Subject: Re: rule 7
From: Jeff H (jhergan@home.com)
Date: Thu Dec 21 2000 - 11:35:31 MST
But your MacOS version shouldn't make a kernel patch fail.
Try a different patch.
----------
>From: "Jeff H" <jhergan@home.com>
>To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>Subject: Re: rule 7
>Date: Thu, Dec 21, 2000, 12:32 PM
>
> I think you need OS 8.6 or better.
>
> ----------
>>From: Dan Leonard <dan.leonard@analog.com>
>>To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>Subject: rule 7
>>Date: Thu, Dec 21, 2000, 5:08 AM
>>
>
>> Hi,
>> does anyone know why patching of the kernel needed to run mol
>> would fail because rule 7 was broken?? I am trying to get mol to run
>> mac os 8.5. Is that possible or do i need a special rom or something??
>> Thanks,
>> Dan.
>>
>>
>>
>> mol-general-digest-help@lists.maconlinux.org wrote:
>>
>>> mol-general Digest 21 Dec 2000 10:54:35 -0000 Issue 124
>>>
>>> Topics (messages 1661 through 1674):
>>>
>>> source code (was: linux keycodes)
>>> 1661 by: R Shapiro <reshapiro@mediaone.net>
>>> 1663 by: Samuel Rydh <samuel@ibrium.se>
>>>
>>> Hello all
>>> 1662 by: Scott McNulty <sbm4@optonline.net>
>>> 1666 by: Daniel Wolpert <daniel@berlin.com>
>>>
>>> bitkeeper, latest sources
>>> 1664 by: R Shapiro <reshapiro@mediaone.net>
>>> 1674 by: "Timothy A. Seufert" <tas@mindspring.com>
>>>
>>> MOL on Amiga/APUS again.....
>>> 1665 by: Francois Prowse <fprowse@uu.net>
>>> 1667 by: "Jeremiah Merkl" <merkjj@uleth.ca>
>>> 1668 by: Gianluca <icjtqr@tin.it>
>>> 1669 by: Gianluca <icjtqr@tin.it>
>>> 1670 by: dpates@dsdk12.net
>>> 1671 by: Gianluca <icjtqr@tin.it>
>>> 1672 by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <bh40@calva.net>
>>> 1673 by: dpates@dsdk12.net
>>>
>>> Administrivia:
>>>
>>> To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
>>> mol-general-digest-subscribe@lists.maconlinux.org
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
>>> mol-general-digest-unsubscribe@lists.maconlinux.org
>>>
>>> To post to the list, e-mail:
>>> mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: source code (was: linux keycodes)
>>> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 19:47:57 -0500
>>> From: R Shapiro <reshapiro@mediaone.net>
>>> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>>
>>> dpates@dsdk12.net writes:
>>> > He _could_, and maybe he will at some point. But now, if you want a snap,
>>> > there's no use in complaining about how you can and can't get it.
>>>
>>> How exactly do you ever expect any progress unless someone
>>> "complains" (ie, points out true deficiencies)?
>>>
>>> > bk clone bk://waltari.theophys.kth.se:5000 mol/
>>>
>>> I did that, against my own better judgement, and I'm sorry I did. I
>>> had to give my address to bitkeeper.com in order to get their
>>> software, after which I found myself on one of their mailing lists.
>>> If this is gnu, than linux is Windows...
>>>
>>> Bitkeeper is a bad choice, it should be avoided by the gnu/linux
>>> community imho. Either way, uptodate read-only snapshots should be
>>> made available by some more standard means if at all possible.
>>>
>>> --
>>> reshapiro@mediaone.net
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: source code (was: linux keycodes)
>>> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 04:19:23 +0100
>>> From: Samuel Rydh <samuel@ibrium.se>
>>> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 07:47:57PM -0500, R Shapiro wrote:
>>> > dpates@dsdk12.net writes:
>>> > > He _could_, and maybe he will at some point. But now, if you want a
> snap,
>>> > > there's no use in complaining about how you can and can't get it.
>>> >
>>> > How exactly do you ever expect any progress unless someone
>>> > "complains" (ie, points out true deficiencies)?
>>> >
>>> > > bk clone bk://waltari.theophys.kth.se:5000 mol/
>>> >
>>> > I did that, against my own better judgement, and I'm sorry I did. I
>>> > had to give my address to bitkeeper.com in order to get their
>>> > software, after which I found myself on one of their mailing lists.
