Slashdot Mirror


Linux On a Motorola 68000 Solder-less Breadboard

New submitter lars_stefan_axelsson writes: When I was an undergrad in the eighties, "building" a computer meant that you got a bunch of chips and a soldering iron and went to work. The art is still alive today, but instead of a running BASIC interpreter as the ultimate proof of success, today the crowning achievement is getting Linux to run: "What does it take to build a little 68000-based protoboard computer, and get it running Linux? In my case, about three weeks of spare time, plenty of coffee, and a strong dose of stubbornness. After banging my head against the wall with problems ranging from the inductance of pushbutton switches to memory leaks in the C standard library, it finally works! (video)"

147 comments

  1. Pretty cool by Virtucon · · Score: 3, Funny

    Beats playing Assassins Creed all day.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    1. Re:Pretty cool by u38cg · · Score: 1

      AAAARGH vi

      I think this should be a meme.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
  2. Re:LOL fag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    No, a Wang would be based on the older 8086 processor, this machine uses a 68000.

  3. Awesome by Troed · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hats off. The 68000 was the first CPU owned (Atari ST) and I had a good six years of assembly skills behind me when it was finally time to leave. Awesome CPU for the kind of magic demo tricks only hard core assembler coding could bring out.

    Relevant discussion: http://compgroups.net/comp.os....

    1. Re:Awesome by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Hats off.

      Indeed. This is the kind of story I like to see here now and then, although I was surprised that the headline didn't start off with "10 year old genius builds super computer on a bread board..." as has been the trend here.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:Awesome by MrBingoBoingo · · Score: 1

      Honestly I'd like to see something like this, replace the RPi as the cheap computer being offered as a learning platform. Let the kids play with the assembler.

    3. Re:Awesome by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      Hats off.

      Indeed. This is the kind of story I like to see here now and then, although I was surprised that the headline didn't start off with "10 year old genius builds super computer on a bread board..." as has been the trend here.

      I remember taking logic gate classes in University using Motorola 68000 chips and assembler. It gave me a decent understanding of how things work at the hardware level vs the abstracted software level.

    4. Re:Awesome by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      Kudos.

      The first computer I built used a 6809 and ran either Flex or a homebrew monitor.

      I have PLENTY of experience with AMOS on 68k systems. As Caroll Oconnor and Jean Stapleton sang: "Those were the days!"

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    5. Re:Awesome by bhlowe · · Score: 1

      Awesome indeed. Hacking 68000 machine code back in the day was good times. Anyone remember TMON? And before 68K, there was 6809s... I might be dating myself.

    6. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get them a C64 or an Amiga.. those are a dime a dozen nowadays.

    7. Re:Awesome by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      This is indeed awesome. The 68000 assembly language being relatively easier to learn than the 8086 family for instance, and the resources involved being relatively small (13 yo Linux and 512k!), it seems the whole project should be easier to comprehend than nowadays complex CPUs/OSes. That would be really great if you could build a detailed "How-to", explaining everything from scratch, with photos.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    8. Re:Awesome by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      Its probably just as cheap as buying a Raspberry Pi or clone. Its probably more useful to start out on assembler with a fully functional computer unit like the RPi. I would see doing assembler on a 6502 more like "embedded" programming, and that's going to be a lost art at some point in the next decade. (The low end with the FPGAs/ASICs and the high end with Artificial Intelligence will eat up most of the market.)

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    9. Re:Awesome by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      68000? Easier than 8086, absolutely, but probably not easier than ARM. People should be learning assembler on an RPi, or clone, or arduino.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    10. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > 68000? Easier than 8086, absolutely, but probably not easier than ARM

      Having done both, I think 68k is easier. YMMV.

    11. Re:Awesome by vfr840 · · Score: 1

      We ran our motorcycle store on AMOS for nearly 20 years starting in 1981. I have fond memories of 68k assembly language and AlphaBasic with external assembly language subroutines much like dlls today. AlphaBasic was compiled to byte-code similar to Java many years before Java.

    12. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMHO, Motorola 68k series had a better assembly syntax than ARM. The "move.l d0, (a0)+" might be easier to read and write than "LDR R0, [R3, #4]!", but both are quite easy to learn anyway. What makes it so fun to work with both is that the instruction syntax always tells what are the affected registers and one does not need to remember what are the side effects of each instruction.

  4. Re:How is this "News for Nerds"? by TWX · · Score: 2

    If Slashdot is going to drop one or the other, I'd much rather they drop the News aspect than the Nerds aspect.

    About fifteen years ago I had a Macintosh Centris 660AV running Linux, just as an experiment. I kind of wish that I still had that computer; it had an AUI port so I could adapt to 10Base-T Ethernet, and could have redirected all incoming unsolicited network connections to it. Let 'em hack it; with no compiler, all binaries for m68K only, and 16.9 bogoMIPS it would have made for an entertaining honeypot.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  5. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  6. You need to create the tutorial by victorsosa · · Score: 2

    Hi, Awesome and well done. You should think in create a tutorial for us that want to build something like that and have some fun in the weekend. I could learn a lot from this.

