[gentoo-user] How low can you go?

[gentoo-user] How low can you go?

[Pandu Poluan]

Just for fun, not for boasting ;-)

Out of curiosity, I pared down nearly everything from my Gentoo VMware Guest.

`free -m` directly after booting + login:

Mem:
  total 499
  used 28
  free 470
  shared 0
  buffers 1
  cached 12

Granted, system is quite possibly unusable for serious purposes,
although I can still login (console & ssh) and do `emerge --sync`

But still, I'm amazed at how low Gentoo can go :-)

Well done, Gentoo team!

Rgds,
--
Pandu E Poluan
~ IT Optimizer ~
Visit my Blog: http://pepoluan.posterous.com

Re: [gentoo-user] How low can you go?

[Einux]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1299 bytes --]

I'm the network manager in my school. I set up a Gentoo box using VirtualBox
with 128M of RAM, to serve as the squid reverse proxy server and dns server
in my local campus network.
And it turns out:
{{{
gentoo-vm squid # uptime
 22:49:48 up 7 days, 10:28,  2 users,  load average: 0.35, 0.33, 0.45
gentoo-vm squid # free -m
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:           118        114          4          0         60         28
-/+ buffers/cache:         25         93
Swap:          512          7        505
}}}

If your demand is not critical, Gentoo can be quite lightweight :)


On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:

> Just for fun, not for boasting ;-)
>
> Out of curiosity, I pared down nearly everything from my Gentoo VMware
> Guest.
>
> `free -m` directly after booting + login:
>
> Mem:
>  total 499
>  used 28
>  free 470
>  shared 0
>  buffers 1
>  cached 12
>
> Granted, system is quite possibly unusable for serious purposes,
> although I can still login (console & ssh) and do `emerge --sync`
>
> But still, I'm amazed at how low Gentoo can go :-)
>
> Well done, Gentoo team!
>
> Rgds,
> --
> Pandu E Poluan
> ~ IT Optimizer ~
> Visit my Blog: http://pepoluan.posterous.com
>
>


-- 
Best Regards,
Einux

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2282 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] How low can you go?

[Albert Hopkins]

On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 19:36 +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote:
> Just for fun, not for boasting ;-)
> 
> Out of curiosity, I pared down nearly everything from my Gentoo VMware Guest.
> 
> `free -m` directly after booting + login:
> 
> Mem:
>   total 499
>   used 28
>   free 470
>   shared 0
>   buffers 1
>   cached 12
> 
> Granted, system is quite possibly unusable for serious purposes,
> although I can still login (console & ssh) and do `emerge --sync`

lilpenguin ~ # free -m
             total       used       free     shared    buffers
cached
Mem:            43          5         37          0          0
1
-/+ buffers/cache:          3         39
Swap:            0          0          0
lilpenguin ~ # uname -srm
Linux 2.6.34-gentoo-r6 x86_64

[gentoo-user] Re: How low can you go?

[Pandu Poluan]

Good grief! How'd you do that?!

*bow in respect*

Rgds,


On 2011-04-02, Albert Hopkins <marduk@letterboxes.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 19:36 +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>> Just for fun, not for boasting ;-)
>>
>> Out of curiosity, I pared down nearly everything from my Gentoo VMware
>> Guest.
>>
>> `free -m` directly after booting + login:
>>
>> Mem:
>>   total 499
>>   used 28
>>   free 470
>>   shared 0
>>   buffers 1
>>   cached 12
>>
>> Granted, system is quite possibly unusable for serious purposes,
>> although I can still login (console & ssh) and do `emerge --sync`
>
> lilpenguin ~ # free -m
>              total       used       free     shared    buffers
> cached
> Mem:            43          5         37          0          0
> 1
> -/+ buffers/cache:          3         39
> Swap:            0          0          0
> lilpenguin ~ # uname -srm
> Linux 2.6.34-gentoo-r6 x86_64
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
--
Pandu E Poluan - IT Optimizer
My website: http://pandu.poluan.info/

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How low can you go?

[Albert Hopkins]

On Sat, 2011-04-02 at 02:22 +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote:
> Good grief! How'd you do that?!
> 
> *bow in respect*
> 
> Rgds,
> 
> 

Well, firstly, I managed to get it down to 3MB (though I cheated *a
little*):

lilpenguin ~ # sync ; echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches # kinda cheating
lilpenguin ~ # free -m
             total       used       free     shared    buffers
cached
Mem:            43          5         37          0          0
1
-/+ buffers/cache:          3         39
Swap:            0          0          0
lilpenguin ~ # uname -srm
Linux 2.6.36-gentoo-r8 x86_64
lilpenguin ~ # df -h 
Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/vda1             4.0G  157M  3.6G   5% /
shm                    22M     0   22M   0% /dev/shm


So what it is is this:

* kvm with virtio devices
* no udev (static /dev)
* serial console only
* no services in default runlevel
* tight module-less virtio-based kernel (booted externally)
* no extra (virtual) hardware
* everything compiled with -Os

I got the disk space down low by removing everything not needed to boot
and get into the system (which means the portage tree, compiler, etc),
but that has nothing to do with the memory usage.

