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.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-06-12
Member since:2007-02-22
Member since:2005-11-10
Member since:2006-08-15
Member since:2005-11-02
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-10-09
Member since:
2006-07-12
Member since:
2007-05-18
Member since:2007-05-18
Member since:
2006-05-01
Pictures:
http://digg.com/linux_unix/Retro_booting_Linux_kernel_0_01_on_moder...
Edited 2008-01-07 20:34
Member since:
2005-07-21
Member since:2006-03-20
Member since:2005-07-06
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
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.
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.
Member since:2005-07-21
Member since:
2005-11-13
Member since:
2005-10-15
Member since:
2005-11-21
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)
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.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2006-01-19
Member since:
2006-02-27
Member since:2007-10-09
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.) :-)