Well, I still am able to code you a boot loader for four OSes (all on primary master) in DEBUG.COM (I think DEBUG.EXE in newer versions, no?) in like 10 minutes. If I have to consider other BIOS discs (&h81 ff.), it will take a bit longer.
So what? Why do people do it?
on
Legacy-Free PCs
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
First off, I like certain parts of legacy. Like, not being able to a) use my laptop as serial console (it has no serial
port any more) b) switch my IBM "clickety-click" keyboard on my
laptop (it has no PS/2 port any more - only
two USB, one VGA and one parallel) is icky. I heavily dislike it. My IBM keyboard weighs about six kilopond, but that's what makes it good.
OTOH, think about all the "small" OSes, i.e. non-Windows and non-GNU/Linux. Will they ever work on those computers?
Also, since the design changes, you can never know if TCPA is already inside.
I hope I can shed some light on it, and I'm just trying to tell people to not forget their own past. I still like MS GW-BASIC 3.22 - I was 8 when I learned it (and did not even understand a single word of English; I started to learn English at the age of 12).
You basically use the/bin/ksh Korn Shell because it is part of the base system. It's the pdksh, not the ast-ksh, and it has basically every feature from GNU bash you would need (except man page and password auto-completion *g*). And it's free as in BSD licence.
On GNU/Linux, where I usually have the choice between GNU bash and tcsh, I prefer bash (until I get to install pdksh) because it's a bourne shell (well, more or less).
On BSD, however, I urge you to not install GNU bash, especially not as the root shell, because:
- if you get used to it, it's harder to use other shells,
e.g. if you're at anyone else's system
- it's dynamically linked and resides in/usr/local/bin,
whereas/bin/ksh and/bin/csh are statically linked
(system rescue issues)
- especially for root, I'd stick with the shells the system
provides (security issues)
Remember much of today's BSD code still is under the four-clause BSD licence with the advertising clause, which is incompatible to the GNU GPL. Not every author has revoked that clause, as the UCB - and for example the OpenBSD project leader Theo de Raadt refuses to remove the clause of the UCB code even "because you can't just edit someone elses' licences". Anyways, the Linux code is usually not derived from BSD code mostly because of the lawsuit, which may make - now - in turn the BSD be the free variant because the BSD are free to use the patented code (they got a licence from UCB and AT&T after the lawsuit) while Linux wrote different code but which infringes the patent, and since they got no patent licence - *boom*
Not that it would affect me in any way...;-)
Plus I actually made a GNU/Linux distribution which uses BSD-style init system and simpleinit (from the linux-utils package) in mid 2000, kernel 2.0, libc5 (size optimized) and I'm still looking for enough webspace to put it online. I've not even had a modem back then, so I was forced to use the SuSE 6.1 and Debian 2.1 slink packages (I had the CDs). And there's only ONE known distro-specific bug.
Right, I haven't thought of the bureaucracy fee. Mh, to place it at a notary is what we learned in German IT-law class in two hours about (european) copyright law. But it's not a patent, thus the level of protection is less.
Unluckily the teacher just left school, so I cannot ask her for a discussion.
You could licence it freely and place a remark in your licence that you waive your patent rights. IANAL, nor am I an Englishman, but I've already thought about this.
Re:Possible for transparent x86 emulation on Linux
on
Bochs 2.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It actually has.
You can run x86-16 applications on x86-32 CPUs, and you can run ELKS (Linux/8086) applications inside GNU/Linux/x86-32 (Linux/80386).
Plus, x86 is a darn complicated architecture, think of all the legacy parts. This is why emulation writers have such a hard job. Even coders of projects such as Wine or the BSD Linuxulation (those are no emulation, but just a transfer layer) have a hard time to code, because most of the stuff is barely docu- mented, if at all. Again a problem is, the hardware basics books were written in the late 80es or early 90es, and they aren't available for sale usually any more (I tried to get a BIOS book from Microsoft Press here in Germany, but they couldn't even order it from the USA, and that was about three or four years ago!).
If you actually have interest, I think the projects (bochs, plex86, wine) have fora and newsgroups, or at least irc channels (the webpage is a good start; most free projects sit at irc.freenode.net)
I don't want a BSD port. I want my OpenBSD to be native utf-8, nothing else. Currently it is not locale/NLS aware (which I consider A Good Thing(tm)), but handles eight-bit I/O as if it was iso-8859-1. I want it to change that to utf-8 because more characters ( comes to mind) can be handled that way.
Wrong. Just do a quick grep for PERMIT_PACKAGE through all Makefiles in/usr/ports and you will see what I mean.
The problem is (and miod@ acknowledged this) that once Theo has an opinion that is partially based upon reasons, he stops listening to even more reasonable arguments.