I could probably get it lower by tweaking the kernel a bit more.  Also
it would probably use slightly less RAM if it were 32-bit.  Also, the
biggest user of memory are /bin/bash and /bin/login.  I could minimize
memory further by making the login shell ash or dash.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How low can you go?

[Albert Hopkins]

.. got it slightly lower by switching to dash and disabling ACPI and
APIC:

root@lilpenguin $ free -m
             total       used       free     shared    buffers
cached
Mem:            18          4         13          0          0
1
-/+ buffers/cache:          2         15
Swap:            0          0          0

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How low can you go?

[Bill Longman]

On 04/01/2011 02:00 PM, Albert Hopkins wrote:
> 
> .. got it slightly lower by switching to dash and disabling ACPI and
> APIC:
> 
> root@lilpenguin $ free -m
>              total       used       free     shared    buffers
> cached
> Mem:            18          4         13          0          0
> 1
> -/+ buffers/cache:          2         15
> Swap:            0          0          0

So, what can you actually *do* on this, other than an "ls" or two?

:-D

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How low can you go?

[Albert Hopkins]

On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 14:44 -0700, Bill Longman wrote:
...
> So, what can you actually *do* on this, other than an "ls" or two?

Well, first the "challenge" did not require that it had to have any use.

But thinking about what you said, I remember when I first started using
Linux, it was not unthinkable to think that was enough memory to do
stuff.

So I decided to build another VM and actually install stuff on it.  I
thought about what I'd typically be running on my desktop.  Being that
this is a graphics-less machine, I installed non-gui equivalents:

      * mutt for email
      * irssi for irc
      * vim for text editing
      * pidgin (finch) for IM
      * lynx for browsing the web
      * screen for multi-tasking

Then I added a NIC so that I could actually get on the network.
Interestingly enough, adding the virtio NIC made the VM jump up to 18MB
on the initial boot/shell, but adding a non-virtio NIC kept it down to
3MB.

Then I added a regular user and did "typical" things:

marduk@lilpenguin $ ps -ef |grep ^$USER
marduk    2081  2080  0 21:36 ttyS0    00:00:00 -dash
marduk    2094  2081  0 21:36 ttyS0    00:00:00 screen -T vt100
marduk    2095  2094  0 21:36 ?        00:00:02 SCREEN -T vt100
marduk    2096  2095  0 21:36 pts/0    00:00:00 -/bin/dash
marduk    2101  2096  0 21:36 pts/0    00:00:00 mutt
marduk    2102  2095  0 21:37 pts/1    00:00:00 -/bin/dash
marduk    2107  2102  0 21:37 pts/1    00:00:00 lynx
http://m.reuters.com/
marduk    2110  2107  0 21:37 pts/1    00:00:00 [lynx] <defunct>
marduk    2111  2095  0 21:37 pts/2    00:00:00 -/bin/dash
marduk    2116  2111  0 21:38 pts/2    00:00:00 vim helloworld.py
marduk    2117  2095  0 21:38 pts/3    00:00:00 -/bin/dash
marduk    2122  2117  0 21:38 pts/3    00:00:00 irssi
marduk    2124  2095  0 21:41 pts/4    00:00:00 -/bin/dash
marduk    2129  2124  0 21:41 pts/4    00:00:00 finch
marduk    2131  2095  0 21:42 pts/5    00:00:00 -/bin/dash
marduk    2149  2095  0 21:43 pts/6    00:00:00 -/bin/dash
marduk    2154  2149  0 21:43 pts/6    00:00:00 ssh tanuki@victoria
marduk    2176  2131  0 21:46 pts/5    00:00:00 ps -ef
marduk    2177  2131  0 21:46 pts/5    00:00:00 grep ^marduk

marduk@lilpenguin $ free -m
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:            33         28          5          0          0          9
-/+ buffers/cache:         18         14
Swap:            0          0          0

marduk@lilpenguin $ netstat -tn|grep ESTABLISHED |wc -l
5


So, running screen (with 7 sessions), 8 dash shells, mutt, irssi, finch,
an ssh session, lynx, vim and 5 TCP connections open still only takes up
18MB RAM (excluding cache).  Still not bad.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How low can you go?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Friday 01 April 2011 17:00:41 Albert Hopkins wrote:
> .. got it slightly lower by switching to dash and disabling ACPI and
> APIC:

good thing that apic has nothing to do with memory at all.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How low can you go?

