#96967 - Kung Fu - Mon Aug 07, 2006 1:37 am
Question on the DS version of Linux. Is it possible for the DS version of Linux to run a graphical interface? It would certainly make it more accesible to people unfamiliar with Linux commands. If it is possible....is anyone developing one? Just a curiosity.
#96968 - omaremad - Mon Aug 07, 2006 1:59 am
Nano x windows system for linux has been ported but i cant seem to find it in the source or binaries
:(
#96992 - Lynx - Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:44 am
It's only in select versions. Supercard version is one. Reason being, linux needs to run in GBA ROM space to save room in memory for x to run.
_________________
NDS Homebrew Roms & Reviews
#97010 - dualscreenman - Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:25 am
Actually, if you'll check out Amadeus's blog, you'd know that he's close to being able to use the memory in the SuperCard SD for DSLinux.
_________________
| dualscreenman wrote: |
| What about Gaim DS? Gaim pretty much has support for all IM programs. |
| tepples wrote: |
| "Goshdammit, the DS is not a Gaim-boy! It's a third pillar!" |
#97017 - Darkflame - Mon Aug 07, 2006 12:17 pm
hmz...if we can run a version of MacOS on a GBAMP, surely visual linux is possible even without more ram?
_________________
Darkflames Reviews --
Make your own at;
Rateoholic:Reviews for anything, by anyone.
#97024 - Dan2552 - Mon Aug 07, 2006 1:16 pm
I think the working MacOS requires less.
on my 266mhz laptop (96mb ram) I can run linux with Xfce ok-ish. But in all honesty even Windows Explorer runs better on it.
#97037 - Darkflame - Mon Aug 07, 2006 3:30 pm
Windows? 95/98? woulf easily run fine on that,yes.
I am highly supprised if you cant get a visaul linux on ds specs.
MacOS isnt that far off linux is it?
_________________
Darkflames Reviews --
Make your own at;
Rateoholic:Reviews for anything, by anyone.
#97115 - josath - Tue Aug 08, 2006 1:45 am
a comparison:
Mini vMac:
* An emulator
* Running System 6, which was released over 18 years ago
* Only needs 2MB of ram, these Macs had a limit of 4MB of RAM
DSLinux:
* NOT emulated, ported to run directly on ds hardware
* Running a 2.6 version of linux kernel, less than a year old
* Barely can squeeze the OS into ~2MB of ram, leaving ~2MB left for apps
#97137 - tepples - Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:27 am
Remember too that the Mac GUI was originally targeted for machines with 128 KB of RAM, including the 22 KB frame buffer.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#97153 - Lynx - Tue Aug 08, 2006 6:24 am
Don't forget, all the Linux stuff is being ported to the DS hardware. I'm sure if someone wanted to do the work, they could write a new GUI server (not using X at all) that would use less RAM. But.. that's a lot of work.
_________________
NDS Homebrew Roms & Reviews
#97206 - TJ - Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:20 pm
| Quote: |
| MacOS isnt that far off linux is it? |
They aren't even similar
Maybe you are thinking of OSX? Which is a relative of Linux, being BSD based.
#97208 - Darkflame - Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:42 pm
err...surely ported is far better then emulated :-/
Just it seems like emulated black and white MacOS is just more pratical for actual useage dispite its age. Which imo, is just crazy :p
If the fact a new version of linux is such a problem, wouldnt an older version be more benifial? do we need all the new stuff?
If the goal is to get OS functionality, or easy-porting on the DS, then dos the new linux offer much real benifit over earlier versions?
(in terms of what the ds can praticaly do)
_________________
Darkflames Reviews --
Make your own at;
Rateoholic:Reviews for anything, by anyone.
#97232 - Mr. Picklesworth - Tue Aug 08, 2006 8:08 pm
Some interesting points here.
I suggest you folks bring them up at the DSLinux forums, as they are more likely to be responded to by the developers over there.
_________________
Thanks!
MKDS Friend Code: 511165-679586
MP:H Friend Code: 2105 2377 6896
Last edited by Mr. Picklesworth on Tue Aug 08, 2006 8:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
#97234 - Dan2552 - Tue Aug 08, 2006 8:10 pm
| Dan2552 wrote: |
I think the working MacOS requires less.
on my 266mhz laptop (96mb ram) I can run linux with Xfce ok-ish. But in all honesty even Windows Explorer runs better on it. |
OOPS!