    1. Re:You need to create the tutorial by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can't imagine the tutorial needed for something like this. To do something like this takes a lot of skill and knowledge. If you managed it you would have learned a lot and it'd take more than a weekend.

    2. Re:You need to create the tutorial by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      He could still release it as open source to allow for a "kit" which could be assembled over a weekend without properly understanding how it works internally.

    3. Re:You need to create the tutorial by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Recently I was looking for some assembly language info for the original Altair (the first microcomputer), and I came across this. It was a different kind of assembly than I was expecting, it looks like some kind of Ikea manual but much worse. Apparently it cost twice as much to get it assembled, instead of merely a box of parts.

      Then after you were done, you had 256 bytes of RAM, and no keyboard.

      In any case, if you look at that, it will give you the imagination needed for a tutorial for something like this.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re: You need to create the tutorial by jones_supa · · Score: 2

      But it's the perfect match for a modern microsecond-long attention span.

    5. Re:You need to create the tutorial by NixieBunny · · Score: 1

      The whole point of this exercise is that there *isn't* a tutorial.

      Learn by doing!

      --
      The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
    6. Re: You need to create the tutorial by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Don't feed the troll. There are plenty of useful reasons why you would want to release this in a kit form. Simply taking a look at the Arduino development platform and more specifically how it's used is a great example. Some of the projects make engineers shudder. I.e. using an Arduino as a configurable timer that pulses at regular intervals. Yes we could bust out the soldering iron a 555 timer or a bistable resonator, but while a lot of those engineers are still looking for the right value of resistor to put in, the microsecond-long attention span crowd have their project already working.

      You don't NEED to understand everything about something to make great use of it.

  7. Outstanding by mrflash818 · · Score: 2

    Kudos.

    --
    Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
  8. Re:You are standing at the end of a road .... by OzPeter · · Score: 2

    You are standing at the end of a road before a small brick building.
    Around you is a forest. A small stream flows out of the building and
    down a gully...

    xyzzy

    Bah .. kids these days.

    I smell a wumpus

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  9. ICs? by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

    You're just using the breadboard to connect a bunch of ICs.
    Bust out the designs for those IC's, wire the components up discretely, then I'll be impressed.
    Granted, you'll likely have no room left in your house for your bed or furniture... but that's not my problem :-p

    (I'm just being snarky, well done man)

    1. Re:ICs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was kind of what i was thinking. Then I remembered all those people that are so proud of themselves because they can "build" computers by clicking all the parts together in a case. This guy is doing alright!

    2. Re:ICs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's not that simple, you need to know to put the memory modules where the manual says to in order to get dual channel. and you need to know which PCIe slots have the best bandwidth to put your video card there, and you need to know how to add a bunch of numbers together to pick how big your PSU is, which actually isn't as easy at it sounds because very few components actually list how much power they use

    3. Re:ICs? by NixieBunny · · Score: 1

      There's a guy who took it a step further back and built a custom CPU out of TTL. He also made up his own architecture and instruction set and compiler and OS and application programs...

      http://www.homebrewcpu.com/

      --
      The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
    4. Re:ICs? by itzly · · Score: 1

      With an FPGA eval board, you can do very similar stuff, but with a single chip.

    5. Re:ICs? by quenda · · Score: 1

      You could kind-of build your own architecture on a breadboard using bit-slice chips.
      Each chip does 4 bits of ALU. Put your own microcode in EEPROM, some high speed registers, lots of glue, ...
      Not quite the same as discrete logic, but more achievable at home.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

  10. Thanks for crashing my web server! by schamberlin · · Score: 5, Informative

    Thanks for all the comments! This "68 Katy" is my project. The video is a good overview, and lots more tech details are at http://bigmessowires.com/2014/... and the rest of the site. I've built a couple of other home-made CPU / computer projects in the past, including "Big Mess o' Wires" a few years ago, but this was the first time I tried to add a real OS. Cramming Linux into 512K was a challenge!

    The CPU is a 68008, which is a low cost version of the familiar 68000 with an 8-bit bus and fewer external address pins. It has a max of 1 MB of total address space. It’s paired with a 512K 8-bit SRAM, and a 512K Flash ROM (of which 480K is addressable – the remaining 32K is memory-mapped I/O devices). My 68008 runs at 2 MHz (it was unstable when tested at 4 MHz), providing similar performance to a 1 MHz 68000. That’s pretty slow, even in comparison to 68000 systems from the early 1980s, which were typically 8 MHz or faster. So frame rates in the latest games aren't great...

    1. Re:Thanks for crashing my web server! by Technician · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm surprised he got it to run that fast. AM radio in the US broadcasts from about .5 to 1.5 Mhz. Without a ground plane and shielding, there is a lot of coupling between wires. I bet he can't listen to any distant AM radio stations in the same room with that running.

      Good job getting a breadboard computer to clock over 1MHZ.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    2. Re:Thanks for crashing my web server! by nsaspook · · Score: 3, Informative

      +1
      but I hate to tell you that it won't help with getting dates.

