OSDev.org

bzt wrote:

Solar wrote:There's no "device assign issue" because the device enumeration doesn't matter anymore.

You can't be serious about this. Can you imagine what would happen if for example the network cards were assigned different device names on each reboot?

Uh, you are aware that this is exactly how it has been handled in mainstream Linux distros since 2010 or so, right? Or are you still using the legacy naming convention and not the so-called 'consistent' network device names which caused so much furor at the time? Meh, I'd normally figure you were being sarcastic, but such assumptions tend to go poorly in this forum...

@Schol-R-LEA: as usual, I'm attacked for bad assumptions made by others, and not for what I wrote. Sadly, typical and I'm not surprised. Have I mentioned legacy network naming convention anywhere? No. Does the referenced device naming scheme change over reboots with the same hw-config? No. Was exactly that my point? Yes.

There has been so many post, yet noone could answer that simple question, how come that the first and only disk is sometimes (not always) assigned to the device sdb? I'm certain this is not the expected behaviour. Think about that.

Cheers,
bzt

bzt, you are quite viciously attacking both the system we're talking about, and everybody not agreeing with you, while all you can come up with for a "point" to your statements is "it doesn't work the way it used to".

This is mostly called "progress".

bzt wrote:Same here. I've added one single line to the fstab after install about 4 or 5 years ago, and haven't touched that since. It works great, and I don't need any additional utilities.

Are you sure that you understand what "it works great" means? It seems to me that you are complaining here that it doesn't work great.

bzt wrote:@Schol-R-LEA: as usual, I'm attacked for bad assumptions made by others, and not for what I wrote. Sadly, typical and I'm not surprised.

You should stop to think. If you are "usually attacked" for xxx perhaps you should consider whether the problem is with xxx rather than those who "attack". Or perhaps you are the only one in step?

Solar wrote:bzt, you are quite viciously attacking both the system we're talking about, and everybody not agreeing with you

Wrong. I wasn't "attacking" the system or you by no means, don't be paranoid. I just tried to explain to you several times what the actual problem is, because you don't seem to comprehend (which is amusing btw ). The rest is on you (plural).

Solar wrote:all you can come up with for a "point" to your statements is "it doesn't work the way it used to".

See? You didn't understand anything of what I wrote. Simply put: in an unchanged hw, ONE disk shouldn't be sometimes sdb. All the other machines always assign sda to the first disk as it supposed to, the problem is limited to ONE machine only and only SOMETIMES. I can't explain this more clearly, I'm afraid.

iansjack wrote:Are you sure that you understand what "it works great" means?

Yes. Are you sure too? I mean if something works on all machines, except sometimes on one, what would you call that if not a bug?

Don't bother with further posts, I don't expect solution from you. I was just hoping you are intelligent enough to comprehend the actual issue. Well, no-one can say I haven't tried to explain.

Cheers,
bzt

Personally, I would be investigating what is wrong with that machine rather than what is wrong with the Linux kernel.

https://unix.stackexchange.com/question ... ve-letters

bzt wrote:Wrong. [...] you don't seem to comprehend [...] You didn't understand anything of what I wrote [...] Don't bother with further posts, I don't expect solution from you. I was just hoping you are intelligent enough to comprehend the actual issue.

Check your attitude.

Solar wrote:I've actually started with rolling release (Gentoo) because the release-cycle distros of the time sucked. But I eventually came back to release distros where I don't have to tinker that much with configuration myself because I like to focus on using my computer, not fiddling with things that "don't work quite right yet", once release-cycled distros caught up with the rolling-release ones feature-wise.

+9001! I never quite know whether I respect people who maintain their rolling-release distros and get other things done too, or whether to think, "Something's going to have to give if they ever get a life."

Solar wrote:... /media/solar/foo ...

Bottom line, you've gotten yourself stuck. I understand that, actually -- I got stuck when I had to switch from AmigaOS to Windows, and boy was that a hard "stuck". (... I still miss the Workbench.)

Funny you should mention /media so close to the topic of getting stuck. When a Linux automounter first appeared, the keystrokes "/ m tab" for /mnt were burned so deeply into my muscle memory that the sudden introduction of /media was unbearable! lol It was rooted in my difficulty typing consistently; I used completion for everything. I got better eventually. Another keyboard thing I had trouble with back then was vi's order of the vertical cursor keys: "down up". "Up down" was burned into my memory for my Atari in the 80s.

Even my OS design is rooted in how much I miss booting to a BASIC interpreter. It'll have far more powerful features though; I gained so much inspiration from other systems.

eekee wrote:Even my OS design is rooted in how much I miss booting to a BASIC interpreter. It'll have far more powerful features though; I gained so much inspiration from other systems.

Have you looked at any of the retro projects such as Commander X16 or Color Maxmite? While they (and several others like them) are probably not what you are looking for in the long run, you might find them interesting as something to scratch that itch in the short term.

I've been playing around with the Commander X16 emulator on and off and hanging around the project's forum, and find it pretty interesting (despite, or perhaps because of, never having used the C64 before, which is the main inspiration for that project, whereas the Maximite is more aimed at recreating the Apple ][). I don't know of any projects based on the Atari 400/800 systems, but I expect that there's one out there somewhere - I did find Ben Heck's project to refit an Atari 800 into a handheld using a custom PCB, but I don't know if that would be what you'd want - also, I timed that link to skip the 'regrettable acting' part because, well, it's pretty regrettable even by Heck's standards).

I should also add that the CX16 emulator allows you to use a different ROM image, and there's talk about putting having extra flash memory on the board and a means for bank-switching the ROMs, meaning that one could (with some tweaking) use compatibility ROMS to make the system behave like a different 6502-based system; while it would not be compatible with existing software for, say, an Apple ][, Atari 800, or BBC Micro (even for the C64, only some BASIC code can run unmodified, as the memory layout and video/audio hardware are radically different), it would allow someone to make a setup which behaves 90%+ like one of those and a flavor of BASIC based on theirs.

