Yep, definitely. I don't remember which sound chip it used but I vaguely remember it worked fine with the SB driver with a 2.2.something kernel. Sadly it's currently in storage a bit too far away to easily check...
maybe I should try and keep this on topic with the observation that the average device panasonic are looking at embedded linux for probably has more resources than my old 133MHz/40MB RAM cf-25:-)
... is there any chance of them selling a Toughbook preloaded with it? Please?
Chance would be a fine thing. Being windows-ignorant I first slung GNU/linux onto a cf-25 in 1996 and racked up nearly half a million miles with it before replacing it with a T1 which I am now bumming round marinas in the balkans with. Great kit (survived falls from moving westfalia van, soakings in the tropics and all kinds of abuse) but forget support: UK support won't even answer your emails on OS neutral hardware questions 85% of the time.
Before straying too far off topic, I doubt the development of drivers for panasonic embedded linux products is going to leak over into helping out the toughbook user who wants a copy of lindvd or needs to get that SD slot working. On the upside though, most everything on my T1 already works out of the box with SuSE 9.3 (except the SD card slot, but including the winmodem and acpi). Things aint the labour of love they used to be 10 years ago. Check out the reviews of toughbooks on Werner Heuser's invaluable tuxmobil.org.
Linux on toughbooks always struck me as being an ideal combination (all the tools you need for any bizzare geek situation in any corner of the globe). Anyone know of any large organisations using toughbooks with customised linux (with or without Panasonics complicity)?
a more interesting test would be to put a bunch of retro computing devices up onto the internet. How does a pdp-11 running v7 stack up against bsd 2.11?
Does the work of robert morris live on?
When was the last time someone try to use wizard mode on *your* port 25?
Don't you feel you owe an appology to a decade of 80s UNIX novices for wasted hours before discovering you weren't talking about the shell *they* were using in "The UNIX programming environment"?
OS would be the tricky part: connected to the internet and on 24/7, rapid security patching would be a priority. I think SuSE was the last of the big commercial distros to support SPARC, but that's long out of support. sun4c kernel architecture hasn't been supported by Sun since Solaris 7.
I would have thought this might detract from the utility of the IPX/IPC for the task in hand...
Support in the network stack doesn't necessarily mean the utilities you want to use support it. Solaris is very v6 clean: I guess corporate coding style dictates not checking address family of a passed socket is a bug.
The story with GNU/Linux last time I looked (RedHat AS 2.1, last year) was way patchier, with a worrying number of things one might expect [x]inetd to exec simply assuming they were being passed an AF_INET (ie v4) socket. Yes the major stuff is sorted but more stuff than you might think isn't.
Of course many many many USB keys don't correctly follow the spec...
There you go:-)
I was looking at this before the mass storage bootability spec was available to non- usb.org members. After a bad experience with one device, then success on the same system with the same config with another device, I wanted to know why the failing device (Sony) wasn't giving up that boot sector...
At the time, I spent many frustrating hours trying to prise details of BIOS implementation or copies of the specs out of suppliers and various other sources.
Maybe my "unresolved issues" with usb mass storage bootability can be resolved by settling down tonight with the specs and a nice cup of tea;-)
I'm still not sure I would yet rely on a random usb key to be bootable unless explicitly stated...
Dunno which "but they do!" to reply to, so I'll reply (in support of) the parent:-)
firstly, "boot from usb cd-rom/floppy" is *not* the same as booting from usb hard disks (which most usb keys appear as). Just because your system will boot from usb cdrom does not mean it will boot your usb key.
secondly, whilst you'll find an increasing number of usb key devices will play well with many bioses from the point of view of bootability, last time I looked at this area (6 months ago) it was all a bit random. Some (e.g. M-Systems rebadged devices) would boot, certainly with phoenix bioses which claimed to support USB boot from hard disk, and some wouldn't (e.g. Sony Microvault).
I notice now USB.org has gone public with the specs, but at the beginning of the year when I was loking into this no-one would talk specifics of implementations with me because they were covered by ndas from phoenix (who wouldn't talk to a non-oem...).
Anyway, ability to boot from usb keys is generally limited to very recent hardware, and can be hit-or-miss depending on implementation.