[Pandu Poluan]

On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 03:28, Albert Hopkins <marduk@letterboxes.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-04-02 at 02:22 +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>> Good grief! How'd you do that?!
>>
>> *bow in respect*
>>
>> Rgds,
>>
>>
>
> Well, firstly, I managed to get it down to 3MB (though I cheated *a
> little*):
>
> lilpenguin ~ # sync ; echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches # kinda cheating
> lilpenguin ~ # free -m
>             total       used       free     shared    buffers
> cached
> Mem:            43          5         37          0          0
> 1
> -/+ buffers/cache:          3         39
> Swap:            0          0          0
> lilpenguin ~ # uname -srm
> Linux 2.6.36-gentoo-r8 x86_64
> lilpenguin ~ # df -h
> Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> /dev/vda1             4.0G  157M  3.6G   5% /
> shm                    22M     0   22M   0% /dev/shm
>
>
> So what it is is this:
>
> * kvm with virtio devices
> * no udev (static /dev)
> * serial console only
> * no services in default runlevel
> * tight module-less virtio-based kernel (booted externally)
> * no extra (virtual) hardware
> * everything compiled with -Os
>

Unfortunately, I can't go module-less; xtables-addons requires modules support.

How do you get static /dev ?

> I could probably get it lower by tweaking the kernel a bit more.  Also
> it would probably use slightly less RAM if it were 32-bit.  Also, the
> biggest user of memory are /bin/bash and /bin/login.  I could minimize
> memory further by making the login shell ash or dash.
>

I also rely on lots of bash scripts.

*sigh* ... I'll never get it as small as yours... but still I *am*
interested in your memory-saving tricks :-)

Rgds,
--
Pandu E Poluan
~ IT Optimizer ~
Visit my Blog: http://pepoluan.posterous.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How low can you go?

[Albert Hopkins]

On Sat, 2011-04-02 at 13:24 +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote:
> Unfortunately, I can't go module-less; xtables-addons requires modules
> support.
> 
> How do you get static /dev ?

Go into /etc/conf.d/rc and change RC_DEVICES to "static".  Also if you
are using virtio block devices (as I am) then you will need to manually
create the /dev/vd* device nodes else the vm won't find the virtual
drives.

> 
> > I could probably get it lower by tweaking the kernel a bit more.
>  Also
> > it would probably use slightly less RAM if it were 32-bit.  Also,
> the
> > biggest user of memory are /bin/bash and /bin/login.  I could
> minimize
> > memory further by making the login shell ash or dash.
> >
> 
> I also rely on lots of bash scripts.
> 
> *sigh* ... I'll never get it as small as yours... but still I *am*
> interested in your memory-saving tricks :-) 

I'm not saying replace bash with dash.  I'm saying change your login
shell with dash (i.e. chsh).

Moreover, dash is POSIX compliant so it should be able to be used with
most shell scripts.  The only reason you need bash around is that
unfortunately baselayout-1 depends on some bash-specific features (like
bash arrays), so you can't completely get rid of it.  But for most stuff
dash is fine.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How low can you go?

[Dale]

Albert Hopkins wrote:
> I'm not saying replace bash with dash.  I'm saying change your login
> shell with dash (i.e. chsh).
>
> Moreover, dash is POSIX compliant so it should be able to be used with
> most shell scripts.  The only reason you need bash around is that
> unfortunately baselayout-1 depends on some bash-specific features (like
> bash arrays), so you can't completely get rid of it.  But for most stuff
> dash is fine.
>
>    

I would hate to know that you guys got bored and needed something to 
do.  LOL

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How low can you go?

[Paul Hartman]

On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would hate to know that you guys got bored and needed something to do.
>  LOL

And here I am reading this thread while Firefox using something like
800M of RAM just by itself...

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How low can you go?

[Dale]

Paul Hartman wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Dale<rdalek1967@gmail.com>  wrote:
>    
>> I would hate to know that you guys got bored and needed something to do.
>>   LOL
>>      
> And here I am reading this thread while Firefox using something like
> 800M of RAM just by itself...
>
>    

I got you beat tho.

27229 dale      20   0  770m 271m  38m S   39  1.7  22:46.02 seamonkey-bin
27210 dale      20   0  750m 219m  38m S    5  1.4  34:57.04 firefox

I got both Seamonkey and Firefox running.  Neat huh?  Of course, I got 
plenty of ram.

root@fireball / # free -m
              total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:         16080      15559        520          0        510      13315
-/+ buffers/cache:       1733      14346
Swap:          956          0        956
root@fireball / #


I wonder if we could put Linux on a old Vic-20?  I think I got one out 
in the old shed somewhere.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How low can you go?

[Pandu Poluan]

On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 09:09, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Paul Hartman wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Dale<rdalek1967@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I would hate to know that you guys got bored and needed something to do.
>>>  LOL
>>>
>>
>> And here I am reading this thread while Firefox using something like
>> 800M of RAM just by itself...
>>
>>
>
> I got you beat tho.
>
> 27229 dale      20   0  770m 271m  38m S   39  1.7  22:46.02 seamonkey-bin
> 27210 dale      20   0  750m 219m  38m S    5  1.4  34:57.04 firefox
>
> I got both Seamonkey and Firefox running.  Neat huh?  Of course, I got
> plenty of ram.
>
> root@fireball / # free -m
>             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
> Mem:         16080      15559        520          0        510      13315
> -/+ buffers/cache:       1733      14346
> Swap:          956          0        956
> root@fireball / #
>
>
> I wonder if we could put Linux on a old Vic-20?  I think I got one out in
> the old shed somewhere.
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
>
>

AFAIK there's not yet a "vic20" or "~vic20" in Portage, so...