>>> > If this is gnu, than linux is Windows...
>>> >
>>> > Bitkeeper is a bad choice, it should be avoided by the gnu/linux
>>> > community imho. Either way, uptodate read-only snapshots should be
>>> > made available by some more standard means if at all possible.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Well, I think bitkeeper has some nice features compared to
>>> CVS. Also, since BK is used for the ppc kernel quite a few
>>> developers are familiar with it already. But I agree
>>> there should be a way to obtain the latest snapshot without
>>> using BK. When I get some time to spare, I'll add rsync
>>> access.
>>>
>>> /Samuel
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>> E-mail <samuel@ibrium.se> WWW: <http://www.ibrium.se>
>>> Phone/fax: (home) +46 8 4418431, (work) +46 8 7908470
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Subject: Hello all
>>> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 21:26:03 -0500
>>> From: Scott McNulty <sbm4@optonline.net>
>>> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>> To: <mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org>
>>>
>>> First time Linux guy here.. well I am not a Linux guy yet because I can't
>>> get it to install on my iMac! I have the disk images saved on the hard
>>> drive, on the Mac OS partition, and when I run the installation process it
>>> tells me it can't find the "installation tree" on the drive.. or something
>>> like that.
>>>
>>> Can anyone help me? I hope this isn't a stupid question!
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Subject: Re:Hello all
>>> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:03:00 +0000
>>> From: Daniel Wolpert <daniel@berlin.com>
>>> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>>
>>> >First time Linux guy here.. well I am not a Linux guy yet because I can't
>>> >get it to install on my iMac!
>>>
>>> Oh Ok. Nice to meet another iMac user :) As a relative newbie myself
>>> I'd use a CD to install it's a lot simpler (say LinuxPPC 2000 or some
>>> other distro..) - plus you need to partition the Mac's Hard drive and
>>> format it to take the new OS.
>>>
>>> >I have the disk images saved on the hard
>>> >drive, on the Mac OS partition, and when I run the installation process it
>>> >tells me it can't find the "installation tree" on the drive.. or something
>>> >like that.
>>>
>>> I think you may have got the wrong end of the stick as far as this
>>> list goes as it is for a LinuxPPC application called "Mac-on-Linux"
>>> which lets you run MacOS under linux. - Once you get going and you're
>>> all 'installed' you may want to use MOL:)
>>>
>>> >
>>> >Can anyone help me? I hope this isn't a stupid question!
>>> >
>>>
>>> No stupid questions just dumb answers:)
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Subject: bitkeeper, latest sources
>>> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:40:01 -0500
>>> From: R Shapiro <reshapiro@mediaone.net>
>>> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>>
>>> Samuel Rydh <samuel@ibrium.se> writes:
>>>
>>> > Well, I think bitkeeper has some nice features compared to
>>> > CVS. Also, since BK is used for the ppc kernel quite a few
>>> > developers are familiar with it already.
>>>
>>> I'm not religious about Open Source, but I do think it should be
>>> supported for internal development of linux. Commercial software is
>>> fine, I just don't want to see it used in this kind of context. It
>>> just doesn't seem like it's in the spirit of gnu/linux not to use Open
>>> Source software here.
>>>
>>> Out of curiosity, what do you need that cvs doesn't provide? We use
>>> cvs in-house at bbn for both small and large projects and it's always
>>> been more than sufficient. It also work nicely with ssh for remote
>>> access.
>>>
>>> > But I agree there should
>>> > be a way to obtain the latest snapshot without using BK. When I get
>>> > some time to spare, I'll add rsync access.
>>>
>>> Thanks. Rsync is a minor nuisance for anyone with a tight firewall
>>> (which probably means anyone on a cable-modem or dsl connection),
>>> since by default it wants to use a privileged port. But for this
>>> purpose it's definitely a better choice than bk (or even cvs) imo, and
>>> not only because of the Open Source question.
>>>
>>> If you can arrange to make automatic daily tarball snapshots, eg with
>>> cron, and keep the current snapshot in a place that's accessible via
>>> ftp or http, that would be even better than rsync.
>>>
>>> In the meantime, if there's a regular patch file which includes just
>>> the keycode fixes, can you post it?
