Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 7th Jan 2008 19:20 UTC, submitted by mariuz
Linux Abdel Benamrouche announced that he has updated the original 0.01 Linux kernel to compile with GCC-4.x, allowing it to run on emulators such as QEMU and Bochs. After applying his series of small patches, Abdel explains that the 0.01 kernel can be built on a system running the 2.6 Linux kernel. He added that he's successfully ported bash-3.2, portions of coreutils-6.9, dietlibc-0.31 (instead of glibc), bin86-0.16.17, make-3.81, ncurses-2.0.7, and vim-7.1 all to run on his modified 0.01 kernel.
Order by: Score:
pointless
by areimann on Mon 7th Jan 2008 19:29 UTC
areimann
Member since:
2006-06-12

pointless, but cool and i'm sure it was fun to do.

Reply Score: 5

RE: pointless
by Almafeta on Mon 7th Jan 2008 20:05 UTC in reply to "pointless"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

pointless, but cool and i'm sure it was fun to do.


I smell forkage!

Reply Score: 3

RE: pointless
by Sodki on Mon 7th Jan 2008 20:32 UTC in reply to "pointless"
Sodki Member since:
2005-11-10

I agree, porting Vim is pointless when we have Emacs.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: pointless
by diegoviola on Mon 7th Jan 2008 22:19 UTC in reply to "RE: pointless"
diegoviola Member since:
2006-08-15

Vim > Emacs

Reply Score: 10

RE[3]: pointless
by sorpigal on Tue 8th Jan 2008 00:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: pointless"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Vim < Emacs

There, fixed it for ya.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: pointless
by m_abs on Tue 8th Jan 2008 07:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: pointless"
m_abs Member since:
2005-07-06

No you introducted a new bug

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: pointless
by ormandj on Tue 8th Jan 2008 01:56 UTC in reply to "RE: pointless"
ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

I agree, porting Vim is pointless when we have Emacs.


Not all people have 9^8402740 years to spend porting an OS to another OS. (???)

Reply Score: 2

OMG
by judgen on Mon 7th Jan 2008 19:29 UTC
judgen
Member since:
2006-07-12

This is the year of linux 0.01 on the desktop! hehe

Reply Score: 16

Cool
by Bleistift on Mon 7th Jan 2008 19:32 UTC
Bleistift
Member since:
2007-05-18

I'd say this qualifies as "geeky". Gonna try it out on qemu now ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Cool
by Bleistift on Mon 7th Jan 2008 19:49 UTC in reply to "Cool"
Bleistift Member since:
2007-05-18

Works quite nice. And hardcore linuxer will say they don't miss any features in linux 0.01 lol.

Cheers.

Reply Score: 1

Pics
by odnomzagi on Mon 7th Jan 2008 20:34 UTC
odnomzagi
Member since:
2006-05-01
Interesting
by CaptainPinko on Mon 7th Jan 2008 20:36 UTC
CaptainPinko
Member since:
2005-07-21

but I'd be more interested in someone porting Linux to be 100% C99 compliant. Perhaps this could be a first step.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Interesting
by SomeGuy on Mon 7th Jan 2008 22:07 UTC in reply to "Interesting"
SomeGuy Member since:
2006-03-20

How about a C99 compiler existing first? Currently, I don't think there *are* any 100% C99 compliant compilers. Certainly none of the mainstream ones are (MSVC is still C89. GCC has partial support, and so on)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Interesting
by binarycrusader on Tue 8th Jan 2008 01:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Interesting"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

How about a C99 compiler existing first? Currently, I don't think there *are* any 100% C99 compliant compilers. Certainly none of the mainstream ones are (MSVC is still C89. GCC has partial support, and so on)


Actually, Sun Studio is 100% C99 compliant. It's also "free" (as in beer). It is available for GNU/Linux and Solaris platforms:

http://developers.sun.com/sunstudio/documentation/ss12/mr/READMEs/c...

Edited 2008-01-08 01:19 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Interesting
by SomeGuy on Tue 8th Jan 2008 07:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Interesting"
SomeGuy Member since:
2006-03-20

Actually, no. There are still a number of changes to the system headers that have to be made in order for their compiler to be C99 compliant. From their manuals:

"Note - Though the compiler defaults to supporting the features of C99 listed below, standard headers provided by Solaris software in /usr/include do not yet conform with the 1999 ISO/IEC C standard. If error messages are encountered, try using -xc99=%none to obtain the 1990 ISO/IEC C standard behavior for these headers."