      --
      In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
    3. Re:Thanks for crashing my web server! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It seems like the hard part would be getting Linux to run on such a small machine. That's what impresses me the most, that you managed to do it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Thanks for crashing my web server! by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I think when I watched the video it seemed like you could get another four times the processor power just by stopping the blinking LEDs though? ;)

    5. Re:Thanks for crashing my web server! by NixieBunny · · Score: 1

      This is a very impressive feat. I am old enough to have done stuff like this regularly in my early career, as PCs didn't exist at the time. I figured that no one bothered to build systems themselves and port OSes to them these days.

      --
      The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
    6. Re:Thanks for crashing my web server! by hax4bux · · Score: 1

      +1 Inspiring

    7. Re:Thanks for crashing my web server! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      There are plenty of nerds that would love to hang out Friday or Saturday night and talk about his 68000 and other geekiness...

      Oh, you mean "with a girl" kind of date?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    8. Re:Thanks for crashing my web server! by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Thanks for crashing my web server! (Score:5, Informative)

      - you are welcome, but you may want to reconsider running your web server on your vanilla 68 Katy, I suggest adding a turbo mode for that :)

    9. Re:Thanks for crashing my web server! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm surprised he got it to run that fast. AM radio in the US broadcasts from about .5 to 1.5 Mhz. Without a ground plane and shielding, there is a lot of coupling between wires. I bet he can't listen to any distant AM radio stations in the same room with that running.

      I can't listen to many AM radio stations with my high end LG monitor running either. They saved some steel and used plastic instead.

    10. Re:Thanks for crashing my web server! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure it can; julian even

    11. Re:Thanks for crashing my web server! by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      I thought the Y2K problem was solved over a decade ago? What kind of help do you need with dates?

    12. Re:Thanks for crashing my web server! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for crashing my web server! (Score:5, Informative)

      - you are welcome, but you may want to reconsider running your web server on your vanilla 68 Katy, I suggest adding a turbo mode for that :)

      Don't you know what a turbo mode actually does? Holy shit. You need to taper down on your scripture readings and get back to reading some fundamental technical literature before you make yourself look like any more of a buffoon.

      Or to put it in terms you might be more likely to understand - your appalling lack of knowledge could cost you money.

    13. Re:Thanks for crashing my web server! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      First off, wow. Linux from base chips on a solderless breadboard is incredibly impressive!

      For some reason I also love the 555 timer interrupt :)

      My 68008 runs at 2 MHz (it was unstable when tested at 4 MHz), providing similar performance to a 1 MHz 68000.

      Any ideas why? Is it the 68008, the PAL chips or some other things?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    14. Re:Thanks for crashing my web server! by ZeroWaiteState · · Score: 1

      To get dates you would need an RTC, but they come in several form factors.

    15. Re:Thanks for crashing my web server! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mine (the original - that this author forgot to credit) runs at 16MHz on a breadboard - not that impressive...
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJmPS3jMwD4

  11. Re:LOL fag by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hell, we finally get an actual geek article on slashdot and this is the response? Take your penis envy somewhere else.

  12. Re:LOL fag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are trolling the wrong site if you think that this isn't the kind of submission that belongs here. I suggest you look to your future and concentrate on doing something productive for the time that will come when your mother kicks you out of her basement.

  13. Blast from the past! by TigerNut · · Score: 1

    I built a 68000 based single board computer using parts from Motorola's M68000 development kit (or whatever that was called - it included a M68000, M68010, M68008, a couple of other 68k family peripherals, and a ream of documentation) as part of my master's thesis. Did a two-sided PCB with photoresist boards and hand-drilled and wired vias. The big difference then and now is the size of memory you can get in a single device - I was using 16K or 32K EPROMs and static RAM devices because that was pretty much the largest device available at the time (at reasonable cost, anyway - like $25 per chip). In your case if you're going forward with the full M68000 plan then I'd push forward with a real PCB. Those solderless breadboards really have horrible pin-to-pin capacitance and the inductance of all your wiring is going to give you nightmares. Nowadays you can lay out a board using free or cheapware tools and get a local shop to fab it (or you can do your own etching for the true back-to-the-80's experience) and you'll have something that's robust and repeatable. Good luck!

    --

    Less is more.

    1. Re:Blast from the past! by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of this old article:

      Bringing Up A Surplus 68000 Board - Micro Cornucopia, p. 28

      I miss that magazine and the old Byte.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  14. Re:You are standing at the end of a road .... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    Woe to ye that goeth about saying "Hello Sailor."

  15. Re:How is this "News for Nerds"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ideally they could raise the standard for what constitutes "news", leaving more room for super-nerdy chit-chat where we actually get to learn something.

  16. Excellent! by drGreg · · Score: 1

    I too am glad to see more of the nerd and less of the news. I've been encouraging my boys using the book, 'From Transitors to Tetris' (don't have the exact title as the book isn't handy).

    This is an important, fundamental skill - knowing how the technology works and not just picking up a game boy and playing for hours (back in my day that was the reward for building a system).

    xyzzy

  17. "it finally works!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great!! Have this guy come over and fixing the messaging system! It's totally broken.

  18. Re:LOL fag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are stupid.

  19. Can it run Crysis by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

    I am sure it will fly through through an emulator

    1. Re:Can it run Crysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally we can get a TAS playthrough of Crisis. At one frame per century, you'll eventually get to the end when a giant rotating 42 appears on the screen.