Go ahead :-D

Rgds,
--
Pandu E Poluan
~ IT Optimizer ~
Visit my Blog: http://pepoluan.posterous.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How low can you go?

[Dale]

Pandu Poluan wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 09:09, Dale<rdalek1967@gmail.com>  wrote:
>    
>>
>> I got you beat tho.
>>
>> 27229 dale      20   0  770m 271m  38m S   39  1.7  22:46.02 seamonkey-bin
>> 27210 dale      20   0  750m 219m  38m S    5  1.4  34:57.04 firefox
>>
>> I got both Seamonkey and Firefox running.  Neat huh?  Of course, I got
>> plenty of ram.
>>
>> root@fireball / # free -m
>>              total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
>> Mem:         16080      15559        520          0        510      13315
>> -/+ buffers/cache:       1733      14346
>> Swap:          956          0        956
>> root@fireball / #
>>
>>
>> I wonder if we could put Linux on a old Vic-20?  I think I got one out in
>> the old shed somewhere.
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-)
>>
>>
>>      
> AFAIK there's not yet a "vic20" or "~vic20" in Portage, so...
>
> Go ahead :-D
>
> Rgds,
> --
> Pandu E Poluan
> ~ IT Optimizer ~
> Visit my Blog: http://pepoluan.posterous.com
>
>    

Do you know what a Vic-20 is?  It came out a bit before the Commodore 
64.  I guess the Vic-20 was my first computer, if you want to call it 
that.  I think mine ran at 2Mhz and had just a few K of ram.  Seems like 
it was 4K or so.  This may help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_VIC-20

It would take a small Linux to run on that.  Would be interesting to see 
tho.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How low can you go?

[pk]

On 2011-04-03 10:53, Dale wrote:

> Do you know what a Vic-20 is?  It came out a bit before the Commodore
> 64.  I guess the Vic-20 was my first computer, if you want to call it
> that.  I think mine ran at 2Mhz and had just a few K of ram.  Seems like
> it was 4K or so.  This may help:

Of course, completely off-topic, but interesting non-the-less...
www.c64web.com

I started programming on a Vic-20, moved on to C64, Amiga {500,4000}
then PC with GNU/Linux.

Best regards

Peter K

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How low can you go?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 349 bytes --]

On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 21:09:56 -0500, Dale wrote:

> I wonder if we could put Linux on a old Vic-20?  I think I got one out 
> in the old shed somewhere.

It's been done on a C-64, but I think a 3.5KB box with no mass storage
might be a little too challenging.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Old hitchhikers never die-they just throw in the towel.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How low can you go?

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 21:09:56 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>    
>> I wonder if we could put Linux on a old Vic-20?  I think I got one out
>> in the old shed somewhere.
>>      
> It's been done on a C-64, but I think a 3.5KB box with no mass storage
> might be a little too challenging.
>
>    

I had the little cassette thing to store my stuff on.  I think the OS in 
on a ROM which would be hard to get around unless the ROM was changed.  
Then it may not really be a Vic-20 anymore.  I'm not sure about the C64 
since I got me a 20Mhz oscilloscope to work on TVs and stuff.  I still 
got the scope tho.

My biggest use for my old Vic-20 was a alarm clock.  Worked fine unless 
the power went out.  Well, that sounds like todays alarm clock.  lol   I 
guess some things never change.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How low can you go?

[Jake Moe]

On 04/03/11 20:04, Dale wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 21:09:56 -0500, Dale wrote:
>>
>>   
>>> I wonder if we could put Linux on a old Vic-20?  I think I got one out
>>> in the old shed somewhere.
>>>      
>> It's been done on a C-64, but I think a 3.5KB box with no mass storage
>> might be a little too challenging.
>>
>>    
>
> I had the little cassette thing to store my stuff on.  I think the OS
> in on a ROM which would be hard to get around unless the ROM was
> changed.  Then it may not really be a Vic-20 anymore.  I'm not sure
> about the C64 since I got me a 20Mhz oscilloscope to work on TVs and
> stuff.  I still got the scope tho.
>
> My biggest use for my old Vic-20 was a alarm clock.  Worked fine
> unless the power went out.  Well, that sounds like todays alarm
> clock.  lol   I guess some things never change.
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
>
The ol' Vic-20 was my first computer as well.  I remember you had two
choices; boot from a cartridge (usually a game, Radar Rat Race was one
of my favourites), or boot from the internal O/S.  if you chose the
latter, you could (IIRC) issue a "load <program_name>" and it would go
to the cassette tape drive and start reading, so very very slowly, the
tape from the beginning and try to find a program with the name you
specified.  I had a subscription to "Compute" magazine, and entered the
programs from there in either Basic or binary, and was amazed at what it
could do.  I even tried to do some of my own programs in Basic, but at
about 6-8 years old, it was a bit beyond me.  :-P

Jake

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How low can you go?

