From: jwinstea@jarthur.claremont.edu (Jim Winstead Jr.) Subject: Re: problem with no-SCSI configuration of 0.97 Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1992 21:03:09 GMT
In article <Aug.1.15.34.36.1992.5552@dumas.rutgers.edu> hedrick@dumas.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
>I was somewhat apprehensive about the size of the kernel. I recalled
>someone saying that shoelace won't take kernels bigger than 256K.
>This one is 285188. It seems to boot fine. Does shoelace really need
>fixing? If so, where is the source? There's a tar file in ports on
>tsx-11, but it turns out not to have the source, nor does it have any
>indication as to where the source might be. Any ideas?
I believe the source for shoelace is not actually available because it
is Minix-tainted. I believe Peter Macdonald did the original port of
shoelace to Linux, so you could ask him.
My recommendation would be to ditch shoelace and use LILO. It is
vastly better, in my experience, and will be handle use extended
filesystems as root partitions, which shoelace will not.
>Other than that, 0.97 looks OK. I don't seem to be losing any
>characters for KA9Q, but now that I've upgraded my processor, that may
>not be significant.
I upgraded from an 8250 UART to a 16550A UART, and now *all* of my
serial problems are gone. That should easily be the first step in
fixing serial performance. (This isn't directed necessarily at you,
just a general comment.)
Anoth thought - my mouse is now on COM4/IRQ5, something which DOS
can't even handle. Way to go, Linux! :) I can finally set up my
three serial ports in something resembling a sane fashion.
--
+ Jim Winstead Jr. (CSci '95)
| Harvey Mudd College
| jwinstea@jarthur.Claremont.EDU
+ This is all my words. Honest!