  20. Re:You are standing at the end of a road .... by fisted · · Score: 1

    n

    You are in open forest, with a deep valley to one side.

  21. Re:How is this "News for Nerds"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now this is the kind of stuff I come to slashdot for. I'd love to see that honeypot in action...

  22. next... by silfen · · Score: 1

    The 68008 was discontinued 20 years ago, so this isn't really all that useful even as an educational exercise. Why not pick a current breadboardable, cheap microprocessor and get Linux to run on that? That way, other people can benefit.

    1. Re:next... by itzly · · Score: 2

      Like what ? Typical modern microprocessors capable of running Linux aren't very breadboard friendly.

    2. Re:next... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is still around for micro controllers. The socket version yes eas killed 20 years ago

    3. Re:next... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plenty of 68008's on ebay for peanuts. Newer processors are by definition faster and more complex, with more possibilities for failure.

      Plus the documentation for 68000 era chips is great, since there's no "proprietary technology" issues any more.

    4. Re:next... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Hardware from the 80s is a different kind of hardware. The designers had little to work with, and as a result came up with exciting and interesting designs. Working with their hardware is, in a way, working with them, understanding the puzzles they had and how they solved them.

      Plus the smell is something you don't forget. Mmmmmmm.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:next... by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The 68008 was discontinued 20 years ago, so this isn't really all that useful even as an educational exercise. Why not pick a current breadboardable, cheap microprocessor and get Linux to run on that? That way, other people can benefit.

      Why even bother with hardware. Why not just emulate it?

      But then again .. why emulate it when you can buy time on a virtual system?

      Then again why do all that when you could just be watching TV?

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    6. Re:next... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or implement 68k with an FPGA, like these guys did for their Open Source Atari ST

    7. Re:next... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a group that simulated the entire 6502 and 6800 logic (not the electrical properties of the chip, though).

      http://www.visual6502.org/

      They seem to be at an impasse in the 68000 development though.

    8. Re:next... by hodet · · Score: 1

      Came here to say something like this, but you hammered the point home much more eloquently.

    9. Re:next... by Megane · · Score: 1

      I'm particularly fond of the Intel 4004 35th Anniversary Project, which used surface-mount transistors laid out as a copy of the actual 4004 silicon.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    10. Re:next... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      The 68008 was discontinued 20 years ago, so this isn't really all that useful even as an educational exercise. Why not pick a current breadboardable, cheap microprocessor and get Linux to run on that? That way, other people can benefit.

      Couldn't agree more w/ this one. We all know that Linux can run everywhere, from a calculator to a supercomputer, but there's really nothing impressive about this. When the original 68k was what the first Sun workstations were made of, and therefore ran SunOS. Granted, it was not Linux, but close enough (since things like X11, GNOME, et al do not apply).

      In fact, why not pick a BeagleBone, or Raspberry Pi or Arduino - depending on one's attitude about Broadcom vs Atheros vs whoever else is putting a controversial part into the box, put Tiny-Core Linux or something like it on that, and run with it?

    11. Re:next... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Like what ? Typical modern microprocessors capable of running Linux aren't very breadboard friendly.

      Really?

      Well 8bit micros are easy to find in a DIP package. For everything else there's adapter boards which are dime a dozen on ebay.

      Or if you shop around I'm sure you can find a 32bit Arm Cortex M0 in a DIP package.

    12. Re:next... by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      Why even bother with hardware. Why not just emulate it?

      Because you won't develop hardware skills? You won't have the satisfaction of building your own?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    13. Re:next... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes really. did you read your linked article, that has homemade hacky ARM semi-"emulator" running on the 8 bit CPU with no MMU

      not really running Linux, kind of pretending to run it

    14. Re:next... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why even bother with hardware. Why not just emulate it?

      Because hardware is useful. It's just 68008 hardware that isn't useful. Do you understand the difference?

      Then again why do all that when you could just be watching TV?

      Why bother if you can just masturbate all day, which you seem to be doing?

    15. Re:next... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A hacky semi-Linux is all you can run on the 68008 as well, and all TFA talks about.

  23. Re:You are standing at the end of a road .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing happens...

  24. Re:How is this "News for Nerds"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is exactly the sort of stuff I like to see, and you are exactly the type of cynical loser I'm sick and tired of around here which is why I switched to soylentnews.org.

  25. Trouble running vi? by PPH · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why not try emacs instead?

    --
    Disclaimer - These opiini^H^H damn! ^H^H ^Q ^[ .... :w :q :wq :wq! ^d
    exit X Q ^C ^? :quitbye CtrlAltDel ~~q :~q logout save/quit :!QUIT
    man quit ^C ^c ?Quit ?q CtrlShftDel "Hey, what does this button d..."

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Trouble running vi? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Not enough ram or cpu power. With vi he only had 200k free

  26. Nice... by jasno · · Score: 2

    Getting it working on a breadboard is no small feat. Kudos. I'm sure it helps to only run at 2MHz.

    Rather than, as has been suggested, spin a PCB for it, why not try wire-wrapping next time? Less capacitance than a breadboard and a bit more permanent.

    Back at DeVry(haha) we built 7MHz 68k systems using wirewrap. Great times. I freaking love 68k assembly. We(well, the smart ones) also used 22V10 PALs for address decoding to save on 74 series logic chips.