[Paul Hartman]

On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 21:09:56 -0500, Dale wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I wonder if we could put Linux on a old Vic-20?  I think I got one out
>>> in the old shed somewhere.
>>>
>>
>> It's been done on a C-64, but I think a 3.5KB box with no mass storage
>> might be a little too challenging.
>>
>>
>
> I had the little cassette thing to store my stuff on.  I think the OS in on
> a ROM which would be hard to get around unless the ROM was changed.  Then it
> may not really be a Vic-20 anymore.  I'm not sure about the C64 since I got
> me a 20Mhz oscilloscope to work on TVs and stuff.  I still got the scope
> tho.

The first UNIX system was on a PDP-7 with 8K of memory and loaded by
paper tape... so you never know what might be possible. :)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How low can you go?

[Bill Longman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 918 bytes --]

> I had the little cassette thing to store my stuff on.  I think the OS in on
> a ROM which would be hard to get around unless the ROM was changed.  Then it
> may not really be a Vic-20 anymore.  I'm not sure about the C64 since I got
> me a 20Mhz oscilloscope to work on TVs and stuff.  I still got the scope
> tho.
>
> My biggest use for my old Vic-20 was a alarm clock.  Worked fine unless the
> power went out.  Well, that sounds like todays alarm clock.  lol   I guess
> some things never change.
>

That's really funny, Dale. That brings back memories (and more than 5K of
them!). My dad gave me a VIC-20 when I was in college and I used it for
several years. I wrote lots of BASIC apps to ease all the ciphering I had to
do for enzyme kinetics, chemistry labs and things like that. I had a
cassette tape which was slow but it was a heck of a lot faster than typing
in your program every time!

-- 
Bill Longman

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1166 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How low can you go?

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1549 bytes --]

Bill Longman wrote:
>
>     I had the little cassette thing to store my stuff on.  I think the
>     OS in on a ROM which would be hard to get around unless the ROM
>     was changed.  Then it may not really be a Vic-20 anymore.  I'm not
>     sure about the C64 since I got me a 20Mhz oscilloscope to work on
>     TVs and stuff.  I still got the scope tho.
>
>     My biggest use for my old Vic-20 was a alarm clock.  Worked fine
>     unless the power went out.  Well, that sounds like todays alarm
>     clock.  lol   I guess some things never change.
>
>
> That's really funny, Dale. That brings back memories (and more than 5K 
> of them!). My dad gave me a VIC-20 when I was in college and I used it 
> for several years. I wrote lots of BASIC apps to ease all the 
> ciphering I had to do for enzyme kinetics, chemistry labs and things 
> like that. I had a cassette tape which was slow but it was a heck of a 
> lot faster than typing in your program every time!
>
> -- 
> Bill Longman

The embarrassing part for me was when we got a Atari.  My Dad played 
missile command and got well over a million points on that thing.  He 
was like a little kid on that thing.  Me, I liked the little chicken 
crossing the road.  The cassette tape was nice.  I had to walk about 6 
miles to buy mine.  It was the last one they had too.

I already feel old but I think I'm really getting old now.  It is 
amazing how far computer have come tho.  Both in hardware and the OS, 
well, except for windoze.  It hasn't come that far yet.  lol

Dale

:-)  :-)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How low can you go?

[Adam Carter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 315 bytes --]

>
> I already feel old but I think I'm really getting old now.  It is amazing
> how far computer have come tho.  Both in hardware and the OS, well, except
> for windoze.  It hasn't come that far yet.  lol
>
>
If windows hasnt come far for you, then you've never used the pre-windows
2000 editions, let alone 3.1 :)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 529 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How low can you go?

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 693 bytes --]

Adam Carter wrote:
>
>     I already feel old but I think I'm really getting old now.  It is
>     amazing how far computer have come tho.  Both in hardware and the
>     OS, well, except for windoze.  It hasn't come that far yet.  lol
>
>
> If windows hasnt come far for you, then you've never used the 
> pre-windows 2000 editions, let alone 3.1 :)

When 3.1 came out, I changed careers.  I worked for a major computer 
company until 3.1 came out.  They had plenty of Apple techs since they 
didn't break much so I just found a new job and a new career.  I was 
around when DOS was the thing, although it wasn't to good either.

Oh the 5 1/4 drive days brings back memories.

Dale

:-)  :-)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1333 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How low can you go?

[luis jure]

on 2011-04-03 at 10:47 Neil Bothwick wrote:

>It's been done on a C-64, but I think a 3.5KB box with no mass storage
>might be a little too challenging.

3.5? wow, i always thought that the name meant it had 20K... like the C64
and C128. but no. now, almost 30 years later, i learn that it had 5K, 1.5
of them used by the system (you wouldn't want to leave the system without
ram, would you?)

i never had a vic-20 (my first computer was the atari st-1040 in 1988),
but a friend of mine had one in the early 80's and i always wondered at
all the things you could do with the thing. i couldn't program, so i used
to sit next by him telling him my ideas for a program for algorithmic
composition, that he tried to code.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How low can you go?

