On Friday 29 June 2012 21:46:20 Grant Edwards wrote:

> Things have been going steadily downhill since the days of V7 on a
> PDP-11 with 256K words of RAM, a 20MB hard drive and uucp via dial-up
> modems for "networking". Real programmers didn't _need_ more that
> 64k of text and 64k data to get the job done.

Sorry, but that's just bloat. When I joined the software development
effort on the national grid control system in 1980 (I was the third of
three) we had two Ferranti Argus 500 computers, one on-line and one
standby, each with 32KB RAM (twice as much as the same machines had at
the newly commissioning AGR power stations); 24-bit word length with
hardware key switches on the control panel (holy of holies). The three
disks were 2MB monsters, three feet six tall, five feet long and eighteen
inches wide, with air filtering systems we were supposed to know about
but Never Touch. Each disk could be connected to either CPU under
software control. The displays were graphic stroke writers, as used in
submarines and other warships - none of that nasty raster technology. I
think the display drivers were more complex than the CPUs - all that D-A
conversion of multiple values at once. Can you imagine X and Y amplifiers
to drive a spot in a circle - and meet up? Then a display full of them.
Those devices occupied as much cubicle space as the CPUs. Oh, and there
was a third machine (you wouldn't call it a box) for software
development. Paper tape for program I/O - not punched cards I'm glad to
say.

My boss was often called on to escort parties of power utility visitors,
mostly American, around the control centre. Their most common question
was "yes, I see the display drivers, but now where is your mainframe?"
Of course we didn't have one nor need one; we used subtle engineering in
those days rather than throwing money at the problem. That changed
later, but that's another story, and so is the use of PDP-11s in a minor
role.

Then the time came to replace that ageing technology. The man in charge
of the project complained to me once that, although he admired what we
were achieving, he couldn't freeze a user spec while we kept on making
the machine jump through ever-higher hoops. A proud moment for me -
there was still life in the old dogs yet, so why must they be replaced?

Not now, but I'll tell you some day about my proudest achievement in
assembler programming. Perhaps also what happened at three a.m. after
most bank holiday Mondays. Cyril might not like me telling you though.

As I said in the subject: OT.

--
Rgds
Peter

On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Peter Humphrey
<peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org> wrote:
> On Friday 29 June 2012 21:46:20 Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>> Things have been going steadily downhill since the days of V7 on a
>> PDP-11 with 256K words of RAM, a 20MB hard drive and uucp via dial-up
>> modems for "networking". *Real programmers didn't _need_ more that
>> 64k of text and 64k data to get the job done.
>
> Sorry, but that's just bloat. When I joined the software development
> effort on the national grid control system in 1980 (I was the third of
> three) we had two Ferranti Argus 500 computers, one on-line and one
> standby, each with 32KB RAM (twice as much as the same machines had at
> the newly commissioning AGR power stations); 24-bit word length with
> hardware key switches on the control panel (holy of holies). The three
> disks were 2MB monsters, three feet six tall, five feet long and eighteen
> inches wide, with air filtering systems we were supposed to know about
> but Never Touch. Each disk could be connected to either CPU under
> software control. The displays were graphic stroke writers, as used in
> submarines and other warships - none of that nasty raster technology. I
> think the display drivers were more complex than the CPUs - all that D-A
> conversion of multiple values at once. Can you imagine X and Y amplifiers
> to drive a spot in a circle - and meet up? Then a display full of them.
> Those devices occupied as much cubicle space as the CPUs. Oh, and there
> was a third machine (you wouldn't call it a box) for software
> development. Paper tape for program I/O - not punched cards I'm glad to
> say.
>
> My boss was often called on to escort parties of power utility visitors,
> mostly American, around the control centre. Their most common question
> was "yes, I see the display drivers, but now where is your mainframe?"
> Of course we didn't have one nor need one; we used subtle engineering in
> those days rather than throwing money at the problem. That changed
> later, but that's another story, and so is the use of PDP-11s in a minor
> role.
>
> Then the time came to replace that ageing technology. The man in charge
> of the project complained to me once that, although he admired what we
> were achieving, he couldn't freeze a user spec while we kept on making
> the machine jump through ever-higher hoops. A proud moment for me -
> there was still life in the old dogs yet, so why must they be replaced?
>
> Not now, but I'll tell you some day about my proudest achievement in
> assembler programming. Perhaps also what happened at three a.m. after
> most bank holiday Mondays. Cyril might not like me telling you though.
>
> As I said in the subject: OT.

I'm going to put a reminder in my calendar to poke you about this.