The remastered knoppix-on-a-usb-key I eventually ended up with was fun though on the systems which will boot it...
Unfortunately USB keys aren't of a price yet where they're disposable. Floppies fill that "oh, here's the latest draft of that document/code/whatever I was working on" gap more compactly than CDRs.
Yes you could mail things, but I know a surprising number of people with old PCs and no dialup.
Oh and has anyone ever tried to talk about usb mass storage bootability to USB key or BIOS manufacturers? I note that USB.org has published a few more specs than last time I looked at this, but 6 months ago it seemed like random city. Those usb/BIOS manufacturers who even replied to me just gave me a "sorry...proprietry...".
You know where you are with floppies on that front...
that "failed network company" who still pulled in over a billion dollars in revenue last year, and whose massive deployments now look like having an upgrade path to GNU/Linux?:-)
What do we think of when we say "SuSE"?
I'm sure there's many people who are happy they haven't started branding "Novell Enterprise Linux". "Entwicklung" is such a great word...
That post...I do not think it means what you think it means. If you read it again you may find that I am simply stating that despite suggestions that the open sourcing of looking glass might be a precedent to open sourcing dtrace, the economics of the two actions are different due to the different commrecial potential of the products.
I expect nothing more from Sun than to be fair to their employees (of which I used to be one a decade ago), adhere to standards, not engage in overly dodgy business practices, and continue to provide excellent operating systems which are worth paying for. An aspect of the former expectation is preserving their competetive advantage over other companies.
I understand and sympathise with the point you're making, but you're replying to the wrong post.
FWIW, just about all the userland code I've got off my arse and written in the last few years compiles on Linux and Solaris despite Sun's pam implementation:-)
I'm not sure how much of an indicator the open sourcing of looking glass is for what Sun decide to do with dtrace. Looking Glass never seemed to be anything more than a nice piece of eye candy to showcase the java desktop (the real product they were flogging). dtrace on the other hand looks like being one of their biggest pieces of product differentiation for Solaris in years. We all know how finance departments like those transactions-per-second->cost-per-transaction figures in making procurement decisions...
Sadly whilst few web designers care that my browser doesn't render Arial and my system doesn't play windows media, they *do* care about the large number of punters out there whose old windows 9x system's browser doesn't support png...
I actually bought the distro (SuSE 9.1). The userguides are a nice brief introduction to what you get, but they're not industrial strength man pages. Stuck in the middle of nowhere with a new distro and a non-functioning wireless card ("hey! what did they do with the prism driver?") you want to be able to do "man orinoco" and check out the available ioctls. no such luck. And if you can't get connected you can't use the search engines. Fortunately with the kernel source loaded you can UTSL where there's no FM to R.
"man undocumented" on SuSE 9.1 returns pretty much the same stuff as it did a few years back. This tends not to happen on say, Solaris, where documentation is a defined part of the product,
Obviously you can't always expect people who aren't paid for the coding they do to regard their work as a "product" in the commercial sense and put "commercial" effort into rounding things off with decent documentation.
But SuSE et. al *are* charging good money for somthing they obviously regard as a commercial product. Look again at "man undocumented". See all those NIS (yp_*) routines listed? Given the maintainer of GNU/Linux NIS is (or was last time I looked) on SuSE's payroll, I would have thought this could have been addressed. This is just one example and no disrespect intended to Herr Kukuk's otherwise highly useful stuff.
Note that documentation is no better in this respect in SuSE Enterprise Linux or RedHat Enterprise Linux. If these vendors expect businesses to replace their AIX/HP-UX/Solaris systems with their GNU/Linux distros with attached "Enterprise" support costs, why is it so hard to see people may expect *full* documentation?
Given the UK government has failed to allocate resources to tackle spam using existing legislation and information they already have as noted here, I won't get my hopes up that this is anything more than a publicity exercise for the "somthing must be done" department.
Slashdot Mirror
Are we sure they aren't 3D *cameras*?
Elite *on the Commodore 64* ? what's wrong with this picture Commander Jameson?
Fortunately we have the right to bear sextants.
Now which button on this Tom Tom gives me the GHA of the first point of aries?
Yep, definitely. I don't remember which sound chip it used but I vaguely remember it worked fine with the SB driver with a 2.2.something kernel. Sadly it's currently in storage a bit too far away to easily check...
maybe I should try and keep this on topic with the observation that the average device panasonic are looking at embedded linux for probably has more resources than my old 133MHz/40MB RAM cf-25 :-)
Chance would be a fine thing. Being windows-ignorant I first slung GNU/linux onto a cf-25 in 1996 and racked up nearly half a million miles with it before replacing it with a T1 which I am now bumming round marinas in the balkans with. Great kit (survived falls from moving westfalia van, soakings in the tropics and all kinds of abuse) but forget support: UK support won't even answer your emails on OS neutral hardware questions 85% of the time.
Before straying too far off topic, I doubt the development of drivers for panasonic embedded linux products is going to leak over into helping out the toughbook user who wants a copy of lindvd or needs to get that SD slot working. On the upside though, most everything on my T1 already works out of the box with SuSE 9.3 (except the SD card slot, but including the winmodem and acpi). Things aint the labour of love they used to be 10 years ago. Check out the reviews of toughbooks on Werner Heuser's invaluable tuxmobil.org.
Linux on toughbooks always struck me as being an ideal combination (all the tools you need for any bizzare geek situation in any corner of the globe). Anyone know of any large organisations using toughbooks with customised linux (with or without Panasonics complicity)?
a more interesting test would be to put a bunch of retro computing devices up onto the internet. How does a pdp-11 running v7 stack up against bsd 2.11?
Does the work of robert morris live on?
When was the last time someone try to use wizard mode on *your* port 25?
Don't you feel you owe an appology to a decade of 80s UNIX novices for wasted hours before discovering you weren't talking about the shell *they* were using in "The UNIX programming environment"?
Not that I'm still bitter 20 years on...
Dude, everyone knows the moon is made of panir!
OS would be the tricky part: connected to the internet and on 24/7, rapid security patching would be a priority. I think SuSE was the last of the big commercial distros to support SPARC, but that's long out of support. sun4c kernel architecture hasn't been supported by Sun since Solaris 7.
I would have thought this might detract from the utility of the IPX/IPC for the task in hand...
Support in the network stack doesn't necessarily mean the utilities you want to use support it. Solaris is very v6 clean: I guess corporate coding style dictates not checking address family of a passed socket is a bug.
The story with GNU/Linux last time I looked (RedHat AS 2.1, last year) was way patchier, with a worrying number of things one might expect [x]inetd to exec simply assuming they were being passed an AF_INET (ie v4) socket. Yes the major stuff is sorted but more stuff than you might think isn't.
There you go :-)
I was looking at this before the mass storage bootability spec was available to non- usb.org members. After a bad experience with one device, then success on the same system with the same config with another device, I wanted to know why the failing device (Sony) wasn't giving up that boot sector...
At the time, I spent many frustrating hours trying to prise details of BIOS implementation or copies of the specs out of suppliers and various other sources.
Maybe my "unresolved issues" with usb mass storage bootability can be resolved by settling down tonight with the specs and a nice cup of tea ;-)
I'm still not sure I would yet rely on a random usb key to be bootable unless explicitly stated...
Dunno which "but they do!" to reply to, so I'll reply (in support of) the parent :-)
firstly, "boot from usb cd-rom/floppy" is *not* the same as booting from usb hard disks (which most usb keys appear as). Just because your system will boot from usb cdrom does not mean it will boot your usb key.
secondly, whilst you'll find an increasing number of usb key devices will play well with many bioses from the point of view of bootability, last time I looked at this area (6 months ago) it was all a bit random. Some (e.g. M-Systems rebadged devices) would boot, certainly with phoenix bioses which claimed to support USB boot from hard disk, and some wouldn't (e.g. Sony Microvault).
I notice now USB.org has gone public with the specs, but at the beginning of the year when I was loking into this no-one would talk specifics of implementations with me because they were covered by ndas from phoenix (who wouldn't talk to a non-oem...).
Anyway, ability to boot from usb keys is generally limited to very recent hardware, and can be hit-or-miss depending on implementation.
The remastered knoppix-on-a-usb-key I eventually ended up with was fun though on the systems which will boot it...
Yes you could mail things, but I know a surprising number of people with old PCs and no dialup.
Oh and has anyone ever tried to talk about usb mass storage bootability to USB key or BIOS manufacturers? I note that USB.org has published a few more specs than last time I looked at this, but 6 months ago it seemed like random city. Those usb/BIOS manufacturers who even replied to me just gave me a "sorry...proprietry...".
You know where you are with floppies on that front...
On a Disney computer you expect them to support something other than The Mouse?
that "failed network company" who still pulled in over a billion dollars in revenue last year, and whose massive deployments now look like having an upgrade path to GNU/Linux? :-)
What do we think of when we say "SuSE"?
I'm sure there's many people who are happy they haven't started branding "Novell Enterprise Linux". "Entwicklung" is such a great word...
That post...I do not think it means what you think it means. If you read it again you may find that I am simply stating that despite suggestions that the open sourcing of looking glass might be a precedent to open sourcing dtrace, the economics of the two actions are different due to the different commrecial potential of the products.
I expect nothing more from Sun than to be fair to their employees (of which I used to be one a decade ago), adhere to standards, not engage in overly dodgy business practices, and continue to provide excellent operating systems which are worth paying for. An aspect of the former expectation is preserving their competetive advantage over other companies.
I understand and sympathise with the point you're making, but you're replying to the wrong post.
FWIW, just about all the userland code I've got off my arse and written in the last few years compiles on Linux and Solaris despite Sun's pam implementation :-)
I'm not sure how much of an indicator the open sourcing of looking glass is for what Sun decide to do with dtrace. Looking Glass never seemed to be anything more than a nice piece of eye candy to showcase the java desktop (the real product they were flogging). dtrace on the other hand looks like being one of their biggest pieces of product differentiation for Solaris in years. We all know how finance departments like those transactions-per-second->cost-per-transaction figures in making procurement decisions...
I suppose we'll have to wait and see...
I think pkgadd may be the command you're looking for squire :-)
French I can cope with. C'est le .wmv que je ne comprends pas.
Sadly whilst few web designers care that my browser doesn't render Arial and my system doesn't play windows media, they *do* care about the large number of punters out there whose old windows 9x system's browser doesn't support png...
I actually bought the distro (SuSE 9.1). The userguides are a nice brief introduction to what you get, but they're not industrial strength man pages. Stuck in the middle of nowhere with a new distro and a non-functioning wireless card ("hey! what did they do with the prism driver?") you want to be able to do "man orinoco" and check out the available ioctls. no such luck. And if you can't get connected you can't use the search engines. Fortunately with the kernel source loaded you can UTSL where there's no FM to R.
"man undocumented" on SuSE 9.1 returns pretty much the same stuff as it did a few years back. This tends not to happen on say, Solaris, where documentation is a defined part of the product,
Obviously you can't always expect people who aren't paid for the coding they do to regard their work as a "product" in the commercial sense and put "commercial" effort into rounding things off with decent documentation.
But SuSE et. al *are* charging good money for somthing they obviously regard as a commercial product. Look again at "man undocumented". See all those NIS (yp_*) routines listed? Given the maintainer of GNU/Linux NIS is (or was last time I looked) on SuSE's payroll, I would have thought this could have been addressed. This is just one example and no disrespect intended to Herr Kukuk's otherwise highly useful stuff.
Note that documentation is no better in this respect in SuSE Enterprise Linux or RedHat Enterprise Linux. If these vendors expect businesses to replace their AIX/HP-UX/Solaris systems with their GNU/Linux distros with attached "Enterprise" support costs, why is it so hard to see people may expect *full* documentation?
sorry...rant mode off...
Given the UK government has failed to allocate resources to tackle spam using existing legislation and information they already have as noted here, I won't get my hopes up that this is anything more than a publicity exercise for the "somthing must be done" department.
You are evidently not familiar with "Because We Want To" or the rest of Billie Piper's back catalogue...
As fate would have it I too am a bmw owner.
Damned if I can find where to plug in the ipod on my R65 though...
If it doesn't, maybe Dell can get Ford to partner up and offer a $250 trade-in for your beemer...