    Another next step - find a chip with an MMU so you can run real linux. I think a 68020 or '030 has one. Much higher clock speed too. The pin density is still low enough(I think it's 0.1 but in a grid) that you can work with it. Check old electronic stores' back shelves for sockets.

    --

    http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
    1. Re:Nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i've run wire wrap boards at 20mhz. and +1 for the 22v10s, you can cram alot in there..it just sucks that you have
      to get a programmer.

      you dont need a socket for those 0.1" pga guys, you can just take the breakable socket strips and lay down
      an array.

      as much as I enjoyed doing that work back then, in an age of arduinos, raspberry pis, fpgas, &c, you kinda
      of have to wonder what the point is.

    2. Re:Nice... by jasno · · Score: 1

      Good point about the socket strips.

      The point? Well, it gives you an appreciation for digital layout(crosstalk, trace capacitance, etc). You also understand intimately how the pieces fit together, so when you encounter them in an integrated package you have a better feeling for what's going on. I get you though - I wouldn't try to use a wirewrapped 68k for anything I need to rely on.

      --

      http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
    3. Re:Nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The higher clock speeds of the 680x0 series would be a serious problem. I did quite a bit of breadboarding of enhancements to an inhouse Amiga based design back in the day and it was always a challenge to get the right pullup resistor values right and even in some cases fudging FPGA timing to accommodate reflections caused by using a breadboard. I do not miss single-ended open collector logic one bit.

    4. Re:Nice... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      The 68030 has an MMU providing you don't have the cut down 68EC030 model...
      Motorola made an external MMU for the 68020, known as the 68851 i believe.
      Some 68000 based machines also used an external MMU, but typically not a Motorola design, eg the early sun workstations.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    5. Re:Nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Another next step - find a chip with an MMU so you can run real linux. I think a 68020 or '030 has one.

          That would be the '030. The '020 supported external memory management (MC68451) and floating point (MC68881) processors using so-called F-line instructions so they appeared to be part of the native assembly language set. The '030 incorporated a subset of the '451 functionality, while the '040 added a four-instruction FPU. The '881 instruction set was a thing to behold, supporting all kinds of transcendental functions directly in hardware. One of the co-processors, the '451 I think, but I'm not entirely certain, was developed by or in cooperation with Hitachi.

          As others have noted, the Motorola processors implemented wonderful assembly language instruction sets. I wrote many thousands of lines of '020 assembly code, and it was a lot of fun. In the 8-bit world, the 6809 offered some addressing modes which I've never seen on any other processor.

          Incidentally, the M68000, M68010 (and probably 68008) were NMOS, with metal gate pull-down transistors working against pull-up resistors. Because every node pulled low was essentially a resistive path from the positive rail to ground, they burned a lot of power at any clock speed. It wasn't until the '020 was introduced that Motorola offered a full CMOS 16/32-bit processor.

          -- MC --
      [Started at Motorola in 1981, still at Freescale 33+ years later.]

    6. Re:Nice... by m.dillon · · Score: 1

      Motorola did produce a HCMOS version of the 68000 and related cpus. e.g. the 68hc000 and friends, which I used extensively. HCMOS was billed as a 'fast' version of CMOS, trading off some current draw for speed. As people might remember, HCMOS pulls and pushes about the same (though the ground paths are rated higher). About 50 ohms to either rail, more capacitive than resistive so current draw ran more inline with the frequency and you could use 1M pull-down resistors on the tri-state busses and the logic was pretty bullet proof in terms of noise and reflections.

      I really loved HCMOS, and hated TTL, but eventually advanced ttl beat it out (at least for the pin interface logic).

      -Matt

    7. Re:Nice... by Dadoo · · Score: 1

      The '020 supported external memory management (MC68451)

      No, the 68451 was for the 68010 - though since it was a segmented MMU (rather than demand-paged), I imagine it could have worked with the 68000, too. The 68020 used the 68851, which was a demand-paged MMU.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

      --
      Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
    8. Re:Nice... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      IIRC the hottest 68k in a DIP package was the '020

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Nice... by sbjornda · · Score: 1

      I freaking love 68k assembly.

      Agreed. It's the friendliest assembly language I've ever run across.

      --
      .nosig

  27. Re:How is this "News for Nerds"? by Ogi_UnixNut · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Haha!

    For a long time I used to something similar. All ports that were not in use on my firewall would redirect to a port on an old Toshiba T4800CT: 486 with 8MB of RAM and 500mb disk, running linux kernel 2.0.

    It would run nethack on that port, so anyone who would try a connect scan would end up in nethack. Probably confused a bunch of people, and if someone managed to break through that, would be interesting to see what they would make of it.

  28. Re:You are standing at the end of a road .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are in a maze of twisty little subroutines, all alike.

  29. Ahh! .... vi! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Epic

  30. Linux on M68K by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The closest thing you'll get to a full Linux experience on M68K is NetBSD (I know it's not Linux) for Amiga. If you have your trusty old Amiga A1200 or similar with an accelerator board, then you can get pretty much the full deal running on it, video, audio, and everything.