>>>
>>> Btw, once I got the sources using bk (and before I removed all traces
>>> of bk from my system), I noticed that the daylight savings time patch
>>> wasn't included. Neither was the little patch for compiling under
>>> 2.2.18. Will these be in the next official release?
>>>
>>> --
>>> reshapiro@mediaone.net
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: bitkeeper, latest sources
>>> Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 02:54:19 -0800
>>> From: "Timothy A. Seufert" <tas@mindspring.com>
>>> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>>
>>> At 10:40 AM -0500 12/19/00, R Shapiro wrote:
>>> >Samuel Rydh <samuel@ibrium.se> writes:
>>> >
>>> > > Well, I think bitkeeper has some nice features compared to
>>> > > CVS. Also, since BK is used for the ppc kernel quite a few
>>> > > developers are familiar with it already.
>>> >
>>> >I'm not religious about Open Source,
>>>
>>> Then why do you hate BK? Serious question. (Below, you also use the
>>> "gnu/linux" catchphrase, which is often a sign of buying into at
>>> least some of Stallman's religious attitude.)
>>>
>>> >but I do think it should be
>>> >supported for internal development of linux. Commercial software is
>>> >fine, I just don't want to see it used in this kind of context. It
>>> >just doesn't seem like it's in the spirit of gnu/linux not to use Open
>>> >Source software here.
>>>
>>> BK is not pure lily white Open Source but it's very close. I really
>>> don't see why so many people get bugged about it.
>>>
>>> >Out of curiosity, what do you need that cvs doesn't provide? We use
>>> >cvs in-house at bbn for both small and large projects and it's always
>>> >been more than sufficient. It also work nicely with ssh for remote
>>> >access.
>>>
>>> Speed: BK is much more efficient than CVS across the Internet.
>>>
>>> Power: BK is unquestionably more powerful and flexible. The entire
>>> model is better (push/pull between peer repositories instead of a
>>> single central repository). Once you have a repository on your hard
>>> drive you can browse the complete history of the tree without going
>>> across the network.
>>>
>>> Suckage: CVS sucks, BK doesn't. CVS is arcane, old, outdated,
>>> crufty, and generally a hunk of crap. The only reason everybody uses
>>> it is that for a long time it was the essentially the only free (beer
>>> or speech, take your pick) option. Don't mistake familiarity for
>>> goodness.
>>>
>>> Tim Seufert
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Subject: MOL on Amiga/APUS again.....
>>> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:48:11 +0000 (GMT)
>>> From: Francois Prowse <fprowse@uu.net>
>>> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>>
>>> Gianluca,
>>>
>>> I too have a problem with this and really have been running around in
>>> circles to get answers.
>>>
>>> My machine is a Amgia4000 with 060/604e PowerUP card....so in theory MOL
>>> should work. However I think one of the first problems seems to be that
>>> MOL is supported only on specific Kernels...is this correct. Apus
>>> currently only supports 2.2.10 or 2.4.0pre8 I think...unless the user
>>> wants to complile their own kernel. Specific DIFFs need to be applied to a
>>> Linux68k kernel to get a bootable kernel.
>>>
>>> Anyhow, I now have my APUS machine up and running so will be activly
>>> pursuing this in the comming weeks:) Will be building MOL support into a
>>> kernel or two...
>>>
>>> Is there any of the MOL developers actually involved in this....I may be
>>> able to get my APUS machine online and an account setup on it is so
>>> desired.....legit takers only...the APUS guys say they are working on
>>> this, however nothing seems to be happening Any suggestions guys..?
>>>
>>> The furtherest I've heard anyone get with MOL under a 604 Apus system is
>>> here...what is the next step then...apart from a correct kernel :)
>>>
>>> [root@gurgle /root]# startmol
>>> Mac-on-Linux 0.9.53, (C) 1997-2000 Samuel Rydh <samuel@ibrium.se>
>>> This kernel is NOT runtime patched
>>> Trying to apply MOL runtime patches.
>>> **** Examining '/boot/System.map' ****
>>> Discrepancy found, symbol value mismatch:
>>> c0003f90 clear_page (c00090f4)
>>> c0008338 do_signal (c0008114)
>>> c000a364 syscall_trace (c0009db4)
>>> **** Examining '/usr/src/linux/System.map' ****
>>> **** Success ****
>>> Patching the kernel...