What I meant was even XP Explorer runs better.
#97266 - Darkflame - Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:14 pm
WindowsXP on 266 laptop O_O
wow.
_________________
Darkflames Reviews --
Make your own at;
Rateoholic:Reviews for anything, by anyone.
#97326 - Kung Fu - Wed Aug 09, 2006 5:41 am
| Darkflame wrote: |
err...surely ported is far better then emulated :-/
If the fact a new version of linux is such a problem, wouldnt an older version be more benifial? do we need all the new stuff?
If the goal is to get OS functionality, or easy-porting on the DS, then dos the new linux offer much real benifit over earlier versions?
(in terms of what the ds can praticaly do) |
My thoughts exactly.
Not to sound noobish in the realm of hardware and software programming...but with all the talk of linux memory requirements....would it be possible to write a quick piece of coding that would allow linux to utilize the memory of a cf card on lets say...a gbamp or on a flashcart as ram? I know it would drastically shorten he lifespan of such devices...but for those willing it would be an effective shortcut through hardware limitations. And if this is way off the mark and impossible...I apologize ;).
#97334 - Lynx - Wed Aug 09, 2006 8:42 am
I think everyone interested in this thread should head over to the dslinux.org forums, as most of this has already been talked about. DS Linux just recently got user space XIP making most of the new stuff possible. The DS doesn't have an MMU. And even if you could make a swap partition on a GBA MP, you can pretty much consider your CF card to be garbage in a hurry, as it doesn't take long to make 10,000+ writes to swap.
_________________
NDS Homebrew Roms & Reviews
#97373 - Dan2552 - Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:20 pm
how long approximately would it actually last though?
'not long' isn't helpful
#97906 - Lynx - Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:45 am
Obviously, that would depend on what you are doing. If you are trying to run a bunch of applications and have already maxed out the 4MB RAM in the DS, than it will be swapping A LOT. You could probably damage your CF card within hours. If you wanted to test the theory, and just kept opening apps, you could probably destroy your CF card within minutes. It just depends on how much the DS needs to write to swap.
_________________
NDS Homebrew Roms & Reviews
#97971 - TJ - Sat Aug 12, 2006 5:01 pm
| Quote: |
| If the fact a new version of linux is such a problem, wouldnt an older version be more benifial? do we need all the new stuff? |
Unix systems don't really work that way.
Newer user applications tend to take more resources than older versions, but the Linux kernel itself and the GNU system run as well on a 486 as they do on a P4.
#97972 - Darkflame - Sat Aug 12, 2006 5:05 pm
But isnt it purely about resources used for gui here?
If not, I repeat, how comes MacOS can work fine, visauly, when its being emulated...but we cant get a proper visual gui for linux even when its ported? Is MacOS that much more efficiant then Linux?
The DS is a tad better then a typical 486.
If a linux distro that ran on a 486 needs resources that the DS cant supply, Id be rather supprised.
_________________
Darkflames Reviews --
Make your own at;
Rateoholic:Reviews for anything, by anyone.
#98000 - tepples - Sat Aug 12, 2006 7:03 pm
| Darkflame wrote: |
| If a linux distro that ran on a 486 needs resources that the DS cant supply, Id be rather supprised. |
My i486DX-25 based PC had 8 MB of RAM.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#98004 - Dan2552 - Sat Aug 12, 2006 7:10 pm
| tepples wrote: |
| Darkflame wrote: | | If a linux distro that ran on a 486 needs resources that the DS cant supply, Id be rather supprised. |
My i486DX-25 based PC had 8 MB of RAM. |
can that run windows 95?
#98012 - octopusfluff - Sat Aug 12, 2006 7:40 pm
Also bear in mind that most of the embedded Linux ports also run on systems with more memory. The majority of the palmtop computers targeted with Linux ports have at least 16 megabytes of ram, even going back quite a few years. Many of the embedded application and library ports are now written assuming 32 megabytes of working ram is available.
Compared to a lot of established hardware for the purposes of acting as a general purpose computer, the DS is quite gimped.
Not that the DS can't still do what we want it to, it just requires a different approach. I remain of the opinion that Linux is not a sensible approach. I would rather see a good launcher and a lot of well designed dedicated apps.