Oh, and there are at least two different Forth projects targeting it, as well.

The Maximite is even more flexible, since it uses an FPGA and soft cores, but I know some people would find that to be cheating.

David Murray has posted two videos on the development of the Commander X16 hardware, here and here, and a number of others have made videos on the system as well. Murray also has done videos reviewing the Maximite (and again, so have others) and the PE6502, among others.

Of course, there are also retro OSes written for 32-bit and 64-bit SBCs, too, such as IchigoJam BASIC (a video n this can be seen here). Most of these are RPi, though I imagine some have been written for (or ported to) others.

If nothing else, it might be a fun distraction while you plan your own OS project.

tl;dr (because tldr should go at the top): Thanks mate, but I got more itch-scratchers than I can use already.

Schol-R-LEA wrote:

eekee wrote:Even my OS design is rooted in how much I miss booting to a BASIC interpreter. It'll have far more powerful features though; I gained so much inspiration from other systems.

Have you looked at any of the retro projects such as Commander X16 or Color Maxmite? While they (and several others like them) are probably not what you are looking for in the long run, you might find them interesting as something to scratch that itch in the short term.

Thanks! They look like they'd be fun, but I've been toying with BBC BASIC for SDL. Also BBC BASIC for DOS which, once it's running, feels a lot like using an old 8-bit. You can write your code & manage your files within BASIC. The syntax is a bit clunky for my taste, but not really terrible. It was one of the first structured Basics, and now has structs too.

I haven't done much with them partly because Forth is cleaner in the ways I want it to be, but partly because (surprise! ) I'm getting close to putting down code for my OS. Another reason is that I want much more than those old BASICs could provide.

Schol-R-LEA wrote:I've been playing around with the Commander X16 emulator on and off and hanging around the project's forum, and find it pretty interesting (despite, or perhaps because of, never having used the C64 before, which is the main inspiration for that project, whereas the Maximite is more aimed at recreating the Apple ][). I don't know of any projects based on the Atari 400/800 systems, but I expect that there's one out there somewhere - I did find Ben Heck's project to refit an Atari 800 into a handheld using a custom PCB, but I don't know if that would be what you'd want - also, I timed that link to skip the 'regrettable acting' part because, well, it's pretty regrettable even by Heck's standards).

I didn't watch, but the concept reminds me of my plans to build a wristwatch computer with a 6502 & SRAM back in 1991. I know now I couldn't have completed the hardware design and even if I did, I would not have programmed it very well at all, but I still have a soft spot for wrist-mounted computers. (I have not, however, bothered to get an Apple Watch.)

Schol-R-LEA wrote:I should also add that the CX16 emulator allows you to use a different ROM image, and there's talk about putting having extra flash memory on the board and a means for bank-switching the ROMs, meaning that one could (with some tweaking) use compatibility ROMS to make the system behave like a different 6502-based system; while it would not be compatible with existing software for, say, an Apple ][, Atari 800, or BBC Micro (even for the C64, only some BASIC code can run unmodified, as the memory layout and video/audio hardware are radically different), it would allow someone to make a setup which behaves 90%+ like one of those and a flavor of BASIC based on theirs.

Oh, and there are at least two different Forth projects targeting it, as well.

The Maximite is even more flexible, since it uses an FPGA and soft cores, but I know some people would find that to be cheating.

...

If nothing else, it might be a fun distraction while you plan your own OS project.

Changeable ROMs, FPGA... I certainly don't think these things are cheating. If I was going to get one of these hardware projects, it would be a certain one which uses an FPGA to accurately reproduce a variety of 16-bit computers and consoles, and probably 8-bit too. I can't remember the name of it now, which shows how likely I am to actually get one. Incidentally, I'd be surprised if there wasn't a more accurate C64 reproduction out there. Or, maybe there eventually will be one.

(Speaking of accuracy, it sounds like CX16 isn't significantly more compatible with its original than BBC BASIC for DOS or even for SDL. CX16 has the same CPU as its original, but that's not helpful for porting C64 programs if they have machine code which wants to write to the screen; the #1 reason for having it. The various BBC BASIC ports might run on different processor, but they have accurate display emulation which is extended for modern systems.)

There's probably not an Atari 800 replica. It was less popular for a whole bunch of reasons I don't feel like typing out. Some of the reasons were basically bugs which might affect a replica. Others are bugs to some people, great features to others. Its OS was a bit too ambitious and controversial.

If neither BBC BASIC nor Gforth nor either Pygmy forth nor... Python nor ANdroWish/UndroidWish nor anything else I have handy is enough to scratch my itch, there are two games I could go for. I have the old RedPOWER mod for Minecraft which includes an emulated 65816-powered computer running Forth. It has a proper old-school IO expander to drive or read the game's redstone wiring. It's a bit too raw, but it has a very genuine retro feel. I should write disk block code for it. I have ComputerCraft in the same modpack, (Tekkit Classic,) but that's a bit too high-level and easy, and I still couldn't be bothered to really learn Lua.

The other game is OpenSim, where I've wanted an in-game computer for ages, but the game's scripting language is possibly the worst language ever for this sort of thing (except esolangs). I just recently realised how it could be done, and started planning. It's actually fairly easy now I know how, (it's just inefficient,) but I don't want this to distract me from my OS, and I don't even want my OS project to distract me from something else important in my life right now, but again my best friend is also in OpenSim and would likely think it pretty cool, so right now I'm all like, "Eaugh! Priority SOUP!"