>>> PATCH....0
>>> PATCH....1
>>> PATCH....2
>>> PATCH....3
>>> PATCH....4
>>> PATCH....5
>>> PATCH....6
>>> PATCH....7
>>> PATCH....8
>>> PATCH....9
>>> PATCH....10
>>> PATCH....11
>>> PATCH....12
>>> PATCH....13
>>> PATCH....14
>>> PATCH....15
>>> MOL runtime patch installed
>>> Trying to load the Mac-on-Linux kernel module.
>>>
>>> Warning: kernel-module version mismatch
>>> /lib/modules/2.2.10/misc/mol.o was compiled for kernel version
>>> 2.2.18pre2-ben1
>>> while this kernel is version 2.2.10
>>>
>>>
>>> Francois
>>>
>>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Gianluca wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hello ML users!!!
>>> >
>>> > I am using a LinuxPPC 2000 in a LinuxBox Amiga PowerPC 603e, and wish to
> know
>>> > if somebody is using a APUS machine to run mol...
>>> > I know a Kernel Recompiling (603e users need to...) but for
>> AmigaPowerUpSystems?
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> > Gianluca
>>> > --
>>> > IBM IntelliStation MPRO
>>> > Dual CPU PentiumIII (Katmai) 512k-L2Cache
>>> > 768MB RAM / UW-SCSI Dual Controller Adaptec AIC-7xxx
>>> > SCSI-2 Fast Controller PCI
>>> > UDMA EIDE/FastATA Dual Controller
>>> > ...and other delights... ;-)
>>> >
>>> > ALL POWERED by Linux Red-Hat 7.0
>>> >
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: MOL on Amiga/APUS again.....
>>> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 09:59:39 -0700
>>> From: "Jeremiah Merkl" <merkjj@uleth.ca>
>>> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>>
>>> I may be a complete idiot for asking this...but doesn't MOL require a
>>> machine that can run MacOS on it, which brings me to the question --
>>> does MacOS run on an Amiga machine? If not, I'd say you've got a lot of
>>> work to do to get it working...
>>>
>>> -JM
>>>
>>> Francois Prowse wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Gianluca,
>>> >
>>> > I too have a problem with this and really have been running around in
>>> > circles to get answers.
>>> >
>>> > My machine is a Amgia4000 with 060/604e PowerUP card....so in theory MOL
>>> > should work. However I think one of the first problems seems to be that
>>> > MOL is supported only on specific Kernels...is this correct. Apus
>>> > currently only supports 2.2.10 or 2.4.0pre8 I think...unless the user
>>> > wants to complile their own kernel. Specific DIFFs need to be applied to a
>>> > Linux68k kernel to get a bootable kernel.
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: MOL on Amiga/APUS again.....
>>> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:03:01 +0100
>>> From: Gianluca <icjtqr@tin.it>
>>> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>>
>>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, you wrote:
>>> > Gianluca,
>>> >
>>> > I too have a problem with this and really have been running around in
>>> > circles to get answers.
>>> >
>>> > My machine is a Amgia4000 with 060/604e PowerUP card....so in theory MOL
>>> > should work. However I think one of the first problems seems to be that
>>> > MOL is supported only on specific Kernels...is this correct. Apus
>>> > currently only supports 2.2.10 or 2.4.0pre8 I think...unless the user
>>> > wants to complile their own kernel. Specific DIFFs need to be applied to a
>>> > Linux68k kernel to get a bootable kernel.
>>>
>>> ...mmh...May be Amigans will have to wait iFusionPPC (AmigaOS, CGX 4 and
>>> WarpOS...) to run MacOS PPC Programs at full speed.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Gianluca
>>> --
>>> IBM IntelliStation MPRO
>>> Dual CPU PentiumIII (Katmai) 512k-L2Cache
>>> 768MB RAM / UW-SCSI Dual Controller Adaptec AIC-7xxx
>>> SCSI-2 Fast Controller PCI
>>> UDMA EIDE/FastATA Dual Controller
>>> ...and other delights... ;-)
>>>
>>> ALL POWERED by Linux Red-Hat 7.0
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: MOL on Amiga/APUS again.....