But hey, folks who want to beat their head on that particular wall.. Go for it. I know something useful will come of it, it just looks like it'll take a lot more blood in the end than other paths.
#98015 - tepples - Sat Aug 12, 2006 7:47 pm
I want to see an operating system comparable to PC DOS. Put some font routines, some graphics routines, and libfat into a dedicated area of memory using the link script, and then load apps into some other area.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#98037 - JaJa - Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:39 pm
We may be in luck.
Amadeus has managed to make a GCC version that alters 8 bit writes.
So we may be able to have 36Mbyte of RAM for DSLinux (I think).
http://www.dslinux.org/amadeus/
_________________
LAWL HOOGE
My Blog
#98059 - Dan2552 - Sat Aug 12, 2006 11:19 pm
| JaJa wrote: |
We may be in luck.
Amadeus has managed to make a GCC version that alters 8 bit writes.
So we may be able to have 36Mbyte of RAM for DSLinux (I think).
http://www.dslinux.org/amadeus/ |
What about GBAMP users? They just going to abandon us? When people with Nopass-RWs start rolling in, what do they expect to do? Or do Nopass-RWs have ram too?
Is there ANY way to sacrifice a commercial game and turn it into extra ram?
#98066 - tepples - Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:25 am
People with NoPass-RW cards (that is, stand-alone flash cards for the DS slot) can buy a copy of Opera and use its 10 MB RAM card in SLOT-2.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#98102 - dude1 - Sun Aug 13, 2006 7:10 am
| tepples wrote: |
| People with NoPass-RW cards (that is, stand-alone flash cards for the DS slot) can buy a copy of Opera and use its 10 MB RAM card in SLOT-2. |
or buy a 3rd party ram expansion with more memory when those card become popular if the do
#98119 - JaJa - Sun Aug 13, 2006 10:13 am
People with NoPass-RW will generally be pirates or misinformed.
_________________
LAWL HOOGE
My Blog
#98124 - Darkflame - Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:43 am
Any text-based OS on a machine with no keyboard strikes me as silly, thats all.
Sure, I understand the need to get Linux on everything , but Im just rather supprised people have got this far without the intention to make a visual GUI for it.
_________________
Darkflames Reviews --
Make your own at;
Rateoholic:Reviews for anything, by anyone.
#98134 - JaJa - Sun Aug 13, 2006 1:53 pm
| Dan2552 wrote: |
| JaJa wrote: | We may be in luck.
Amadeus has managed to make a GCC version that alters 8 bit writes.
So we may be able to have 36Mbyte of RAM for DSLinux (I think).
http://www.dslinux.org/amadeus/ |
What about GBAMP users? They just going to abandon us? When people with Nopass-RWs start rolling in, what do they expect to do? Or do Nopass-RWs have ram too?
Is there ANY way to sacrifice a commercial game and turn it into extra ram? |
Sorry, I didn't see your post earlier (or only half read it).
GBAMP users will still be given a build, but it will be limited, much as it is now.
The fix for the '8-bit write problem' will only affect those with SuperCards and M3 (as these devices have the extra RAM). The SuperCard CF is the choice device for use with DSLinux (at the moment). No NoPass devices are supported, except by the .nds build, but even that is broken on some devices.
The SuperCard and M3 emulate a 256Mbit flash cart using SDRAM chips. These are volatile memory (data is lost on power off) but are practically infinitely re-writable.
This is why there is that little counter when loading stuff on the SuperCard (I don't own an M3 and so don't know much about it). This is showing the content being copied from CF into the SDRAM.
As I said before I feel the NoPass-RW devices aren't really suited for homebrew, only piracy. They don't contain extra RAM, as DS cards are block devices, much like CF cards and Hard disks. This allows them to be easily written too using file management utilities like Windows Explorer. Therefore they have no need to emulate a NOR flash card, which is what the SuperCard and M3 does.
You can't 'sacrifce' a commercial game unit for RAM, because the game is stored on a Mask ROM chip, which is write once.
_________________
LAWL HOOGE
My Blog
#98136 - lambi1982 - Sun Aug 13, 2006 2:59 pm
JaJa | Quote: |
| I feel the NoPass-RW devices aren't really suited for homebrew, only piracy. They don't contain extra RAM, |
they can very well be a huge advantage to having a No-Pass-RW...
