From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 8 01:40:30 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7486016A402 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2007 01:40:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from emailrob@emailrob.com) Received: from green.dls.net (green.dls.net [209.242.20.70]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 508F913C45D for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2007 01:40:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from emailrob@emailrob.com) Received: from emailrob.com (216-145-235-166.rev.dls.net [216.145.235.166]) by green.dls.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0AD0411AA4 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2007 20:40:30 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <46183A02.4030006@emailrob.com> Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 01:40:34 +0100 From: spellberg_robert User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: fbsd_chat References: <46180A09.5020003@gmail.com> <46180799.5070400@emailrob.com> <4618366C.60200@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: what can i do with a 486? X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 01:40:30 -0000 ok - first, you have what des said and what i said back. that covers most of this [ must've crossed in the mail ]. all i'm doing is removing anything i don't recognize [ i am a minimalist at heart ], but my needs aren't necessarily the same as yours. as for 4.3 compatibility, i don't remember just what it is; but, i think it's a workaround for a bug in 4.3bsd, where fixing the bug would break subsequently written apps and there are too many written apps still in use out there to fix [ or some such ]. it says to keep it; i've never argued. i don't remember access control lists or threads being around back during 486 days. fix the earliest occurring error first as subsequent errors may be spurious [ i've known this since fortran in the 1970's, but i still forget on occasion ]. the first time i did this was maybe five years ago. it was a lot of trial and error. once i got most of what i didn't have or need out of the way and it worked, i left it alone and smiled quietly to myself. you've pretty much taken out everything; i really don't think i can tell you much else. i --can-- tell you this, however. about half of the planet is in the middle of observing something major. if you are in that half, have a happy. if not, well - any excuse for a party, dude! [ hmmm, i wonder if scotch is kosher for pesach. i gave up drinking, so i don't remember. ] rob ps --- i was about to send this when i had a thought. i make absolutely --no-- claim that this is a good idea, but, to me, it's plausible. my thinking is that there is less code. on the other hand, it may introduce a different set of unpleasantries. instead of trying to put 6.x on the 486, what if you backed off and tried something younger ? looking at my shelf, i see that my latest version of the versions is 3.5.1, 4.11, 5.5 and 6.2 [ i also have some 2's, but ... ]. as an example, if 3.5.1 works, try 4.11. if that works, try 5.5 [ iirc, 5.0 and 5.1 are bogus ]. if that works, maybe it's good enough. if 3.5.1 works and 4.11 doesn't work, split the difference and try 4.6. you get the idea. like i said, it's a thought. deeptech71@gmail.com wrote: > spellberg_robert wrote: > >> take out absolutely --everything-- not related to >> the hard_drive, the keyboard and the crt, >> even though there are other things that are important, >> like networking. >> if you can't get this to come up, >> it may be time for a good scotch and some wistful memories. >> >> kill the remaining pseudo_devices. >> do you need kbdmux in the console ? > > > Problem is: what's that? OK, redunant, removed, period. > >> ADAPTIVE_GIANT ? PREEMPTION ? INET ? UFS_ACL ? SCSI_DELAY ? >> KBD_INSTALL_CDEV ? > > > OK ... I don't know what these (exactly) are, but: # > Don't know if removing SCSI_DELAY will save me more than an sizeof( > integer ) :) > In this case, what about FBSD3.4compat? > >> you get the idea. >> once you get it working, you can always add things back, one at a time. >> when it fails, you know your limit. > > > It's true the other way around. When I remove something, it gives a > compile time error. These include: 'undefined reference to myfunc()', > and something like #error "Huh? ppp without INET?". Maybe removing all > at once will stop their cross references. > >> i do admire your stick_to_it_iveness. >> but, remember, new two_year old technology is pretty cheap, >> when you can find it. >> >> can't promise this will work. >> hope it helps. > > > HTX yo > >> rob > >