>>> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:13:38 +0100
>>> From: Gianluca <icjtqr@tin.it>
>>> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>>
>>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, you wrote:
>>> > I may be a complete idiot for asking this...but doesn't MOL require a
>>> > machine that can run MacOS on it, which brings me to the question --
>>> > does MacOS run on an Amiga machine? If not, I'd say you've got a lot of
>>> > work to do to get it working...
>>> Nahhhh. Dont'worry about asking things. MOL requires only a PowerPC
>>> based machine, an X Server Running, and a "New World ROM" file. RS/6000,
> APUS,
>>> Amiga, PReP, CHRP machines can run MOL easily (more or less...)
>>> Obviously a PowerMac is all above (and maybe more... ;) )
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Gianluca
>>> --
>>> IBM IntelliStation MPRO
>>> Dual CPU PentiumIII (Katmai) 512k-L2Cache
>>> 768MB RAM / UW-SCSI Dual Controller Adaptec AIC-7xxx
>>> SCSI-2 Fast Controller PCI
>>> UDMA EIDE/FastATA Dual Controller
>>> ...and other delights... ;-)
>>>
>>> ALL POWERED by Linux Red-Hat 7.0
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: MOL on Amiga/APUS again.....
>>> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 13:02:15 -0700 (MST)
>>> From: dpates@dsdk12.net
>>> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>>
>>> Quoting Gianluca <icjtqr@tin.it>:
>>>
>>> > On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, you wrote:
>>> > > I may be a complete idiot for asking this...but doesn't MOL require
>>> > a
>>> > > machine that can run MacOS on it, which brings me to the question --
>>> > > does MacOS run on an Amiga machine? If not, I'd say you've got a lot
>>> > of
>>> > > work to do to get it working...
>>> > Nahhhh. Dont'worry about asking things. MOL requires only a PowerPC
>>> > based machine, an X Server Running, and a "New World ROM" file. RS/6000,
>>> > APUS,
>>> > Amiga, PReP, CHRP machines can run MOL easily (more or less...)
>>> > Obviously a PowerMac is all above (and maybe more... ;) )
>>>
>>> Umm. Doesn't MoL depend on the Mac IO controller chip? (Paddington on the G3
> B/W
>>> systems, for example) Far as I know, MacOS depends heavily on this chip for
> most
>>> of its functionality, and without it, MacOS can't do anything. I think you
> need
>>> an actual Mac, because of the necessity of having that chip available to do
> some
>>> of MacOS's dirty work.
>>>
>>> Derrik Pates
>>> dpates@dsdk12.net
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: MOL on Amiga/APUS again.....
>>> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 20:57:04 +0100
>>> From: Gianluca <icjtqr@tin.it>
>>> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>>
>>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, you wrote:
>>>
>>> > Quoting Gianluca <icjtqr@tin.it>:
>>> > > Nahhhh. Dont'worry about asking things. MOL requires only a PowerPC
>>> > > based machine, an X Server Running, and a "New World ROM" file. RS/6000,
>>> > > APUS,
>>> > > Amiga, PReP, CHRP machines can run MOL easily (more or less...)
>>> > > Obviously a PowerMac is all above (and maybe more... ;) )
>>> > Umm. Doesn't MoL depend on the Mac IO controller chip? (Paddington on
>> the G3 B/W
>>> > systems, for example) Far as I know, MacOS depends heavily on this chip
>> for most
>>> > of its functionality, and without it, MacOS can't do anything. I think you
> need
>>> > an actual Mac, because of the necessity of having that chip available
>> to do some
>>> > of MacOS's dirty work.
>>> Yep. You are right. You wrote "MacOS depends heavily on this chip for most
of
>>> its functionality..."
>>> But MoL it's a MacIntosh Emulator. Completely software based. Heard of MAME?
> or
>>> Basilisk or ShapeShifter? Every Emulator, catch every call to low-level i/o
>>> chips and redirect evrything on a higher level. So it needs so much
> horsepower
>>> to emulate something relativly simpler.
>>> Try to think about a PowerComputing Apple Clone (quite different from a real
>>> Mac...) running MacOS...
>>>
>>> The main advantages are if you are not emulating the opcode on the host
>>> processor as MoL. It doesn't waste CPU time to translate PowerPC Opcodes,
>>> because it is running on a PowerPC CPU System. It is like WinEmu for Linux
>>> Intel Based, or ArmEmu for Archimedes ARM Based RISCOS..or Emulating a 68k
> Mac
>>> on a 68k based Amiga (only the access to i/o chips are wrapped into AmigaOS
>>> System...Sometimes better than MacOS counterparts...).
