Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: 286 question
References: <39FB12DA.82FD93DF@unex.es> <8tnpgd$p13$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <slrn9003qp.5bt.pino+comp_os_minix@mud.stack.nl> <8tpfpa$39k$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY
From: aje9383@osfmail.isc.rit.edu (Andrew Erickson)
NNTP-Posting-Host: grace.isc.rit.edu
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: grace.isc.rit.edu
Message-ID: <3a00a32a@news.isc.rit.edu>
Date: 1 Nov 2000 18:11:38 -0500
X-Trace: 1 Nov 2000 18:11:38 -0500, grace.isc.rit.edu
Lines: 49
XPident: aje9383
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.21.4.100
XPident: Unknown
Path: news.adfa.edu.au!clarion.carno.net.au!news0.optus.net.au!news1.optus.net.au!optus!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news.kodak.com!news-nysernet-16.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.isc.rit.edu!aje9383
Xref: news.adfa.edu.au comp.os.minix:36035

In article <8tpfpa$39k$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,  <d_lau@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn9003qp.5bt.pino+comp_os_minix@mud.stack.nl>,
>  pino+comp_os_minix@dohd.org (Martijn van Buul) wrote:
>> It occurred to me that d_lau@my-deja.com wrote in comp.os.minix:
>> > Actually I tried to install the 16-bit version (of Minix 2.0.2) on a
>> > Pentium(TM) Pro system and the kernel would not load from the boot
>> > floppy.  Has anyone else tried to boot the 16-bit kernel on a
>machine
>> > with a 32-bit capable processor (i.e., 386 and newer).

ISTR that there is some difference in the floppy disk code for the 16 and 32
bit versions of minix--something which was needed on some 16 bit systems and
did not work on newer systems.  Offhand, I can't remeber if it was in the
boot monitor, or the kernel, or what; but this may be the problem. 
Certainly, the 16 bit version should work without any trouble on a 386 or
higher.  I think this was a fairly recent change (within the last year or
so); perhaps others in the gorup remember better than I do.

>>
>> Yes. I used to be running Minix on a portable 286, and used my 486
>> back then for recompiling the kernel and other heavy duty compile
>jobs.
>> Worked like a charm.
>>
>> Hmm. It seems like your DELL system is the culprit.
>
>I've not encountered any compatibility problems with the Dell system.
>I've loaded many of the Microsoft "OS"s on it including DOS, Win9x, Win
>NT.  I've also loaded SCO UnixWare 7 and Red Hat Linux 6.1 and they
>all "worked" without problems.  As you can see, the Dell is
>my "experimental" system for me to test out various operating systems
>(I use a different disk for each of them though).  And Martijn will
>note that this is the same system I'm having problems with the fsck
>hanging when running the i386 version of Minix 2.0.2 (in a different
>thread).  On the other hand, other than the fsck problem, I've been
>able to re-compile the whole Minix i386 system with no problems -- by
>the way, speaking of "make", there are numerous instances in the
>Makefile's where a long list of entries was terminated by a back slash,
>which other "make"s consider to be an error.

Every make I've seen uses the backslash as a line continuation character; as
long as the next line is blank, I think pretty much every make on the planet
will be happy.

(You might want to try giving fsck a larger memory alocation with chmem;
perhaps it's shipped set too small for big filesystems.)

-- 
Andrew Erickson