--
:wq

Hello,

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012, walt wrote:
>On 06/29/2012 05:55 PM, walt wrote:
>> I didn't make myself clear. I wouldn't hesitate to convert this
>> machine to GPT (I like it) but I don't know if Windows would like
>> GPT.
>>
>> I guess I should get off my butt and go google it.
>>
>> Maybe tomorrow
>
>Hah! I knew all along that if I waited long enough, David Haller would
>post a link to this info:

*whut* I've posted a mere 25 msgs here over quite a bit of time, and
you expect me to mail ...??? Do you know me from somewhere else?

Anyway: you're welcome.

-dnh, who has his first 3T GPT partitioned drive (for data only, one
2793GiB ext3 partition) in his main box since tuesday or so.

--
><logic mode="patent office">
Validator error in line 1: Contradiction in terms.
-- C. Faerber, A. Krey

Mike Gilbert wrote:
> Thanks for "announcing" this Dale. grub-2.00 is in ~arch as of last night.
>
> Given your current naming scheme, grub2-mkconfig will not detect your
> kernels. They must be named vmlinuz-version or kernel-version. For
> example:
>
> /boot/vmlinuz-3.4.3
> /boot/kernel-2.6.39-gentoo
>
> Your initramfs files look good.
>
> Space wise, grub needs a couple hundred sectors after your MBR to
> embed itself. If you used the default fdisk setting when you
> partitioned your drive, you should have 2047 free sectors that it can
> use.
>
> If you have your kernels named properly and some free sectors on your
> hard drive, setting up grub:2 is a very easy process. See the wiki
> page for more info.
>
> http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GRUB2_Quick_Start
>
>

Thanks. Now more questions. I have read about this a few times but
never quite figured it out. I copy the bzImage and name it bzImage-*
because that is what it is named when I type make etc to build a
kernel. Is there a difference between bzImage and vmlinux? If it is,
is it safe to rename it like that or will it break something? If I need
a vmlinux kernel instead of a bzImage, where is that thing? I have
looked and I don't have one on mine here. Maybe I am missing
something. Google didn't find me anything either.

Someone else posted the space their grub2 install used so I got plenty
of space for that. I made /boot about 375Mbs last time, thinking about
grub2 I guess. So, I guess I am good on that part.

Thanks much.

Dale

:-) :-)

--
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 5:50 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> Thanks for "announcing" this Dale. grub-2.00 is in ~arch as of last night.
>>
>> Given your current naming scheme, grub2-mkconfig will not detect your
>> kernels. They must be named vmlinuz-version or kernel-version. For
>> example:
>>
>> /boot/vmlinuz-3.4.3
>> /boot/kernel-2.6.39-gentoo
>>
>> Your initramfs files look good.
>>
>> Space wise, grub needs a couple hundred sectors after your MBR to
>> embed itself. If you used the default fdisk setting when you
>> partitioned your drive, you should have 2047 free sectors that it can
>> use.
>>
>> If you have your kernels named properly and some free sectors on your
>> hard drive, setting up grub:2 is a very easy process. See the wiki
>> page for more info.
>>
>> http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GRUB2_Quick_Start
>>
>>
>
> Thanks. *Now more questions. *I have read about this a few times but
> never quite figured it out. *I copy the bzImage and name it bzImage-*
> because that is what it is named when I type make etc to build a
> kernel. *Is there a difference between bzImage and vmlinux? *If it is,
> is it safe to rename it like that or will it break something? *If I need
> a vmlinux kernel instead of a bzImage, where is that thing? *I have
> looked and I don't have one on mine here. *Maybe I am missing
> something. *Google didn't find me anything either.

AFAIK, you should be fine renaming bzImage to vmlinuz. (Note the z.
It's vmlinuz, not vmlinux")

--
:wq

On 06/30/2012 05:50 AM, Dale wrote:
Thanks. Now more questions. I have read about this a few times but
never quite figured it out. I copy the bzImage and name it bzImage-*
because that is what it is named when I type make etc to build a
kernel. Is there a difference between bzImage and vmlinux? If it is,
is it safe to rename it like that or will it break something? If I
need a vmlinux kernel instead of a bzImage, where is that thing? I
have looked and I don't have one on mine here. Maybe I am missing
something. Google didn't find me anything either.
The bzImage is a vmlinuz (or vmlinuz) image, and is what grub2 expects
to use with a "linux" kernel definition.
I usually copy the bzImage to a file named "gentoo.XYZ" where the XYZ is
the kernel version number. I'm not sure if
grub-mkconfig is yet smart enough to figure it out completely, but I've
been using grub2 with my gentoo partitions for a while.
Certainly, grub-mkconfig in fedora recognizes the gentoo disk properly
as another linux installation (via the os-prober) and
builds menuentries for them. It may just be reading the grub2/grub.cfg
file I wrote.