>>> The main part is NOT emulating the PROCESSOR ITSELF, but only the chips
>>> addressing and operation. (Simpler than an entire system, anyway...)
>>>
>>> Have you ever heard of Alpha Processors? I saw a Emulated MacOS (Basilisk)
>>> faster than a fastest G4 on earth... running 68k software...
>>> Imagine if AlphaCPU can obtain the same speed from emulating the RISC
> PowerPC...
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Gianluca
>>> --
>>> IBM IntelliStation MPRO
>>> Dual CPU PentiumIII (Katmai) 512k-L2Cache
>>> 768MB RAM / UW-SCSI Dual Controller
>>> Adaptec AIC-7xxx SCSI-2 Fast Controller PCI
>>> UDMA EIDE/FastATA Dual Controller
>>> ...and other delights... ;-)
>>>
>>> ALL POWERED by Linux Red-Hat 7.0
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: MOL on Amiga/APUS again.....
>>> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 22:08:02 +0100
>>> From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <bh40@calva.net>
>>> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>> To: <mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org>
>>>
>>> MOL emulates all that is needed for MacOS to run. So MOL should work fine
>>> on PReP, CHRP, etc... but probably not on APUS.
>>>
>>> The reason for that is that the APUS kernel has a quite different low-
>>> level memory management, and I'm not sure the MOL kernel module that
>>> drives the virtual machine can cope with it, at least not without some
>>> modifications.
>>>
>>> You can still try and see...
>>>
>>> Ben.
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: MOL on Amiga/APUS again.....
>>> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:02:36 -0700 (MST)
>>> From: dpates@dsdk12.net
>>> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>>
>>> Quoting Gianluca <icjtqr@tin.it>:
>>>
>>> > Yep. You are right. You wrote "MacOS depends heavily on this chip for
>>> > most of
>>> > its functionality..."
>>> > But MoL it's a MacIntosh Emulator. Completely software based. Heard of
>>> > MAME? or
>>> > Basilisk or ShapeShifter? Every Emulator, catch every call to low-level
>>> > i/o
>>> > chips and redirect evrything on a higher level. So it needs so much
>>> > horsepower
>>> > to emulate something relativly simpler.
>>> > Try to think about a PowerComputing Apple Clone (quite different from a
>>> > real
>>> > Mac...) running MacOS...
>>>
>>> MoL doesn't emulate anything except some peripheral hardware.
Processor-level
>>> instructions are executed directly on the PPC, through processor
> virtualization.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > The main advantages are if you are not emulating the opcode on the
>>> > host
>>> > processor as MoL. It doesn't waste CPU time to translate PowerPC
>>> > Opcodes,
>>> > because it is running on a PowerPC CPU System. It is like WinEmu for
>>> > Linux
>>> > Intel Based, or ArmEmu for Archimedes ARM Based RISCOS..or Emulating a
>>> > 68k Mac
>>> > on a 68k based Amiga (only the access to i/o chips are wrapped into
>>> > AmigaOS
>>> > System...Sometimes better than MacOS counterparts...).
>>> > The main part is NOT emulating the PROCESSOR ITSELF, but only the
>>> > chips
>>> > addressing and operation. (Simpler than an entire system, anyway...)
>>>
>>> Then why is the Mac IO controller mapped as part of the MoL startup phase?
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Have you ever heard of Alpha Processors? I saw a Emulated MacOS
>>> > (Basilisk)
>>> > faster than a fastest G4 on earth... running 68k software...
>>> > Imagine if AlphaCPU can obtain the same speed from emulating the RISC
>>> > PowerPC...
>>>
>>> Yeah, if you have the ROMs and emulate everything else (including the Mac IO
>>> controller). The Alpha AXP is an amazingly fast CPU, so if you have a
> well-honed
>>> emulator, sure, it can be lightning fast.
>>>
>>> If it works, hey, that's great, but I don't know that it can without the Mac
> IO
>>> controller chip. Go ahead and try it, and see what happens, though, and let
> us
>>> know what the result is.
>>>
>>> Derrik Pates
>>> dpates@dsdk12.net
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Thu Dec 21 2000 - 11:35:12 MST