On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 15:06 -0700, Robin Laing wrote: > 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. > You don't have to tell me that. I have been aware of the limitations from the beginning, and have never compared DOS to Linux. I was simply providing some factual background in my post above. AFAIK DOS will not run on anything but the 8086 and the devices in that family (80286, 80386, ....). As you state, DOS is a single process, single user OS while Linux has always been multi-process, multi-user and they are not and never have been comparable in any way (other than running on the same hardware). > -- > Robin Laing >
