hm, a first guess for me is that having an extra layer in the kernel seems
like it would make it a bit bigger and slower. anybody have opinions?
Disclaimer: I throw in my $ 0.00002 way before actually understanding the
specs ;)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Prashant Inamti web: http://www.jovian.net/~prosh
email: 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, newbreed wrote:
> James,
>
> Whoa! I thought you were goofing on me at first! :} Then I went to the site!
> An international project developing a free universal OS. Thanks for turning
> me onto it.
>
> Re the thread on OS's, here's a quote from the site that sums up the
> FREEDOWS Project...
>
> "Freedows will be based on the "Cache Kernel" design
> developed by researchers at Stanford University. This design
> will be utilized to create an OS that is able to run
> applications from many different OSes, even those based on
> completely different processors and hardware, like the
> Macintosh or Amiga. Through the use of "application kernels,"
> Freedows will be able to provide dynamically loaded,
> on-the-fly OS support. Much as your Internet browser can use
> plug-ins to view different types of files, Freedows will be able
> to have Application Kernels plugged in to provide additional
> OS support.
>
> "In our final release, planned for sometime in 1998, we will
> include full Windows 16- and 32-bit emulation. This will
> include both support for Windows 95 applications and for
> Windows NT applications. Additionally, we will also provide
> support for DOS applications, likely through a port of
> FreeDOS. Future plans include a Linux AK in Freedows 1.2
> (1999) and MacOS in Freedows 2.0 (2000). In addition, classic
> systems, such as the Commodore 64 and Tandy CoCo will
> also have emulations available under Freedows."
>
> I'm going to follow its progress. I'll keep anyone intercede posted. There
> is a LIST as well --
> mailto:
> Message Body: SUBSCRIBE FREEDOWS
>
> Anyone on the wear-hard List involved?
>
> PK
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James R. Hall [mailto:
]
> Sent: June 3, 1998 4:34 PM
> To: 
;
> Subject: Re: LINUX newbie /RE: Java on strongArm or in linux? (freedows)
>
>
> there is an os in development that says its going for multi-os support in 1
> os, www.freedows.org
> do a search for alternative os's on yahoo
>
> -James, N9XLC
> -
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: newbreed <>
> To: 
<>
> Date: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 11:23 AM
> Subject: RE: LINUX newbie /RE: Java on strongArm or in linux?
>
>
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: 
> >[mailto:]On Behalf Of R. Paul McCarty
> >Sent: June 3, 1998 6:53 AM
> >To:
> >Subject: Re: LINUX newbie /RE: Java on strongArm or in linux?
> >
> >
> >Ashley Clark wrote:
> >>
> >> > 100M. Caveat: I believe you need a primary partition to install linux.
> >> > If each of your os's is using a primary partition, you should have room
> >> > for one more (IOW: you have three primary partitions and an ide disk
> can
> >> > have up to 4). There are several options for booting linux, so that
> >> > shouldn't be a problem for you (i.e. loadlin.exe to boot linux from
> >> > dos/win, lilo, whatever boot manager you are using).
> >>
> >> I'm not sure about OS/2's boot manager or system commander but if you use
> >LILO
> >> as your MBR you can boot off of any partition, primary or extended. I
> >believe
> >> (correct me if I am wrong) that at least OS/2's boot manager allows the
> >same.
> >>
> >> Ashley Clark
> >
> >Maybe. I never tried it. I just remember somewhere in the install it
> >tells you you need a primary partition to install linux in. But it may
> >be assuming you don't have a boot manager.
> >
> >-Paul McCarty
> >
> >
> >[PK] There are no partitions on my system. DOS, WIN 3.1 and WIN95 are all
> on
> >the one drive, C: Directory. The boot mgr is really just the 'Windows 95
> >Start-up Menu'. There are a list of options from 1. to... including
> starting
> >in DOS or WIN95 (DEFAULT). From *within* Win95 I can go to DOS or run any
> >DOS or WIN3.1 application. If I remember right, this came about because
> >originally when I received the P-150 SCSI system, it had WIN95 (with its
> >scaled down DOS 7 version). But the original DOS 6.x had been deleted after
> >the WIN95 install. However I needed the full DOS 6.x. So we then
> >re-installed the old DOS after WIN95. Then we added WIN 3.1. It was a bit
> >tricky but it worked. Now within WIN95 I can run any DOS based or WIN 3.1
> VR
> >app and return to the 95 desktop when I exit the app.
> >
> >I'm probably pushing it with the idea of adding LINUX now. But I've always
> >thought though that a "computer" should be universal by being multi-OS
> >capable... be-it BEOS, WIN, DOS, Apple's System 8 or a brand of UNIX. I
> >suspect getting to the wearable computing stage may lead ultimately to some
> >sort of universality in personal computing. I guess that's my brand of
> >politech. =;]
> >
> >Paul K.
> >NEWBREED
> >
> >
>
>
>
From Wear-Hard Mailing list Archive (WH)
Maintained by R. Paul McCarty
Archive created with babymail