[Joost Roeleveld]

On Sunday 03 April 2011 15:13:09 luis jure wrote:
> on 2011-04-03 at 10:47 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> >It's been done on a C-64, but I think a 3.5KB box with no mass storage
> >might be a little too challenging.
> 
> 3.5? wow, i always thought that the name meant it had 20K... like the C64
> and C128. but no. now, almost 30 years later, i learn that it had 5K, 1.5
> of them used by the system (you wouldn't want to leave the system without
> ram, would you?)
> 
> i never had a vic-20 (my first computer was the atari st-1040 in 1988),
> but a friend of mine had one in the early 80's and i always wondered at
> all the things you could do with the thing. i couldn't program, so i used
> to sit next by him telling him my ideas for a program for algorithmic
> composition, that he tried to code.

Nice, a walk down memory lane :)
The first computer we had at home (apart from an IBM my dad borrowed a few 
times) was an Atari 1040 ST.
We got it in 1986 and I can't even remember all the things I did with it.
It came with a copy of GFA Basic. This was a bit like C or Pascal, but then 
with Basic commands.
No line numbers, a decent editor and a compiler and linker. I could mix 
machine-code, basic-code and C-code into a final program to get a faster 
result.

The machine still worked last time I tried it and is currently still stored at 
my parents with strict instructions not to throw it away :)

--
Joost

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How low can you go?

[Pandu Poluan]

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 16:04, Joost Roeleveld <joost@antarean.org> wrote:
> On Sunday 03 April 2011 15:13:09 luis jure wrote:
>> on 2011-04-03 at 10:47 Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> >It's been done on a C-64, but I think a 3.5KB box with no mass storage
>> >might be a little too challenging.
>>
>> 3.5? wow, i always thought that the name meant it had 20K... like the C64
>> and C128. but no. now, almost 30 years later, i learn that it had 5K, 1.5
>> of them used by the system (you wouldn't want to leave the system without
>> ram, would you?)
>>
>> i never had a vic-20 (my first computer was the atari st-1040 in 1988),
>> but a friend of mine had one in the early 80's and i always wondered at
>> all the things you could do with the thing. i couldn't program, so i used
>> to sit next by him telling him my ideas for a program for algorithmic
>> composition, that he tried to code.
>
> Nice, a walk down memory lane :)
> The first computer we had at home (apart from an IBM my dad borrowed a few
> times) was an Atari 1040 ST.
> We got it in 1986 and I can't even remember all the things I did with it.
> It came with a copy of GFA Basic. This was a bit like C or Pascal, but then
> with Basic commands.
> No line numbers, a decent editor and a compiler and linker. I could mix
> machine-code, basic-code and C-code into a final program to get a faster
> result.
>
> The machine still worked last time I tried it and is currently still stored at
> my parents with strict instructions not to throw it away :)
>

Oh, the nostalgy... :-)

My first computer I believe was an Apple ][, a hand-down from an
uncle. It ran only for 1-2 weeks before it went to the Bit Bucket in
the Sky.

Then my parents got me an Atari 800XL. That's where I cut my
programming teeth with its built-in BASIC.

When its floppy drive (5.25") gave up the ghost, I got another
hand-down; a PC-XT compatible no-name with a huge (at that time) 20 MB
hard disk.

Again, it died after serving me & my brother for a couple of years,
and we got a "PC Brand 486 SLC" desktop. And there I dabbled in Pascal
and ASM, making replacement drivers for MS-DOS :-P ... I still
remember tuning QEMM386.sys trying to eke the last bytes of Low
Memory...

Afterwards, I started university, and its a blur of PC clones (and
Windows 9x)... and I shifted mental-gears to become a network engineer
:-)

Rgds,
--
Pandu E Poluan
~ IT Optimizer ~
Visit my Blog: http://pepoluan.posterous.com

Re: OT: Computers-memory-lane.... [Was: [gentoo-user] Re: How low can you go?]

[Joost Roeleveld]