    1. Re:Linux on M68K by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      No, you can run full blown linux on the Amiga if you have a model with an MMU (which an A1200 with accelerator typically does), see https://www.debian.org/ports/m... for instance.
      I used to run linux on an A1200 with a 68040, and i still have an A4000 with linux installed on one of the drives.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  31. Ya but... does it run Linux? by hodet · · Score: 1

    nevermind. Very cool.

    1. Re:Ya but... does it run Linux? by itzly · · Score: 1

      Imagine a beowulf cluster of these breadboards.

    2. Re:Ya but... does it run Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you have a cluster of breadboards, does that make it a loafboard?

  32. 68010/@2MB ran a unix variant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My first exposure toboth UNIX and 68K was with a Motorola VME/10 system: 68010, 2MBytes memory. I do not recall the version of Unix; but it _did_ run *IX. Linux might be too bloated today to run in 2MBytes of memory.

    1. Re:68010/@2MB ran a unix variant by Dadoo · · Score: 1

      My first exposure toboth UNIX and 68K was with a Motorola VME/10 system

      I've actually used one of those. Pretty decent machines, for their day. I especially liked how they had two ways to access the graphics memory: one by bit-planes, and the other by pixels.

      You're lucky; my first 68K experience was on a Vicom image processor. It was a 68000-based machine, running VersaDOS. Talk about a terrible OS - even MS/DOS would have been better.

      --
      Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
  33. Respect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You just managed to get my interest in slashdot back to normal levels. This is the kind of hero story we need here!

  34. Re:You are standing at the end of a road .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A hollow voice says... "Fool!".

  35. Excellent! by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 1

    I cut my teeth programming the 68k on the original Mac - well, did 8086/8008/4004/z80 and 6502 long before. Loved programming the 68K.

    No easy task getting the home brew hardware to work. The capacitance and inductance of the breadboard and wires is limiting performance. Always fun to write the loader and make it come to life.

    its nice reading real 'nerd' stories. Anyone here belittling your work likely has no understanding of the effort and skill required to build an operational computer from scratch. Great job!

  36. The original 68000 interrupts were inadequate by shoor · · Score: 1

    The original 68000 was almost there for running a real multi-tasking OS. But, it didn't save enough state on the stack during an interrupt. You couldn't guarantee restoring a process's exact state when returning from an interrupt. I heard stories of designs that used two 68000s where one was running one step behind the other. I don't know how true they were. I see on the wikipedia that Motorola fixed that with the 68010 in 1982 and that's when the 68008 came out. So maybe the 68008 doesn't have that problem.

    --
    In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
    1. Re:The original 68000 interrupts were inadequate by m.dillon · · Score: 2

      Interrupts worked fine. It was bus errors (i.e. for off-chip memory protection and/or mapping units) that were a problem. The 68010 fixed that particular issue if I recall. I'm guessing later 68008's also did but I dunno. Doesn't matter since he isn't running with any memory protection.

      You could in fact run a real multi-tasking OS on the 68000. I was running one of my own design for my telemetry projects. It didn't have memory mapping but it did have memory protection via an external static ram, 8:1 selector, and some logic. It managed around 20-30 processes.

      And, strangely enough, you could also run a RTOS because the 68000 had wonderful prioritized interrupts. Back then, of course, real time response was required for handling serial ports and things like that.

      -Matt

    2. Re:The original 68000 interrupts were inadequate by Dadoo · · Score: 1

      Interrupts worked fine. It was bus errors (i.e. for off-chip memory protection and/or mapping units) that were a problem. The 68010 fixed that particular issue if I recall.

      You're correct, except for the fact that it wasn't a bug. The original 68000 simply wasn't designed for use with demand-paged virtual memory. To make that happen, you need to either save the processor state somewhere (which the 68010, 68020, etc. did) or have restartable instructions (the approach used by National Semiconductor, for their 32000 series). I vaguely remember reading that Motorola switched to restartable instructions in the 68040 or 68060, but I'm not sure.

      --
      Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
  37. 68k has no MMU; how can Linux run? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most modern OSes require a MMU, which the original 68000s don't have. How can Linux be running?

    1. Re:68k has no MMU; how can Linux run? by jockm · · Score: 2

      It is running uCLinux which is intended to run on MMUless microcontrollers (hence the uC). uCLinux doesn't require a MMU nor does it support virtual memory, or memory protection. It isn't ideal for a user system since memory can become fragmented over time, but that hasn't stopped people. It is primarily used in embedded systems that are running a stable set of programs after boot, leaving the rest of the memory to the primary app(s)

      --

      What do you know I wrote a novel
    2. Re:68k has no MMU; how can Linux run? by schamberlin · · Score: 1

      uClinux - can be built without MMU support. There's no memory protection, and program binaries have to be patched up by the loader, so that address references reflect the physical memory address at which the binary is loaded. http://www.uclinux.org/

    3. Re:68k has no MMU; how can Linux run? by TheDayOfMe · · Score: 1
      From the project page linux-on-a-motorola-68000-solder-less-breadboard

      I chose to use uClinux, a Linux distribution designed for microcontrollers and other low-end hardware, particularly CPUs without an MMU and that can’t support virtual memory.

