Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

386-DX/SX support nuked from Linux Kernel

git.kernel.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 89 posts

Re: 386-DX/SX support nuked from Linux Kernel

#71

Post by tytso »

pdw wrote: post #68
kzrdude wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this the platform Linus used for Linux when he started too?

That's what Ingo is referring to. "Unfortunately there's a nostalgic cost: your [i.e. Linus'] old original 386 DX33 system from early 1991 won't be able to boot modern Linux kernels anymore. Sniff." Turns out Linus is not the nostalgic type.

I sent my original 40 Mhz 386 that I used when hacking Linux 0.12 back in 1991 to be recycled last year, after it was displayed on exhibit at Linux's 20th year anniversary party. I tried to see if anyone (like the Computer Museum) wanted it, but ultimately, I'm not the nostalgic type either.

Re: 386-DX/SX support nuked from Linux Kernel

#72

Post by stusmall »

JeremyMorgan wrote: post #24
kev009 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm into retrocomputing so these kinds of retirements always sting a bit. In realistic long term operations, deprecations don't hurt. I.e. your air traffic control system running on PA-RISC and HP-UX doesn't care that HP-UX only run on Itanium now. You keep running the old software and set up some kind of support schedule to keep the system patched during it's service life through the vendor or otherwise.

It's comforting to know others are interested in "retrocomputing". For some reason I like slow old computers too. (Not being sarcastic here at all)

I've got a soft spot for the Z80 and they were considered out of date by the time I was born. A few years ago I found a great book on how to build a simple microcomputer based on the Z80. I learned a ton working through that book and that little chip brought me a lot of joy. I've still got a couple Z80s in my part drawer... you know... just in case...

Re: 386-DX/SX support nuked from Linux Kernel

#73

Post by stusmall »

primitur wrote: post #33
Moto7451 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd think that most of them would be using a RTOS like VxWorks or QNX.

Linux is used in a lot of places these days, where VxWorks or QNX might've been. I've been responsible for putting Linux to work in SIL-4 critical systems all over Europe, for example, saving millions in licensing costs while at the same time, getting Linux certified for safety-critical apps. It really is taking over.

Whats the current state of the real-time patches for linux? Last I'd talk to someone about them, this was a while ago, they felt a bit sub-par. From a developer's point of view is it as easy to work with and predictable as VxWorks?

Re: 386-DX/SX support nuked from Linux Kernel

#74

Post by astrodust »

dspillett wrote: post #50
SoftwareMaven wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I loved my Celeron. I had a 300 which over clocked amazingly well to 450Mhz. In fact, those were the last days of my "dinking" with hardware. The Pentium and beyond offered such diminishing rewards that it wasn't worth it.

Celerons of that era were very easy to officially overclock generally because a great many of them were underclocked by Intel. They ended up with far more of the more expensive 400+MHz capable parts than they expected to produce (presumably they were overly cautious when predicting how well the production process would work and therefor how many of the better rates chips thye'd get) but too few of the cheaper 300Mhz…

It wasn't so much as they were underclocked, but that Intel's process was so refined that they were often produced over-spec.

The other thing that made them so easy to over-clock was that, unlike the Pentium Pro, II and III, there was no on-chip L2 cache that would malfunction at higher speeds. All you were over-clocking was the CPU.

I had a dual-Celeron system that ran like a champ for the better part of ten years.

Re: 386-DX/SX support nuked from Linux Kernel

#75

Post by ynniv »

robin_reala wrote: post #39
mahmud wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GNU CLISP, an small portable Common Lisp implementation supports Acorn RISC OS, NeXT, Amiga and OS/2. http://clisp.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/clisp/clisp/

RISC OS is still going (they just released a Raspberry Pi build) and OS/2 morphed into the commercial eComStation that is actively maintained. NeXT is dead though and Amiga fractured.

NeXT is dead

Didn't you get the memo?

Re: 386-DX/SX support nuked from Linux Kernel

#76

Post by aidenn0 »

stusmall wrote: post #72
JeremyMorgan wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's comforting to know others are interested in "retrocomputing". For some reason I like slow old computers too. (Not being sarcastic here at all)

I've got a soft spot for the Z80 and they were considered out of date by the time I was born. A few years ago I found a great book on how to build a simple microcomputer based on the Z80. I learned a ton working through that book and that little chip brought me a lot of joy. I've still got a couple Z80s in my part drawer... you know... just in case...

Z80 was only out of date when you were born if you're not TI.

Re: 386-DX/SX support nuked from Linux Kernel

#77

Post by Klinky »

astrodust wrote: post #74
dspillett wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Celerons of that era were very easy to officially overclock generally because a great many of them were underclocked by Intel. They ended up with far more of the more expensive 400+MHz capable parts than they expected to produce (presumably they were overly cautious when predicting how well the production process would work and therefor how many of the better rates chips thye'd get) but too few of the cheaper 300Mhz…

It wasn't so much as they were underclocked, but that Intel's process was so refined that they were often produced over-spec. The other thing that made them so easy to over-clock was that, unlike the Pentium Pro, II and III, there was no on-chip L2 cache that would malfunction at higher speeds. All you were over-clocking was the CPU. I had a dual-Celeron system that ran like a champ for the better part of ten years.

The binning process where higher end CPUs are marketed as lower end parts has been going on forever.

Only the first generation Celerons (which everyone hated) had no L2 cache. The second generation had 128KB of full-speed on-chip cache, which is actually why it overclocked well. The Pentium II and early Pentium III had 512KB of half-speed off-chip cache which struggled to keep up with the CPU when overclocking.

Re: 386-DX/SX support nuked from Linux Kernel

#78

Post by csense »

simias wrote: post #47
daeken wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simplest way: have two implementations, copy the proper one into place (and relocate if necessary). No overhead.

Or you know, use a flag. And if it becomes a performance issue later on after some profiling, consider a more complicated approach. Don't underestimate your CPU's branch prediction. Self modifying code is a can of worms. Many things can go wrong, and good luck debugging the mess.

Branch prediction? On a 386?

AFAIK the first Intel CPU to have branch prediction was the Pentium 2 -- which was released many, many years (I'd say ~12 years) after the 386.

Re: 386-DX/SX support nuked from Linux Kernel

#79

Post by huxley »

dalke wrote: post #63
Natsu wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still have an 8088 with a color display, dot matrix printer, math coprocessor, maxed out RAM (64 KB? I don't even remember) and a 10 MB hard drive + dual disk drives. I should see if it actually boots someday....

640KB was the max RAM. My first PC was the same configuration, except I had a 32MB drive. Oh! And towards the end I had both a CGA and Hercules card so I could have two screens.

PCs released after the XT could be configured with up to 640KB but the original IBM PC was limited to a max of 256KB (entry level config was 64KB).

Re: 386-DX/SX support nuked from Linux Kernel

#80

Post by yuhong »

huxley wrote: post #79
dalke wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

640KB was the max RAM. My first PC was the same configuration, except I had a 32MB drive. Oh! And towards the end I had both a CGA and Hercules card so I could have two screens.

PCs released after the XT could be configured with up to 640KB but the original IBM PC was limited to a max of 256KB (entry level config was 64KB).

On the motherboard. You could still add RAM using ISA cards.
Post reply on HN