On Monday 04 April 2011 11:13:58 Pandu Poluan wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 16:04, Joost Roeleveld <joost@antarean.org> wrote:
> > On Sunday 03 April 2011 15:13:09 luis jure wrote:
> >> on 2011-04-03 at 10:47 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> >> >It's been done on a C-64, but I think a 3.5KB box with no mass storage
> >> >might be a little too challenging.
> >> 
> >> 3.5? wow, i always thought that the name meant it had 20K... like the
> >> C64 and C128. but no. now, almost 30 years later, i learn that it had
> >> 5K, 1.5 of them used by the system (you wouldn't want to leave the
> >> system without ram, would you?)
> >> 
> >> i never had a vic-20 (my first computer was the atari st-1040 in 1988),
> >> but a friend of mine had one in the early 80's and i always wondered at
> >> all the things you could do with the thing. i couldn't program, so i
> >> used to sit next by him telling him my ideas for a program for
> >> algorithmic composition, that he tried to code.
> > 
> > Nice, a walk down memory lane :)
> > The first computer we had at home (apart from an IBM my dad borrowed a
> > few times) was an Atari 1040 ST.
> > We got it in 1986 and I can't even remember all the things I did with it.
> > It came with a copy of GFA Basic. This was a bit like C or Pascal, but
> > then with Basic commands.
> > No line numbers, a decent editor and a compiler and linker. I could mix
> > machine-code, basic-code and C-code into a final program to get a faster
> > result.
> > 
> > The machine still worked last time I tried it and is currently still
> > stored at my parents with strict instructions not to throw it away :)
> 
> Oh, the nostalgy... :-)
> 
> My first computer I believe was an Apple ][, a hand-down from an
> uncle. It ran only for 1-2 weeks before it went to the Bit Bucket in
> the Sky.

That's sad, only 2 weeks...
A friend of my dad got us an apple-emulator, had a game I played a lot untill 
I found out that the game was incomplete and would always crash at the same 
point. It was a point-click adventure...

> Then my parents got me an Atari 800XL. That's where I cut my
> programming teeth with its built-in BASIC.

Yes, the old days with Basic. I wonder if I still have the old programs... The 
3.5" floppy-disks are still around somewhere..

> When its floppy drive (5.25") gave up the ghost, I got another
> hand-down; a PC-XT compatible no-name with a huge (at that time) 20 MB
> hard disk.

2nd one we had was a 386sx-16mhz with 2 mb ram and 40mb harddrive.
I did try to install linux on that once, but the network-install took forever.
The NIC could do 10mbit half-duples (coax), but effective speed was less.
Symptoms:
download 1KB at full speed
card crashed
driver resets after 5 minutes
... repeat...

That was in 2.0.x kernels and I think I saw a change-log where that driver 
finally got fixed in 2.6.0 (could be mistaken on that. It was an Intel 
Etherlink-16)

I don't have that card anymore.

> Again, it died after serving me & my brother for a couple of years,
> and we got a "PC Brand 486 SLC" desktop. And there I dabbled in Pascal
> and ASM, making replacement drivers for MS-DOS :-P ... I still
> remember tuning QEMM386.sys trying to eke the last bytes of Low
> Memory...

What's the most low-memory you could get it and still use it?
I managed to get low memory to around 634KB (If I remember correctly) using 
the memory-tools that came with Norton Utilities at the time.

> Afterwards, I started university, and its a blur of PC clones (and
> Windows 9x)... and I shifted mental-gears to become a network engineer

When did you switch to Linux?

I switched when MS Windows 95 crashed once too many and decided to delete some 
files along with it. I didn't bother fixing that installation and eventually 
reclaimed the diskspace and removed it from /etc/lilo.conf.

--
Joost

Re: OT: Computers-memory-lane.... [Was: [gentoo-user] Re: How low can you go?]

[Pandu Poluan]

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 16:35, Joost Roeleveld <joost@antarean.org> wrote:
> On Monday 04 April 2011 11:13:58 Pandu Poluan wrote:
>> Oh, the nostalgy... :-)
>>
>> My first computer I believe was an Apple ][, a hand-down from an
>> uncle. It ran only for 1-2 weeks before it went to the Bit Bucket in
>> the Sky.
>
> That's sad, only 2 weeks...
> A friend of my dad got us an apple-emulator, had a game I played a lot untill
> I found out that the game was incomplete and would always crash at the same
> point. It was a point-click adventure...
>
>> Then my parents got me an Atari 800XL. That's where I cut my
>> programming teeth with its built-in BASIC.
>
> Yes, the old days with Basic. I wonder if I still have the old programs... The
> 3.5" floppy-disks are still around somewhere..
>
>> When its floppy drive (5.25") gave up the ghost, I got another
>> hand-down; a PC-XT compatible no-name with a huge (at that time) 20 MB
>> hard disk.
>
> 2nd one we had was a 386sx-16mhz with 2 mb ram and 40mb harddrive.
> I did try to install linux on that once, but the network-install took forever.
> The NIC could do 10mbit half-duples (coax), but effective speed was less.
> Symptoms:
> download 1KB at full speed
> card crashed
> driver resets after 5 minutes
> ... repeat...
>

Okay, I have to be honest: I LOL-ed at that... xD

> That was in 2.0.x kernels and I think I saw a change-log where that driver
> finally got fixed in 2.6.0 (could be mistaken on that. It was an Intel
> Etherlink-16)
>
> I don't have that card anymore.
>
>> Again, it died after serving me & my brother for a couple of years,
>> and we got a "PC Brand 486 SLC" desktop. And there I dabbled in Pascal
>> and ASM, making replacement drivers for MS-DOS :-P ... I still
>> remember tuning QEMM386.sys trying to eke the last bytes of Low
>> Memory...
>
> What's the most low-memory you could get it and still use it?
> I managed to get low memory to around 634KB (If I remember correctly) using
> the memory-tools that came with Norton Utilities at the time.
>

I don't really recall... but around the same number, I guess. 630-something.