      --

      One Man's Trash Is Another Man's Treasure.

  38. Hatsune Midi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a Turtle Beach Multisound Classic, an ancient but very capable ISA-16 sound card, which has 4MB RAM, Motorola 68k CPU and 56k DSP and EMU Proteus 1/XR soundbank onboard, for amazing MIDI. However, ISA bus support has been lost in the post-Windows XP world and in modern Linux as well. So I wonder if this card could now run Linux in and itself, with only power arriving via the ISA comb? Maybe then use it as a self-contained rack with an attached MIDI keyboard?

    1. Re:Hatsune Midi by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      Holy shit you're right, that's actually a pretty cool idea! Last I checked you can still buy ISA connectors from Digi-key.

      --
      C|N>K
    2. Re:Hatsune Midi by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

      Sounds like there wouldn't be enough RAM/ROM for Linux, but running it stand alone somehow sounds like a good idea. I hung on to one of those cards too. Or maybe an ISA interface for the PI?

    3. Re:Hatsune Midi by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There's no good reason to do that, you can run old linux on an SBC and get it in a teensy package.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Hatsune Midi by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      However, ISA bus support has been lost in the post-Windows XP world and in modern Linux as well.

      Has it? There's still instructions out there about how to configure ISA sound cards on ubuntu 12.04:

      http://www.pc-freak.net/blog/c...

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  39. It's a 68008, as used in... by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

    In fact this is not the 68000 but its crippled little brother the 68008, which uses an 8-bit external data bus (as the 8088 is to the 8086). That was also used in the Sinclair QL, which was Linus's first computer before he bought a 386 PC and got into Minix. Could Linux now be ported to run on the QL?

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  40. Ammazing by pbjones · · Score: 1

    I love to see someone doing this stuff, Gratz!

    --
    There was an unknown error in the submission.
  41. Re:LOL fag by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

    Not to mention, I'd be impressed with a 2-inch Wang; I've got one virtualized (so it could probably run under emulation on a 2-inch device), but shrinking the actual hardware to that size would be a neat accomplishment in itself!

  42. Re:LOL fag by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    This comeback reply could not have come from someone with a better username for this topic.

  43. As long as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as it isn't a HornWumpus, this thread will be safe.

    1. Re: As long as... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Just keep hitting Insert until it dies...

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  44. Haytahs gunna h8. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So please, Mr. Genius, could you link us to YOUR super awesome project? Didn't think so. Don't be jelly. Being jelly isn't cool, ummmmkay?

    1. Re:Haytahs gunna h8. by hodet · · Score: 1

      Actually I am agreeing that it is a super awesome project as OP has. Grandfather OP is the Mr.Genius you should be replying to.

    2. Re:Haytahs gunna h8. by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      I'd argue that Slashdot is a website with a national presence and has better topics to cover than a hack in some parent's basement, but apparently not.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    3. Re:Haytahs gunna h8. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I'd argue that Slashdot is a website with a national presence and has better topics to cover than a hack in some parent's basement, but apparently not.

      Ah yes. A website of national presence so it must be boring and serious and all business business business business. Business business. Business business business.

      Slashdot has always had ool hacks, and this more than qualifies. It's certainly cooler than any hack you've ever done.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  45. Hey, congratulations by m.dillon · · Score: 2

    Congratulations, you are now in a rare group indeed. But I gotta say, you haven't lived until you've programmed a 6502 directly in machine code. No assembler :-)

    One of my telemetry systems which I built and designed 25+ years ago used the 68000 running at around 10 MHz (with a jumper for 20 MHz, which it could actually do though I didn't deploy it at those speeds). The coolest thing about it was that I had built a rudimentary memory protection unit using a static ram and an 8:2 selector. Any user mode accesses pumped the high address bits into the ram with 2 address bits going to the selector along with the R/~W bit. The result was gated into the bus error logic. The top three bits of the static ram were directly controlled by the kernel which allowed the kernel to 'cache' up to 8 process's worth of protection data in the ram at any given moment, so context switches were still very fast.

    Before the 68030 and 68040 came out, Sun (I think) was running two 68000's in lockstep, one one cycle behind the other, in order to implement their own MMU. When a fault would occur, they bus-errored the lead chip and paused the second 'behind' chip so they could take the bus fault, resolve the mapping issue, and then resume the behind chip. Then the 68010 came along and fixed the bus error interrupt stacking bugs in the 68000, and the 68020 came along after that.

    The 68030 could hold short loops in its chip logic with some tricks, despite not really having a cache. Unfortunately, the 68040's on-chip cache implementation was horrible and created all sorts of problems for implementers, and by then Intel chips were running much much faster.

    When Motorola retired the 68K series some of their larger embedded users asked motorola to re-test the 68000 chip specs at a higher clock, since by then the HCMOS process could obviously run the chip much faster than the ~10-12 MHz that was speced. Motorola tested the HCMOS version of the chip to around 50-70 MHz or so. Such a nice 32-bit chip, I was really sorry to see Moto lose to Intel (mostly because Moto gave up).