In this case, DJB is as stubborn (is that the correct English word? dunno) as TdR (and RMS, FWIW) so they're likely to conflict at some place.
I do maintain some unofficial patches myself, such as midnight commander and *grin* daemontools 0.76 (the page above still lists 0.70)... http://mitglied.lycos.de/tygs/pub/my-por ts.tgz
Note that however they aren't guaranteed to compile under stock OpenBSD, I also maintain a >1MB patch set.
More ports documentation would make use, yes. And maybe a Theo-HOWTO:)
Photos from _all_ developers (with cvs ci access).
I reserve the right to read what _I_ want. Full Stop. On a note, I'm still using Lynx for 98% of my web browsing, dillo for 1.9% (=userfriendly.org:) and Netscape 4.75 for BSD/OS (in the emulation) for the remaining 0.1% of casual sites that won't do without.
Pages that can't be displayed with lynx+xloadimage usually aren't worth it anyways, IMHO at least.
Slashdot Mirror
No.
a cy.org/
It supports IPv6, but my 1.3.27 does that as well,
_and_ it's audited by Theo de Raadt.
http://www.OpenBSD.org/
http://MirBSD.BSDadvoc
Uhm, the only "un-free" fact is that other people
n u/usr. sbin/sendmail/LICENSE
may not sell it commercially and have to supply
the source with it.
At least that's what I can tell from
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/g
That's right. OpenBSD in fact is seeking to get
rid of _all_ GPL'd userland, no wait - all unfree
(as in BSD/MIT/X11 licence) code.
In fact, sendmail is in the unfree subdir as well.
I think it's pretty pointless that this is already
on slashdot. Please give the mirrors time to update,
and get the songs afterwards.
$ cvs -qd mirbsd-cvs@bsdadvocacy.org:/cvs co -PA src/share/misc/contrib
will get you all of the songs 3.0 - 3.3 in the MP3
versions, with lyrics. And I uploaded that back over
my 16K link.
Well, I still am able to code you a boot loader
for four OSes (all on primary master) in DEBUG.COM
(I think DEBUG.EXE in newer versions, no?) in like
10 minutes.
If I have to consider other BIOS discs (&h81 ff.),
it will take a bit longer.
First off, I like certain parts of legacy. Like,
not being able to
a) use my laptop as serial console (it has no serial
port any more)
b) switch my IBM "clickety-click" keyboard on my
laptop (it has no PS/2 port any more - only
two USB, one VGA and one parallel)
is icky. I heavily dislike it. My IBM keyboard
weighs about six kilopond, but that's what makes
it good.
OTOH, think about all the "small" OSes, i.e.
non-Windows and non-GNU/Linux.
Will they ever work on those computers?
Also, since the design changes, you can never
know if TCPA is already inside.
I hope I can shed some light on it, and I'm
just trying to tell people to not forget their
own past.
I still like MS GW-BASIC 3.22 - I was 8 when
I learned it (and did not even understand a
single word of English; I started to learn
English at the age of 12).
I had a _hard_ time parsing this as AYBABTU, and
;-)
I'm a native speaker...
Get a life
Hehe... this is not GNU/Linux, we have no /lib. :)
OTOH you're right, and that for I have a rescue
image here as well.
I agree with "not again"
You basically use the /bin/ksh Korn Shell because it
/usr/local/bin, /bin/ksh and /bin/csh are statically linked
/bin/ksh fits you just fine.
is part of the base system. It's the pdksh, not the
ast-ksh, and it has basically every feature from GNU
bash you would need (except man page and password
auto-completion *g*). And it's free as in BSD licence.
On GNU/Linux, where I usually have the choice between
GNU bash and tcsh, I prefer bash (until I get to install
pdksh) because it's a bourne shell (well, more or less).
On BSD, however, I urge you to not install GNU bash,
especially not as the root shell, because:
- if you get used to it, it's harder to use other shells,
e.g. if you're at anyone else's system
- it's dynamically linked and resides in
whereas
(system rescue issues)
- especially for root, I'd stick with the shells the system
provides (security issues)
So I think
It's really a good question, and I have no answer
/. is US-centric, but
for you, I'm sorry.
But I want to extend the question on BSD Unix, i.e.
OpenBSD, NetBSD and FreeBSD.
Also I want to remind you that
the world is more than USA. I'm, for example,
under European law.
The Sun JDK 1.3.1_07 for GNU/Linux/x86
runs fairly well on my OpenBSD boxen.
I use it only for the freenet
project, though as a high-volume server.
It's quite CPU and disc intensive.
Jupiler is a good belgian Beer I'm just consuming
(brought it from FOSDEM).
And IPv6 is also standard in OpenBSD and has been
for years.
It was not an (obvious) typo but done by will, a
play with words if you want (I don't know the
English expression for that).
It should make you start thinking...
