Hello,

Recently in installed Slackware 9.0 on an old 486DX2 - machine. I did
this by installing it on a HD on another computer, and then just mounted
it in the 486DX2. Direct installation is not possible because of the
limited workspace of 4 MB, and the slowness of the system.

This works okay, but the kernel is not optimised for the 486DX2. For
example it probes for a PCI-bus and does not find it (obviously, because
it is not there).

I looked on the internet for ways how to reconfigure the kernel. What
seems to me a nice way is to use : make oldconfig and come up with a
proper .config for the 486DX2.

Is there a way of autoprobing the hardware on the 486DX2 so I can use
this config-file to make an appropriate kernel on the other computer?

Or is this a bad way of doing things, and are there better ideas?

Greetings, Edward

edward hage wrote:

> Recently in installed Slackware 9.0 on an old 486DX2 - machine. I did

Stop! I can find higher spec PCs in a skip (dumpster?)

--
Paul

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:18:31 +0200, edward hage wrote:

> I looked on the internet for ways how to reconfigure the kernel. What
> seems to me a nice way is to use : make oldconfig and come up with a
> proper .config for the 486DX2.

That is how i'd go about it, yes. Make sure you know _exactly_ what type
of chips you have sitting in there ... "dmesg" might tell you.

> Is there a way of autoprobing the hardware on the 486DX2

The kernel does that (probe hardware), upon boot.
Otherwise, try:
/sbin/modprobe isa-pnp
/sbin/modprobe parport_pc

And, again, have a look at "dmesg".

> so I can use this config-file to make an appropriate kernel on the
> other computer?

Yes. Probably i would just "make menuconfig" in some other machine, and
copy the result over (with "nc", "socket" or "scp"). Don't forget about
running "depmod" and "lilo"...

> Or is this a bad way of doing things,

I don't think so.

> and are there better ideas?

Maybe upgrade to a 2.6.x kernel while you're at it. Rumor has it, their
faster - even on such hardware ...

--
-Menno.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:03:16 +0100, Paul wrote:
> edward hage wrote:
>
>> Recently in installed Slackware 9.0 on an old 486DX2 - machine. I did
>
> Stop! I can find higher spec PCs in a skip (dumpster?)

Sure. However there are plenty of uses for which even a i386 SX suffices.

For instance, test CGI scripts on it. I use a 16MB i586 box, null-modem
connection, running Apache. That way it's much easier to see how it might
perform in production, for users on crappy dail-up (maybe: 38400 baud)...

I personally wouldn't mind if the minimum CPU requirement for Slackware
would go up to Pentium MMX as that is the lowest spec i use it on nowadays :-).

--
-Menno.

In article <407d025c$0$64453$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, edward hage wrote:
> Recently in installed Slackware 9.0 on an old 486DX2 - machine. I did
> this by installing it on a HD on another computer, and then just mounted
> it in the 486DX2. Direct installation is not possible because of the
> limited workspace of 4 MB, and the slowness of the system.
If possible I strongly getting that machine up to 32MB of ram
even before one would even THINK of doing a In-situ kernal compile!
Add about 256K of cache too! (that alone makes one hell of an
improvement. it will possibly still take a day or so to do a FULL
compile as it is now but if you don't do all of the modules and work
to trim out the flab you can probally get the compile down to maybe
around 5-6 hours, thats on a machine with 256K of cache and 32MB of
ram!
As for the kernal issues. I have a few 486s that have PCI bus
so I can say you could get one. Ok, now if you DO want to redo the
kernal do as you said but go into the make menuconfig stage instead of
make oldconfig and tell it you what you DON't have. Now since you want
to compile on another boxen if you look in /usr/src/linux you will see
a file called .config copy that to the compiling box and then rum make
menuconfig to make your changes and quit, then do the normal steps:
make dep
make clean
make bzdisk (you want a bootable floppy righ? or
make bzImage (that makes a bzImage file in /usr/src/linux/arch/i386 I
think)
then the last steps for the modules
make modules
make modules_install

--
From the Desk of the Sysop of:
Planet Maca's Opus, a Free open BBS system.
Telephone 860-738-7176 300-33.6kbps Telnet://pinkrose.net.dhis.org
The New Cnews maintainer
B'ichela

"Menno Duursma" <menno@desktop.lan> wrote in message
newsan.2004.04.14.10.15.59.958265@desktop.lan...
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:03:16 +0100, Paul wrote:
> > edward hage wrote:
> >
> >> Recently in installed Slackware 9.0 on an old 486DX2 - machine. I did
> >
> > Stop! I can find higher spec PCs in a skip (dumpster?)
>
> Sure. However there are plenty of uses for which even a i386 SX suffices.
>
> For instance, test CGI scripts on it. I use a 16MB i586 box, null-modem
> connection, running Apache. That way it's much easier to see how it might
> perform in production, for users on crappy dail-up (maybe: 38400 baud)...
>
> I personally wouldn't mind if the minimum CPU requirement for Slackware
> would go up to Pentium MMX as that is the lowest spec i use it on nowadays
:-).

I'd squeal like a stuck pig if they pulled a stunt like that. That'd
be like turning Linux into MegaShit.

