Jeff Vian wrote:
On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 08:37 -0700, Robin Laing wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
Guy Fraser wrote:
[I wrote]
As far as I know, the 80386 was the first processor supported
by Linux, or BSD but I don't know. Back in those days, I
What I said. MicroSoft products are better able to run
on old hardware than Linux.
You agree, so there's no need for further discussion.
Mike
But can these products be purchased today?
For the record, was Linux even available before the 386? What was the
current processor available with Linux first came out? What was the
current microsoft product.
You also cannot compare Linux to DOS. It was more than DOS from day
one so it is an unfair comparison.
The first Linux kernel was availablew in late 1991. The 386 was already
out by then and IIRC the 486 came out by 1993 and the Pentium by 1995.
I first used RedHat 4.0 with the 1.3.XX kernel so that was the
486/Pentium days
In fact, Linus email where he announced the kernel running was dated
August 25, 1991 and it says the kernel was written on the 386.
The history for Linux gives this in the release notes for the 0.01
kernel.
Hardware needed for running linux:
- 386 AT
- VGA/EGA screen
- AT-type harddisk controller (IDE is fine)
- Finnish keyboard (oh, you can use a US keyboard, but not
without some practise :-)
--
Robin Laing
This is the point. DOS was written before Linux existed so it will
run on previous devices. Heck I still have an unused 4004 chip at
home and I wonder if DOS would run on that? How about a VIC 20?
My point is Linux won't run on a 286 or 8080 because it was never
designed to run on that. It is also an interesting history lesson.
I used Linux in 1993 for the first time on a P90. I also used CP/M on
a Z80 processor.
DOS and Linux do two different things. DOS isn't a
multi-user/multi-threaded OS. Linux was from day one. Of course
Linux will need more resources but as a basic system it will do more
than DOS. Of course, you can look at the Tiny Linux stuff that it
going on.
--
Robin Laing