This is more or less the same situation that GCC is in. The C99 syntax changes are complete, more or less, but the headers and library functions are still not ready.

MS, of course, isn't even trying to move past C89.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Interesting
by binarycrusader on Tue 8th Jan 2008 14:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Interesting"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

If you read the link again, you will note that it has *full compliance* with the standard.

However, the catch is that system headers supplied with Solaris are not ;)

So, actually, yes.

The other difference is that gcc is NOT in the same situation. If you look at the gcc c99 status page, you will note that some c99 features are still broken or missing whereas Sun claims *full* compliance with c99.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Interesting
by CaptainPinko on Tue 8th Jan 2008 22:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Interesting"
CaptainPinko Member since:
2005-07-21

I think you could have a 100% compliant C99 Linux before you have a a 100% compliant C99 compiler because Linux does not use every possible aspect of C99. As long as it used a supported subset everything would be fine... and the GNU extensions would be gone.

Reply Score: 1

This reminds me ...
by WorknMan on Tue 8th Jan 2008 00:57 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

Of the guy who turned his Gameboy Advance into a web server. Some people have entirely too much free time.

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: pointless
by dizzey on Tue 8th Jan 2008 01:27 UTC
dizzey
Member since:
2005-10-15

vim < emacs migth add up since less is more

Reply Score: 2

Slow day? Not been to Kerneltrap lately?
by tyrione on Tue 8th Jan 2008 02:59 UTC
tyrione
Member since:
2005-11-21

I bet both.

Reply Score: 2

Vim > Emacs
by Kebabbert on Tue 8th Jan 2008 08:02 UTC
Kebabbert
Member since:
2007-07-27

Unix philosophy is having smaller well defined programs doing one thing well, interact. VI/Vim is small and have a beatiful and elegant editing model.

Emacs is large and monolithic. An operating system with an editor attached to it. It fits more into the paradigm of Microsoft; that of large monolithic programs that can do everything.

Hence, VI/Vim > emacs. ;o)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Vim > Emacs
by DoctorPepper on Tue 8th Jan 2008 10:52 UTC in reply to "Vim > Emacs"
DoctorPepper Member since:
2005-07-12

Agreed, and another thing: some of us don't have a choice in the matter. I work with hundreds (seriously!) of Sun boxes on a daily basis, and vi is what we have. Not even Vim (bummer), and definitely no Emacs.

For me, and lots of others, you learn to use the editor you have access to. I can always apply my mad Vim skillz to vi (well, some of them) and vice-versa. Emacs doesn't even fit into the equation.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Vim > Emacs
by MatzeB on Tue 8th Jan 2008 20:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Vim > Emacs"
MatzeB Member since:
2005-07-06

Hurray! I thought this clasic flamewar was nearly extinct these days. These Gnome vs. KDE, Ubuntu vs. Gentoo, GPL vs. BSD flamewars just aren't the same... since everyone knows that Gnome, Gentoo and GPL are the best ;-)

Reply Score: 1

Priceless
by gustl on Tue 8th Jan 2008 17:19 UTC
gustl
Member since:
2006-01-19

Windows Vista on a P III 200MHz Machine - $250
HPUX on a Superdome - $20000
Linux 0.01 on a 2GHz PC - priceless!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Vim > Emacs
by yiyus on Tue 8th Jan 2008 18:47 UTC
yiyus
Member since:
2006-02-27

all you should learn to use ed and stop this terrible war . sam is the only other option.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Vim > Emacs
by Rugxulo on Tue 8th Jan 2008 23:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Vim > Emacs"
Rugxulo Member since:
2007-10-09

all you should learn to use ed and stop this terrible war . sam is the only other option.


The only people who seem to advocate that are BSDers. Granted, that's fine if you prefer it (or really hate command mode), but most other people seem to prefer Vim (or XEmacs or whatever).

I also like TDE, XVI, VILE, JED, FTE, FED, MINED, and others, though. (Heh, lots of options.) :-)

Reply Score: 1