I just hit this page with MSIE (I usually browse
.net
.net in ROT13 is .argh?
with Lynx, you know, but since I'm at a box with
IE at the moment...) and saw an ad for...
guess what...
Microsoft Visual Studio
Btw, did you ever notice
There must be a hidden reason behind that *hint*
Remember much of today's BSD code still is under
;-)
the four-clause BSD licence with the advertising
clause, which is incompatible to the GNU GPL.
Not every author has revoked that clause, as the
UCB - and for example the OpenBSD project leader
Theo de Raadt refuses to remove the clause of the
UCB code even "because you can't just edit someone
elses' licences".
Anyways, the Linux code is usually not
derived from BSD code mostly because of the lawsuit,
which may make - now - in turn the BSD be the free
variant because the BSD are free to use the patented
code (they got a licence from UCB and AT&T after
the lawsuit) while Linux wrote different code but
which infringes the patent, and since they got
no patent licence - *boom*
Not that it would affect me in any way...
Plus I actually made a GNU/Linux distribution which
uses BSD-style init system and simpleinit (from
the linux-utils package) in mid 2000, kernel 2.0,
libc5 (size optimized) and I'm still looking for
enough webspace to put it online. I've not even
had a modem back then, so I was forced to use
the SuSE 6.1 and Debian 2.1 slink packages (I had
the CDs).
And there's only ONE known distro-specific bug.
Hey Xerithane, long time no see.
I still wonder if it affects the BSD world at all,
since IIRC IANAL after the early-90es lawsuit all
issues have been cleared out.
Right, I haven't thought of the bureaucracy fee.
Mh, to place it at a notary is what we learned in
German IT-law class in two hours about (european)
copyright law. But it's not a patent, thus the
level of protection is less.
Unluckily the teacher just left school, so I cannot
ask her for a discussion.
Good luck!
You could licence it freely and place a remark in
your licence that you waive your patent rights.
IANAL, nor am I an Englishman, but I've already
thought about this.
It actually has.
You can run x86-16 applications on x86-32 CPUs,
and you can run ELKS (Linux/8086) applications
inside GNU/Linux/x86-32 (Linux/80386).
Plus, x86 is a darn complicated architecture,
think of all the legacy parts.
This is why emulation writers have such a hard
job. Even coders of projects such as Wine or
the BSD Linuxulation (those are no emulation,
but just a transfer layer) have a hard time to
code, because most of the stuff is barely docu-
mented, if at all.
Again a problem is, the hardware basics books were
written in the late 80es or early 90es, and they
aren't available for sale usually any more (I tried
to get a BIOS book from Microsoft Press here in
Germany, but they couldn't even order it from the
USA, and that was about three or four years ago!).
If you actually have interest, I think the projects
(bochs, plex86, wine) have fora and newsgroups,
or at least irc channels (the webpage is a good
start; most free projects sit at irc.freenode.net)
I don't want a BSD port.
I want my OpenBSD to be native utf-8, nothing else.
Currently it is not locale/NLS aware (which I consider
A Good Thing(tm)), but handles eight-bit I/O as if
it was iso-8859-1. I want it to change that to utf-8
because more characters ( comes to mind) can
be handled that way.
Wrong. Just do a quick grep for PERMIT_PACKAGE /usr/ports and you will
through all Makefiles in
see what I mean.
The problem is (and miod@ acknowledged this) that
once Theo has an opinion that is partially based
upon reasons, he stops listening to even more
reasonable arguments.
In this case, DJB is as stubborn (is that the
correct English word? dunno) as TdR (and RMS,
FWIW) so they're likely to conflict at some place.
It's not even right:
- for all DJB software, you can distribute patches
- for djbdns and qmail, you can distribute distfiles
You must not, however, distribute (patched) binaries.
It's not as worse as Java(R)(tm).
I do maintain some unofficial patches myself, suchr ts.tgz
:)
as midnight commander and *grin* daemontools 0.76
(the page above still lists 0.70)...
http://mitglied.lycos.de/tygs/pub/my-po
Note that however they aren't guaranteed to compile
under stock OpenBSD, I also maintain a >1MB patch set.
More ports documentation would make use, yes.
And maybe a Theo-HOWTO
Photos from _all_ developers (with cvs ci access).
I reserve the right to read what _I_ want. Full Stop. :) and
On a note, I'm still using Lynx for 98% of my web
browsing, dillo for 1.9% (=userfriendly.org
Netscape 4.75 for BSD/OS (in the emulation) for the
remaining 0.1% of casual sites that won't do without.
Pages that can't be displayed with lynx+xloadimage
usually aren't worth it anyways, IMHO at least.
They are even more than sweet; check also out
the clothes, they are made from very good material,
they don't get damaged soon (or by washing).
Wim Vandeputte (European distributor) is also nice,
even if he's sometimes quite backlogged.