    -Matt

    1. Re:Hey, congratulations by m.dillon · · Score: 1

      Er, I meant 8:1 selector (the R/~W bit was fed into one of the select inputs). The function code logic was used to selectively enable/disable the memory protection unit, so supervisor accesses bypassed it while user accesses did not. Which is good because it wouldn't have been able to boot otherwise.

      Another use for the FC logic is to speed up the auto-vector code. The 68K had wonderful asynchronous interrupt logic. You basically had 8 priority levels and you could feed your I/O chips into a simple 8:3 priority selector and feed the result into the interrupt priority level pins on the cpu. The 68K would then do an interrupt vector acquisition bus cycle to get the vector (or you could tell it to generate an internal vector). Every once in a while the async logic would screw up and we'd get an uninitialized interrupt vector but the code to deal with that was trivial, and since it was all level logic the hardware would sort it out soon enough and calculate the correct IPL to request from the bus.

      The autovectors are slow, though... it was far better to generate vectors from a ram (if I remember right). The FC logic could be used to force the access to the ram or the eprom (since the address lines I think were all 1's except for three bits defining the priority level being fetched, or something like that).

      In contrast, even to this day Intel STILL can't get their interrupt logic to work properly. Even the MSI-X logic is broken in a lot of chipsets. Yuch. So much ridiculous and unnecessary complexity with Intel interrupt handling with all the idiotic IOAPIC and LAPIC sub-processors with non-deterministic reaction times and serialization problems and other stupid stuff. The motorola interrupt logic was a dream in comparison.

      -Matt

    2. Re:Hey, congratulations by Dadoo · · Score: 1

      The 68030 could hold short loops in its chip logic with some tricks, despite not really having a cache. Unfortunately, the 68040's on-chip cache implementation was horrible and created all sorts of problems for implementers, and by then Intel chips were running much much faster

      No, you're thinking of the 68010's "loop mode", where tight loops didn't require memory accesses for instruction fetches (after the initial instruction fetch). Both the 68020 and 68030 had caches.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

      --
      Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
  46. Re:LOL fag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, there is not a woman on the planet who will be impressed with a 2-inch Wang. They all want at least 6 inches, and the bigger the better!

  47. Fantastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fantastic, I've been working on an Arduino / RaspberryPi project, and it's crossed my mind to do something like this for the heck of it. Street Cred and all that. Very cool.

  48. Re:How is this "News for Nerds"? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    About fifteen years ago I had a Macintosh Centris 660AV running Linux, just as an experiment.

    I had netbsd on a IIci with a cache card. Oh, the novelty! Then I binned it. Because it was just uselessly slow. Hilarity: My first Sun machine was a 3/260, which had a slower CPU and graphics than the IIci. Had more RAM though (24MB instead of 8)

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  49. Re: LOL fag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're expected to talk about computers from the 80s and bring up or wangs?
    No no no

  50. You've posted this to the wrong site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is slashdot. We expect thinly disguised advertisements or nonsense editorials from Bennet Haselton (frequent contributor), not interesting stuff about building computers from scratch. Your article sounds like it might actually be news for nerds: stuff that matters, and slashdot jumped that particular shark a long time ago.

  51. No Instruction restart, No MMU... by niftymitch · · Score: 1

    Not an interesting project.
    the MC68000 has no way to restart an instruction and no MMU.
    Both of these are critical to running a Linux kernel today!
    You could emulate a 68000 on a Beaglebone Black and have
    it run faster.

    *nix like OS have been built and run on a 68000 Idris is one
    historic port of Unix. Little or no protection to keep processes
    from running over memory and I/O and doing bad things but a
    worthy *nix all in all for its day.

    Step up a little to the MC68010 add an external TLB/MMU built
    from modest size fast static RAM and Bob's yer Uncle... A
    68010 does have the ability to restart instructions so you can recover
    from a page fault. An external TLB/MMU is easy and designs
    abound in 25+ year old paper documents.

    When you are done a Raspberry-Pi or Beaglebone Black will still
    run circles around it.

    If you want to have fun build yourself a machine like the "magic 1"
    and you will learn what all the buzz be about.

    --
    Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
  52. Re:You are standing at the end of a road .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are standing at the end of a road before a small brick building.
    Around you is a forest. A small stream flows out of the building and
    down a gully...

    xyzzy

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/stevenm_61/2271781767/

    Dyslexic

  53. Re:LOL fag by sports_shop · · Score: 1

    Linux is a good platform and I don't understand why the machine don't be configurated for working with it. But I love all of the points you have made. shopping sports

  54. Re:How is this "News for Nerds"? by TWX · · Score: 1

    Wow.

    At the time I was into seti@home. I had a 486 Microchannel box running it, it took a very, very long time to do packets. If there even was a seti@home client that could run on that IIci I wonder how long it would have taken to do a single packet...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  55. Re:You are standing at the end of a road .... by ZeroWaiteState · · Score: 1

    They're remaking Hunt the Wumpus. It's called Evolve.

  56. Your inspiration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice to know that the one I built back in 2012 was your inspiration.
    Anyway, I think mine is much more impressive :)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJmPS3jMwD4

  57. Credits by lja · · Score: 1

    You could at least give some credits to the original one... (done back in 2012) Anyway, its much more impressive what I've done... (also because I did most of the work for the linux kernel) https://www.youtube.com/watch?...