Optimize the bejabbers out of it if you want, but taking away the ability
to use it on the hardware of one's choice is anathema to the whole Linux
philosophy, IM!HO.

Thanks,
Rich

Rich Grisesays...
>
>Menno Duursma wrote...
>
>>Paul wrote:
>>
>>>edward hage wrote:
>>>
>>>> Recently in installed Slackware 9.0 on an old 486DX2 - machine. I did
>>>
>>>Stop! I can find higher spec PCs in a skip (dumpster?)
>>
>>Sure. However there are plenty of uses for which even a i386 SX suffices.
>>
>>For instance, test CGI scripts on it. I use a 16MB i586 box, null-modem
>>connection, running Apache. That way it's much easier to see how it might
>>perform in production, for users on crappy dail-up (maybe: 38400 baud)...
>>
>>I personally wouldn't mind if the minimum CPU requirement for Slackware
>>would go up to Pentium MMX as that is the lowest spec i use it on nowadays
>
>I'd squeal like a stuck pig if they pulled a stunt like that. That'd
>be like turning Linux into MegaShit.
>
>Optimize the bejabbers out of it if you want, but taking away the ability
>to use it on the hardware of one's choice is anathema to the whole Linux
>philosophy, IM!HO.

When the decision was made to up the minimum requirements 486 (7.1
was the last release that ran on a 386) I did a bit of research, and
found that there simply aren't any significant numbers of 386 boxes
out there that have the disk space to hold a minimum installation.
486s with 64MB of RAM and 520MB hard drives are common, so I don't
mind the fact that 9.1 won't run on an 8088, 80286 or 80386. I am
hoping for a Commodore 128 CP/M mode port, though...


--
Guy Macon, Electronics Engineer & Project Manager for hire.
Remember Doc Brown from the _Back to the Future_ movies? Do you
have an "impossible" engineering project that only someone like
Doc Brown can solve? My resume is at http://www.guymacon.com/

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:20:03 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:
> "Menno Duursma" <menno@desktop.lan> wrote:

>> I personally wouldn't mind if the minimum CPU requirement for Slackware
>> would go up to Pentium MMX as that is the lowest spec i use it on nowadays
> :-).
>
> I'd squeal like a stuck pig if they pulled a stunt like that.

Let me rephrase that: s/mind/care/

> That'd be like turning Linux into MegaShit.

I wasn't talking about Linux in source form, rather in bynary code as
distributed by Slackware inc.

> Optimize the bejabbers out of it if you want,

Well, i only optimise things, when and if i think it benefits a given
situation... Not just for the hell of it.

> but taking away the ability to use it on the hardware of one's choice is
> anathema to the whole Linux philosophy, IM!HO.

They can run any Linux kernel, with an older version (or some other disto
altogether) still. Something like slackware 7.1 with just the latest
versions of programs actually used, saves - at least - some diskspace.

--
-Menno.

On 04-14-2004, in alt.os.linux.slackware,
Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

> "Menno Duursma" <menno@desktop.lan> wrote in message
> newsan.2004.04.14.10.15.59.958265@desktop.lan...
>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:03:16 +0100, Paul wrote:
>> > edward hage wrote:
>> >
>> >> Recently in installed Slackware 9.0 on an old 486DX2 -
>> >> machine. I did
>> >
>> > Stop! I can find higher spec PCs in a skip (dumpster?)
>>
>> Sure. However there are plenty of uses for which even a i386 SX
>> suffices.
>>
>> For instance, test CGI scripts on it. I use a 16MB i586 box,
>> null-modem connection, running Apache. That way it's much easier
>> to see how it might perform in production, for users on crappy
>> dail-up (maybe: 38400 baud)...
>>
>> I personally wouldn't mind if the minimum CPU requirement for
>> Slackware would go up to Pentium MMX as that is the lowest spec i
>> use it on nowadays

> I'd squeal like a stuck pig if they pulled a stunt like that.
> That'd be like turning Linux into MegaShit.
>
> Optimize the bejabbers out of it if you want, but taking away the
> ability to use it on the hardware of one's choice is anathema to
> the whole Linux philosophy, IM!HO.

I'm with you on this one my good man!!!.

Max

--
If Bill Gates had a dime for every time Windows crashed...
Oh wait a minute, he already does.

"Menno Duursma" <menno@desktop.lan> wrote in message
newsan.2004.04.14.23.01.21.628407@desktop.lan...
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:20:03 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:
> > "Menno Duursma" <menno@desktop.lan> wrote:
>
> >> I personally wouldn't mind if the minimum CPU requirement for Slackware
> >> would go up to Pentium MMX as that is the lowest spec i use it on
nowadays
> > :-).
> >
...
> > but taking away the ability to use it on the hardware of one's choice is
> > anathema to the whole Linux philosophy, IM!HO.
>
> They can run any Linux kernel, with an older version (or some other disto
> altogether) still. Something like slackware 7.1 with just the latest
> versions of programs actually used, saves - at least - some diskspace.

Once again, I threw my mouth into gear before engaging my brain. I guess
there is something to be said for a precompiled kernel that doesn't
have to jump through hoops to accommodate the older processors. :-)

Cheers!
Rich