One thing is certain, grub2 doesn't have to have all the scripting and
rigamarole that fedora and GNU put in via the grub-mkconfig
command, a simple config file will work as well. GNU has grub2 in the
RC1 phase right now and I've built it under fedora and gentoo
and use it. I've gone from using a grub2 cdrom boot to using the BIOS
boot menu device select to control whether I'm going into
Linux or Win7 (Win7 is on the default device and grub2 for fedora and
gentoo are on other discs.)


I'm using a shared /home partition with slightly different uids for each
system, but a common "username". Each uid homedir
contains native dotfiles for a variety of services and some symlinks to
a common set of {Documents, Downloads,Public,Pictures,

and public_html} directories.

Grub2 isn't that hard to do, it's just /different/

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 04:50:27 -0500, Dale wrote:

> Thanks. Now more questions. I have read about this a few times but
> never quite figured it out. I copy the bzImage and name it bzImage-*
> because that is what it is named when I type make etc to build a
> kernel. Is there a difference between bzImage and vmlinux?

The spelling

Seriously though, why not use make install? That way you know the right
files get copied and given the expected names.


--
Neil Bothwick

*/ * <- Tribbles having a swordfight

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 04:50:27 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>> Thanks. Now more questions. I have read about this a few times but
>> never quite figured it out. I copy the bzImage and name it bzImage-*
>> because that is what it is named when I type make etc to build a
>> kernel. Is there a difference between bzImage and vmlinux?
> The spelling
>
> Seriously though, why not use make install? That way you know the right
> files get copied and given the expected names.
>
>

Because I name my kernel and config the same thing. I also don't like
the way it does that link thingy it does. It seems to expect to keep
only two kernels around and I'm real bad to have more than that,
sometimes way more than that. Plus, if I do it myself, I know what I am
doing. If I use make install, I don't know if something was changed in
how it does it.

It's just me being me. lol

Dale

:-) :-)

--
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

Michael Mol wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 5:50 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>> Thanks for "announcing" this Dale. grub-2.00 is in ~arch as of last night.
>>>
>>> Given your current naming scheme, grub2-mkconfig will not detect your
>>> kernels. They must be named vmlinuz-version or kernel-version. For
>>> example:
>>>
>>> /boot/vmlinuz-3.4.3
>>> /boot/kernel-2.6.39-gentoo
>>>
>>> Your initramfs files look good.
>>>
>>> Space wise, grub needs a couple hundred sectors after your MBR to
>>> embed itself. If you used the default fdisk setting when you
>>> partitioned your drive, you should have 2047 free sectors that it can
>>> use.
>>>
>>> If you have your kernels named properly and some free sectors on your
>>> hard drive, setting up grub:2 is a very easy process. See the wiki
>>> page for more info.
>>>
>>> http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GRUB2_Quick_Start
>>>
>>>
>> Thanks. Now more questions. I have read about this a few times but
>> never quite figured it out. I copy the bzImage and name it bzImage-*
>> because that is what it is named when I type make etc to build a
>> kernel. Is there a difference between bzImage and vmlinux? If it is,
>> is it safe to rename it like that or will it break something? If I need
>> a vmlinux kernel instead of a bzImage, where is that thing? I have
>> looked and I don't have one on mine here. Maybe I am missing
>> something. Google didn't find me anything either.
> AFAIK, you should be fine renaming bzImage to vmlinuz. (Note the z.
> It's vmlinuz, not vmlinux")
>

Well that fixed one thing already. lol I bet I would have named that
wrong. ;-)

vmlinuz. Weird. They did that to confuse me didn't they. :/

Dale

:-) :-)

--
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

On 06/30/2012 05:50 AM, Dale wrote:


Thanks. Now more questions. I have read about this a few times but
never quite figured it out. I copy the bzImage and name it bzImage-*
because that is what it is named when I type make etc to build a
kernel. Is there a difference between bzImage and vmlinux? If it is,
is it safe to rename it like that or will it break something? If I need
a vmlinux kernel instead of a bzImage, where is that thing? I have
looked and I don't have one on mine here. Maybe I am missing
something. Google didn't find me anything either.

As someone else said, the spelling. For grub-mkconfig to recognize it
as a kernel

the default names should begin with "vmlinuz-" or "kernel-"
For my gentoo disk, I rename the bzImage to gentoo.<XYZ> where the XYZ
is the kernel
version number. I hand mung the grub.cfg (still legacy grub) in the
usual fashion.
I will probably migrate to grub2 pretty quick next time I play with the
gentoo install.


Grub2 grub-mkconfig os-prober method recognizes grub legacy configs and
builds proper

menuentry stanzas as needed.

I'm using multiple discs for booting my system. The first drive (BIOS
default) is a Win7 native,
but I use the BIOS "boot menu" options to usually boot grub2 from
another drive. This drive's grub.cfg
contains all of my linux installations, which are spread around 4
different drives.


--
G.Wolfe Woodbury (redwolfe@gmail.com)