Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tons of embedded stuff use 32-bit Linux.
But that stuff is usually not x86.
Embedded projects where intel was involved often use something like Atom.
ELKS: Linux for 16-bit Intel Processors
71–80 of 119 posts
Re: ELKS: Linux for 16-bit Intel Processors
#72I do wonder in today’s landscape of single board computers what the right bit width is. A 64-bit system with like 1-2GB or RAM doesn’t make a ton of sense since your program size and data structure size grows by quite a bit but you don’t need it to since you don’t get to have more than 4GB of RAM. On the other hand there you do have SBCs with 8-16GBs of RAM but that’s a far cry from needing full 64 bits. Would an opt…
42-bit is the right answer of course.
Re: ELKS: Linux for 16-bit Intel Processors
#73Wait, "ROM-based systems"? Were there such x86 micros and is this saying you could run Linux from ROM? That's super interesting.
The original IBM PC was ROM-based. It worked fine without a disk drive, it just booted into ROM BASIC instead.
Re: ELKS: Linux for 16-bit Intel Processors
#74I used elks back when I was too poor to buy a real laptop. My laptop was a 286 (old even then), with a shot battery.
So I used elks and lugged around a lead acid motorcycle battery.
It was great for my circumstances, but I wouldn't say I miss it compared to my many cores and gigs laptop.
Re: ELKS: Linux for 16-bit Intel Processors
#75[deleted]
Re: ELKS: Linux for 16-bit Intel Processors
#76Thanks for the comments! ELKS will run on an 8088, but also runs on any x86 PC using the legacy "real mode" which runs in 16-bit segmented architecture without an MMU or any hardware protection. It can be fun to boot a PC and see a close resemblance to Linux, but run the way things used to be, using only 16-bits. It'll also run in ROM, e.g. using a 8018x CPU w/onboard PIT and PIC. The point of ELKS today is about "sm…
Could nethack be compiled under elks? Frotz? Inform6?
Re: ELKS: Linux for 16-bit Intel Processors
#77Could somebody with a good understanding of microchip production economics explain what the price difference would be if all 8-bit chips (such as the Atmega328) were replaced by otherwise equivalent 32-bit or 64-bit chops tomorrow (that is, same production capacity and unit counts sold)? How much would it cost, in cents, to just have those extra bits?
Probably more about ecosystem compatibility at this point. There are already RISC-V chips that sell for less than a 6502.
I doudbt about that stance, you can have 6502's on every keybard at ridiculous prices.
Re: ELKS: Linux for 16-bit Intel Processors
#78We are removing 32 bit support from the Linux kernel because nobody uses that hardware anymore. Yet, this 16 bit version has commits from today.
Hyperbola GNU/Linux, Parabola and Guix still have 32 bit support. And I still use a 32 bit computer.
And for sure the 2nd and 3rd world use 32 bit devices.
Re: ELKS: Linux for 16-bit Intel Processors
#79What would be really interesting: porting DOSEMU 1.4.0 to it. This would give us a maintained unix-like OS combined with a huge abandonware dos library turning those old machines into something fun and maybe useful.
That makes no sense, since DOSEMU is based on virtual 8086 mode, which requires a 80386, while ELKS is for 8086-286 CPUs. You can just run MS-DOS or FreeDOS directly on those machines, that's what the machines were made for.
This. I literally rebuild DOSEMU yesterday after years of not using it. It used that mode extensively.
A good thing about DOSEMU against DOSBOX is that the first could run high end DOS game at amazing speeds as the environment was more like Wine than emulating the whole machine, so you could run Tomb Raider, Need For Speed, Duke Nukem 3D... on a Pentium II while 'simulating' a Pentium MMX or a Pentium 90-like speeds, if not more, being far closer to the performance you got under W95/W98.
And, as you said, booting SvarDOS either from a floppy or from an IDE->CF card it's straightforward.
Re: ELKS: Linux for 16-bit Intel Processors
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what I've been looking for! Can you fit a workable version on a 1.44 floppy?
Around 1996/97 timeframe, you could fit a kernel and userspace. I remember building a 1.44 setup that booted a compressed kernel and had enough user space tooling to bring up telnet, ftp, and the radio stack to drive the long haul radio cards (we were replacing JNOS [0] IIRC at an ISP ). Even had writable space at the end of the floppy (the kernel etc were readonly) to write overrides of the config; poor man's overla…
Single-floppy router distributions were also in style: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floppyfw