - so it's not that slow, and
>if you want Shoelace will boot it off a hard disk) and then mounts its
>root file system from wherever. DOS is no where in the picture.
How do you partition the hard disk without any other OS? DOS is not
necessary, but if you don't want to use it, you'll need some other,
even much more expensive OS to prepare the system to take linux on the
HD.
Mika
From: drew@cs.colorado.edu (Drew Eckhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Running linux in < 500kB
Date: 8 Mar 92 02:59:38 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder
Nntp-Posting-Host: ladymacb.cs.colorado.edu
In article <1992Mar7.113850.6816@nntp.hut.fi> r36110m@kaira.hut.fi
(Mika Matti Jalava) writes:
>In article <1992Mar6.080258.29908@colorado.edu> drew@cs.colorado.edu
(Drew Eckhardt) writes:
>
>>You don't have to. Linux loads the kernel from floppy (Between 150K and 190K
>>depending on which patches have been applied - so it's not that slow, and
>>if you want Shoelace will boot it off a hard disk) and then mounts its
>>root file system from wherever. DOS is no where in the picture.
>
>How do you partition the hard disk without any other OS? DOS is not
>necessary, but if you don't want to use it, you'll need some other,
>even much more expensive OS to prepare the system to take linux on the
>HD.
>
That's nitpicking. The point I was making was that once Linux is up,
no other operating system is required.
However, technically, it is possible to partition the hard disk from within
Linux, although I wouldn't want to do it myself. You could use dd on the
raw hard disk device to modify the partition table.
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux
From: r36110m@kaira.hut.fi (Mika Matti Jalava)
Subject: Re: Running linux in < 500kB
Nntp-Posting-Host: kaira.hut.fi
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1992 06:47:23 GMT
In article <1992Mar8.025938.618@colorado.edu> drew@cs.colorado.edu
(Drew Eckhardt) writes:
[my comment about partitioning removed]
>That's nitpicking. The point I was making was that once Linux is up,
>no other operating system is required.
Yes, you are right. But I meant that you DO need another system (or a
real hack) to bring it up, and it would be preferable to be able to
buy a PC, get linux diskettes and go without ANY proprietary software
(OK, you need BIOS to boot...). But I suppose it won't take long
before someone writes a working fdisk for linux that does the job
(I've seen someone here post about it).
Mika
From: bir7@leland.Stanford.EDU (Ross Biro)
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Running linux in < 500kB
Date: 8 Mar 92 18:23:52 GMT
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
In article <1992Mar8.064723.21533@nntp.hut.fi> r36110m@kaira.hut.fi
(Mika Matti Jalava) writes:
>
>Yes, you are right. But I meant that you DO need another system (or a
>real hack) to bring it up, and it would be preferable to be able to
>buy a PC, get linux diskettes and go without ANY proprietary software
>(OK, you need BIOS to boot...). But I suppose it won't take long
>before someone writes a working fdisk for linux that does the job
>(I've seen someone here post about it).
>
On a related note, after we get to version 1.0 and everything
seems ok, has anyone considered distributing linux through some of the
share ware places. Imagine the adds they could run: Why pay $1200
for Unix when you can get it for $20 and give it to all of your friends.
Ross Biro bir7@leland.stanford.edu