Actually, I once managed to get 639KB, but lots of apps became
unstable, so I went slightly more conservative :-)

>> Afterwards, I started university, and its a blur of PC clones (and
>> Windows 9x)... and I shifted mental-gears to become a network engineer
>
> When did you switch to Linux?
>
> I switched when MS Windows 95 crashed once too many and decided to delete some
> files along with it. I didn't bother fixing that installation and eventually
> reclaimed the diskspace and removed it from /etc/lilo.conf.
>

Too many apps* I use day-by-day have only Windows version, so I never
did switch to Linux :-(

First time I ever deployed Linux for day-to-day work was when I
started an IT Training company with my former professor. We installed
Fedora Core but replaced the UI with xfce.

However, not until Ubuntu Hardy did I finally got serious about
migrating to Linux. Currently am still migrating the non-legacy
servers to Linux from Windows

* please consider "games" as "apps" :-P


Rgds,
--
Pandu E Poluan
~ IT Optimizer ~
Visit my Blog: http://pepoluan.posterous.com

Re: OT: Computers-memory-lane.... [Was: [gentoo-user] Re: How low can you go?]

[Joost Roeleveld]

On Monday 04 April 2011 11:49:02 Pandu Poluan wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 16:35, Joost Roeleveld <joost@antarean.org> wrote:
> > On Monday 04 April 2011 11:13:58 Pandu Poluan wrote:
> >> When its floppy drive (5.25") gave up the ghost, I got another
> >> hand-down; a PC-XT compatible no-name with a huge (at that time) 20 MB
> >> hard disk.
> > 
> > 2nd one we had was a 386sx-16mhz with 2 mb ram and 40mb harddrive.
> > I did try to install linux on that once, but the network-install took
> > forever. The NIC could do 10mbit half-duples (coax), but effective speed
> > was less. Symptoms:
> > download 1KB at full speed
> > card crashed
> > driver resets after 5 minutes
> > ... repeat...
> 
> Okay, I have to be honest: I LOL-ed at that... xD

I do as well, now...
At the time, I was rather annoyed as I, at the time, made a really good effort 
finding a decent network card (so I thought) and had to drag that thing into 
uni by public transport during rush hour...

> >> Again, it died after serving me & my brother for a couple of years,
> >> and we got a "PC Brand 486 SLC" desktop. And there I dabbled in Pascal
> >> and ASM, making replacement drivers for MS-DOS :-P ... I still
> >> remember tuning QEMM386.sys trying to eke the last bytes of Low
> >> Memory...
> > 
> > What's the most low-memory you could get it and still use it?
> > I managed to get low memory to around 634KB (If I remember correctly)
> > using the memory-tools that came with Norton Utilities at the time.
> 
> I don't really recall... but around the same number, I guess.
> 630-something.
> 
> Actually, I once managed to get 639KB, but lots of apps became
> unstable, so I went slightly more conservative :-)

I spent all that effort just to be able to play the occasional game. Most of my 
programming was, at the time, still done on the Atari. I did use them side-by-
side for a while.

> >> Afterwards, I started university, and its a blur of PC clones (and
> >> Windows 9x)... and I shifted mental-gears to become a network engineer
> > 
> > When did you switch to Linux?
> > 
> > I switched when MS Windows 95 crashed once too many and decided to delete
> > some files along with it. I didn't bother fixing that installation and
> > eventually reclaimed the diskspace and removed it from /etc/lilo.conf.
> 
> Too many apps* I use day-by-day have only Windows version, so I never
> did switch to Linux :-(

There are plenty of games also available for Linux.
When I started with Linux, one of the popular ones was "xtris".
For the people who don't know it, it's a networked version of tetris where, 
when one player clears a line, or multiple lines, an equivalent number of 
junk-lines would appear at the bottom of a random different player.

In the end there were 2 versions in use.
One was binary-only with an ID-code only allowing connections from other 
binary-only clients.
The other one was more open.
The reason for the binary-only was due to some complaints about "cheating" 
where people added additional keys to do all kinds of different things like:
- bounce junk to next player
- ignore junk-message
- send junk to others
- select next piece to be available

These, however, were all modified by the actual player.

For more "modern" games, there are plenty that run natively on Linux. Either 
ported/created by the original developers or ported by a third party.

> First time I ever deployed Linux for day-to-day work was when I
> started an IT Training company with my former professor. We installed
> Fedora Core but replaced the UI with xfce.
> 
> However, not until Ubuntu Hardy did I finally got serious about
> migrating to Linux. Currently am still migrating the non-legacy
> servers to Linux from Windows

Good luck with that. I know about the difficulty with that if some apps use ms-
windows specific "tricks"

> * please consider "games" as "apps" :-P

Games are applications, yes...
Just a very specific type.

--
Joost