When the RAM PAK ( for Opera browser) is available, maybe there will me major use for a ram expansion pak designed for the system.
_________________
Who, Me?
#98159 - JaJa - Sun Aug 13, 2006 7:30 pm
| lambi1982 wrote: |
JaJa | Quote: | | I feel the NoPass-RW devices aren't really suited for homebrew, only piracy. They don't contain extra RAM, |
they can very well be a huge advantage to having a No-Pass-RW...
When the RAM PAK ( for Opera browser) is available, maybe there will me major use for a ram expansion pak designed for the system. |
Oh?
So homebrew developers will be forcing people to purchase new and expensive hardware to run their stuff, rather than trying to appeal to the largest audience (4Mbyte of RAM and libfat device)?
Most developers can't afford to buy lots of random hardware, and currently NoPass-RW are expensive (like $125?) for a device that isn't expandable.
You can pick up a SuperCard, NoPass and CF Card (1Gbyte) for less than that. And in the future you can get a bigger card, or use several cards (one for music, one for homebrew).
I'm still waiting for the flood of "OMG MOONSHELL DOESN'T WORK ON MY NOPASS THING, YET ROMZ DO!!!?!!111111!!!11 HELP TEH NOOB" posts.
Also according to some reviews I've read (about the UltraFlashPass mainly) they are very slow to write to, the full 64Mbyte card taking nearly an hour to burn. They also have very low homebrew compatibility.
The one device that could change that is the DS-X card. It has 512Mbyte internal memory, supports USB 2.0 (doesn't give an exact speed) and is apparently "Mass Storage Compliant" meaning it should support Windows, Linux and Mac.
_________________
LAWL HOOGE
My Blog
#98171 - Mr. Picklesworth - Sun Aug 13, 2006 8:21 pm
I agree with the notion that homebrew developers should stick with what is here.
Using everything out of slot-1 would make things horribly complicated for past hardware, drive people crazy, and make some older homebrew apps stop working.
Besides, these devices going from slot 1 are not only much more expensive than the current solution, but that isn't even taking into account the storage medium.
In my opinion, DS homebrew (especially DSLinux) has been shaped in such a way that it is important for apps to be able to write to a removable storage medium other than SRAM, and FAT file system stuff has been so well developed that I doubt anyone wants to see it go.
These devices going into slot-1, however, would undoubtedly need to use MiniSD or maybe Transflash for such removable storage, whereas I (and many others) generally use SD or CF.
For freeing up RAM, people just have to accept the fact that Nintendo, as usual, has given their console pitiful amounts of RAM (It's not hard; the stuff is cheap!), and accept it as a personal challenge to go where noone has gone before.
NoPass RW devices, while potentially quite nice, seem to me like they would cause a lot of unnecessary bother.
_________________
Thanks!
MKDS Friend Code: 511165-679586
MP:H Friend Code: 2105 2377 6896
#98179 - JaJa - Sun Aug 13, 2006 9:37 pm
| Mr. Picklesworth wrote: |
| Using everything out of slot-1 would make things horribly complicated for past hardware, drive people crazy, and make some older homebrew apps stop working. |
Indeed. Look at the hassle caused by the UltraFlashPass.
http://forum.gbadev.org/viewtopic.php?t=10783
This would mean EVEN MORE builds of homebrew.
We already have .nds, .ds.gba and .sc.nds, will we need a .UFP.nds too?
I say the homebrew community should boycott the piracy biased devices like the UltraFlashPass.
_________________
LAWL HOOGE
My Blog
#98262 - Dan2552 - Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:23 am
| JaJa wrote: |
You can't 'sacrifce' a commercial game unit for RAM, because the game is stored on a Mask ROM chip, which is write once. |
I was thinking about where commercial games save their saves actually
#98271 - JaJa - Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:25 pm
Well that area (SRAM in GBA space, EEPROMs in DS slot games) are too small to be worthwile.
The largest DS slot save area is 2mbit, or 256Kbyte.
The largest SRAM save is 64Kbyte IIRC.
_________________
LAWL HOOGE
My Blog
#98278 - Mighty Max - Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:51 pm
IIRC it writes to the flash over the DS Interface, so it is possible to write from the DS too. That other memory component beside the eeprom is still a flash and not a ROM.
_________________
GBAMP Multiboot