[A83] Re: Linux
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
[A83] Re: Linux
On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Mike K wrote:
> I'll admit i can't spell and am no expert at ti-83 asm, but i know plenty
> about Linux. I've installed it on my home PC and write C++ for it. At
> askme.com i am a top expert in both Linux and computer security categories.
> Linux runs on Atari and Amega systems, are they 32-bit?
If "Amega" really means "Amiga" then the answer would be mostly yes. Both
systems use 680x0-series processors, which are 32 bits internally and have
a 24-bit or 32-bit memory address space (though I'm not absolutely sure,
I'm fairly sure only the fully 32-bit processors in the series run Linux).
Linux will only run on these systems if they have MMUs.
> People port Linux because it's amazing what Linux can run on (the
> smallest server in the world runs red hat linux) and so do some of the
> largest. I was also reading a discussion from ticalc.org from ti92
> users who though that it was possible to port Linux to the ti92, I
> figured the 83+ silver had near 92 capabilities, so why not port
> linux?
The discussion on ticalc.org only refers to ucLinux, which is not the full
Linux kernel. This will run without an MMU. It also actually is about
the 89/92+, not the 92, as those are the only ones that have enough
memory. (I'm assume you are referring to the article "68K Linux Ported
to 89/92+?" from June 6, 2000).
Even though the 83+ silver may have near-92 capabilities in some ways
(like the amount of memory) it is a much harder environment to try to put
large programs. The reason is that is still has only a 16-bit address
space (and no processor-based segmentation at all, so it's much worse than
something like the 8086), so memory has to be swappped around by sending
values to hardware ports, not something that you can do all the time and
still have programs run fast. Note also that there's still only 32K of
RAM, with the rest being Flash ROM.
References: