Cortex M3/M4 with bootloader ROM

On 2013-10-08, David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote:
> On 08/10/13 20:49, Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2013-10-08, asdf <asdf@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 14:09:06 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2013-10-08, Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> wrote:
>>>>> Cross posting to sci.electronics.design
>>>>>
>>>>> What linux distros do techies like?
>>>>
>>>> Genoo.
>>>
>>> Gentoo?
>>> IT techies maybe, but the average user (which could well be an
>>> electronics guru but not an IT one) would find annoying spending
>>> too much time tweaking it.
>>
>> Perhaps.  I've find that in the long run, maintaining Gentoo systems
>> requires less time/effort than maintining RPM or .deb based distros.
>> It does, however, require a little more knowlege.
>>
>> But, it probably depends on what you want to do with the computer.  If
>> all you want to do is stuff that the distribution bundler's have
>> already thought of and included software for, then I'd probably go
>> with Debian or Xubuntu.
>>
>> Any time you end up wanting to use software that's not available as
>> part of the basic distro, I've found that maintining rpm/deb based
>> systems tends to balloon into a large, frustrating job.
>>
>
> I used Gentoo a number of years ago.  It was a fun experience, and 
> certainly an educational one - I learned a lot about Linux from 
> installing and tweaking it.  But it was not an efficient experience - I 
> spent much longer installing and compiling programs than using them. 
> Perhaps I lack the self-discipline needed to use Gentoo properly - it 
> was too much fun tweaking and re-emerging with different flags instead 
> of just /using/ the system.  The Gentoo project is also a source of 
> excellent general Linux information and documentation (like Arch Linux).
>
> I can't quite see how using non-distro software would be easier with 
> Gentoo, however.

I didn't phrase my posting well.  I've found that Gentoo has ebuilds
for pretty much all the software I need to use.  When I was using
RedHat/Mandriva/Debian, there were a _lot_ of things for which
packages weren't available from the distributor.  Sometimes you could
find them from third-parties, but then you ended up in a hellish maze
of circular library dependancies.  So the only resort was to to go the
tar/configure/make/install route, which resulted in a constant series
of breakages as libraries got upgraded.

> When you are dealing with source that is not in the repos, you
> download a tarball and give it the "./configure && make && make
> install" treatment.

True, but I pretty much never have to do that with Gentoo while I had
to do that constantly with Redhat et al.  Since the stuff installed
manually from tarballs wasn't hooked into the package management
system, things were continually being broken by upgrades.

And don't get me started on the disaster recovery efforts that always
accompanied major revision upgrades -- I eventually gave up trying to
upgrade across major revisions and just did a clean install whenever I
got to that point. And it wasn't for lack of experience or trying: I
ran multiple RedHat systems starting back when they didn't even have
version numbers: I think I started with either Mothers Day or
Holloween releases (before that I ran Yggdrasil and Slackware). I ran
RH up until 8.00 came out in 2002.  8.00 was such a disaster I
switched to Mandriva for a couple years before switching to Gentoo.
I've been running Gentoo for almost 10 years now, and since I switched
I spend a lot less time maintaining systems. Some of my Gentoo
installations are almost 10 years old, and I've been able to keep them
up-to-date without the periodic clean reinstalls that were always
required when I ran HR/Mandriva.  The oldest one doesn't have any of
the same hardware it started with except for the case.

Maybe things in binary-distribution land have improved, but my recent
brief expeditions into Ubuntu and RH/CentOS territory haven't given
any indication that's the case.

If all you want to do is browse the web, listen to mp3 files, and
spend the rest of your time trying to learn the desktop du jour, then
any of the binary distributions are probably fine.  If I had to use 
one it would probably be either plain Debian or Xubuntu.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! Eisenhower!!  Your
                                  at               mimeograph machine upsets
                              gmail.com            my stomach!!

On 09/10/13 16:14, mike wrote:
> I'm hoping they'll [Dell] be immune to MS turning off the activation server.

AFAIK (i.e. last time I heard or paid any notice) MS
won't issue security updates for XP after next April.
Consequence: little until the punters current machine
dies -- except that there will be more machines that
can be co-opted into botnets.

On 09/10/13 17:30, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2013-10-08, David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> On 08/10/13 20:49, Grant Edwards wrote:
>>> On 2013-10-08, asdf <asdf@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 14:09:06 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2013-10-08, Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Cross posting to sci.electronics.design
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What linux distros do techies like?
>>>>>
>>>>> Genoo.
>>>>
>>>> Gentoo?
>>>> IT techies maybe, but the average user (which could well be an
>>>> electronics guru but not an IT one) would find annoying spending
>>>> too much time tweaking it.
>>>
>>> Perhaps.  I've find that in the long run, maintaining Gentoo systems
>>> requires less time/effort than maintining RPM or .deb based distros.
>>> It does, however, require a little more knowlege.
>>>
>>> But, it probably depends on what you want to do with the computer.  If
>>> all you want to do is stuff that the distribution bundler's have
>>> already thought of and included software for, then I'd probably go
>>> with Debian or Xubuntu.
>>>
>>> Any time you end up wanting to use software that's not available as
>>> part of the basic distro, I've found that maintining rpm/deb based
>>> systems tends to balloon into a large, frustrating job.
>>>
>>
>> I used Gentoo a number of years ago.  It was a fun experience, and 
>> certainly an educational one - I learned a lot about Linux from 
>> installing and tweaking it.  But it was not an efficient experience - I 
>> spent much longer installing and compiling programs than using them. 
>> Perhaps I lack the self-discipline needed to use Gentoo properly - it 
>> was too much fun tweaking and re-emerging with different flags instead 
>> of just /using/ the system.  The Gentoo project is also a source of 
>> excellent general Linux information and documentation (like Arch Linux).
>>
>> I can't quite see how using non-distro software would be easier with 
>> Gentoo, however.
> 
> I didn't phrase my posting well.  I've found that Gentoo has ebuilds
> for pretty much all the software I need to use.  When I was using
> RedHat/Mandriva/Debian, there were a _lot_ of things for which
> packages weren't available from the distributor.  Sometimes you could
> find them from third-parties, but then you ended up in a hellish maze
> of circular library dependancies.  So the only resort was to to go the
> tar/configure/make/install route, which resulted in a constant series
> of breakages as libraries got upgraded.

OK, that makes a lot more sense.  I am not sure I believe that Gentoo
has more ebuilds than there are Debian packages, especially when you
include additional repositories (like Ubuntu PPA's) which usually work
fine, but I am not going to argue without researching for statistics.

There are, of course, other ways in which Gentoo might suit better -
such as the more "bleeding edge" versions of software.  Debian stable
and Redhat (as distinct from Fedora) are often slow at getting updated
packages.

> 
>> When you are dealing with source that is not in the repos, you
>> download a tarball and give it the "./configure && make && make
>> install" treatment.
> 
> True, but I pretty much never have to do that with Gentoo while I had
> to do that constantly with Redhat et al.  Since the stuff installed
> manually from tarballs wasn't hooked into the package management
> system, things were continually being broken by upgrades.
> 
> And don't get me started on the disaster recovery efforts that always
> accompanied major revision upgrades -- I eventually gave up trying to
> upgrade across major revisions and just did a clean install whenever I
> got to that point. And it wasn't for lack of experience or trying: I
> ran multiple RedHat systems starting back when they didn't even have
> version numbers: I think I started with either Mothers Day or
> Holloween releases (before that I ran Yggdrasil and Slackware). I ran
> RH up until 8.00 came out in 2002.  8.00 was such a disaster I
> switched to Mandriva for a couple years before switching to Gentoo.
> I've been running Gentoo for almost 10 years now, and since I switched
> I spend a lot less time maintaining systems. Some of my Gentoo
> installations are almost 10 years old, and I've been able to keep them
> up-to-date without the periodic clean reinstalls that were always
> required when I ran HR/Mandriva.  The oldest one doesn't have any of
> the same hardware it started with except for the case.
> 
> Maybe things in binary-distribution land have improved, but my recent
> brief expeditions into Ubuntu and RH/CentOS territory haven't given
> any indication that's the case.
> 
> If all you want to do is browse the web, listen to mp3 files, and
> spend the rest of your time trying to learn the desktop du jour, then
> any of the binary distributions are probably fine.  If I had to use 
> one it would probably be either plain Debian or Xubuntu.
> 

Hi Mike,

On 10/9/2013 8:14 AM, mike wrote:
>
>> That's assuming that semi-sane versions of Windows continue to be
>> available to host it.  Microsoft seems to be hell-bent on killing off
>> Windows, so I think some future-proofing is in order.  I've been buying
>> Win7 and XP licenses recently so that I can continue to run my old S/W
>> past next April.
>
> How far do you predict MS will go to kill off XP?

I've started pulling down the individual "updates" so that I can
reapply them manually.  And, kept track of the install log for
a typical autoupdate in case there were some prequisites in the
order by which updates need to be installed.

> I started hedging my bets years ago by buying DELL computers.
> That's mostly what's available in the "free or almost free" box at
> garage sales.  The whole system is WAY cheaper than buying a license.

A Dell machine "without OS" (i.e., COA but nothing actually *on*
the disk) is $10-20 here.  Regardless of whether it's a workstation,
1 or 2U server or a real BEHEMOTH!  Laptops tend to be more "precious"
(which is fine for me as I prefer to work on a full size keyboard
and often need lots of peripherals that make a laptop lose its
smallness/portability)

> They self-activate, as do many OEM's.
> I'm hoping they'll be immune to MS turning off the activation server.

IME, they don't need to talk to it, *ever*.  I have (Dell) machines
that have never directly been on the 'net and they neither nag me
to "activate" nor "quit running" due to lack of activation.

Note that you need Dell media ("Reinstallation CD") as retail media
will nag you just like every other non-Dell.

Of course, the preponderance of (desktop) machines out there seems
to fall between IBM, Dell & HP.  The "oddballs" have a much smaller
market (Acer/eMachines, etc.) including the "build your own" sorts.

On 10/9/2013 2:44 AM, asdf wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 18:49:33 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>> Any time you end up wanting to use software that's not available as part
>> of the basic distro, I've found that maintining rpm/deb based systems
>> tends to balloon into a large, frustrating job.
>
> That is almost true. I had only minor problems installing pure source
> packages, provided all dependencies were met.

This, however, can be a major ordeal as A requires B and C.  But,
B requires P and Q while C requires M and N.  And each of these
requires...

When I build a new *BSD system, I research the release histories of
the various "packages" (not always the correct term) available to
decide which "bug sets" I am willing to live with.  *Then*, the
next step is to figure out which order to build each package
(including the dependencies that I probably didn't explicitly
think of when forming my initial "package list").  With a fair
bit of planning, I can eliminate the need for the build of A
to deviate into the fetch/build of B (and P and Q) and C (and M and
N).  It's just easier for me to keep track of where in the process
the machine happens to be, currently in the event that I have to
SIGKILL/SIGINT it.

[the last being necessary if I notice some error/warning that needs
further clarification (inspection of sources) to appease me.  folks
who create packages should be required to create patchsets that
"fix" all warnings/errors!]

> The main problem usually is
> the shortsighted programmer who distributes his/her masterpiece that
> depends on the very latest, or worse, beta version of everything, which
> sometimes forces the user to break a package based system.

Or, that requires a specific version of a .so -- perhaps not the
"most current".  Helps when your system allows multiple versions
of a single .so in the "library" and uses symlinks to sort
out which is "current" (so you can build against a particular
*older* version if the newest is found to be problematic).

IME, biggest problem with "packages" is the folks who undertake
their maintenance/packaging aften don't understand the actual
app.  Their criteria for success is:  "Hooray!  It built with
no errors (from the compiler/linkage editor)".  Even packages
that have test suites available in their basic distribution
don't always get built (by the packager) *or* understood!

Of course, those that have *no* formal test suites leave you
at the mercy of the packager:  "What do I know about the
quality of this binary compared to the intended quality
from its original author??"

In article <l3121s$nep$1@dont-email.me>, 
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net says...
> 
> On 10/8/2013 9:32 AM, Roberto Waltman wrote:
> > Cross posting to sci.electronics.design
> >
> > What linux distros do techies like?
> >
> > R.
> >
> >
> > Roberto Waltman wrote:
> >> David Brown  wrote:
> >>> ... I use Linux for most of my work and play.
> >>
> >> Just curious - Which Linux distribution do you use?
> >>
> >> I used Ubuntu for several years, but I'm not sure I want to follow
> >> Canonical in whatever path they want to take it.
> >>
> >> Thinking of switching to Scientific Linux (Fedora) when I get back to
> >> "work and play." (Crunchbang Linux is also in the run.)
> 
> Being a vanilla sort of guy, I mostly use CentOS 6.  I'm more of a KDE 
> fan, though, so there are occasional curiosities that I haven't invested 
> the time in fixing--for instance, clicking on a link in kmail doesn't 
> open it correctly in Firefox.
> 
> I have an old P4 box that's running Kubuntu.  The main thing I disliked 
>   about Ubuntu when I used it last is that it doesn't play nicely with 
> the other children--if I set up disk partitions on cylinder boundaries 
> for other OSes, and tell it to use the existing partitions, it 
> nevertheless insists on futzing with the partition table to save a 
> quarter of a cylinder.  I like computers that do as they're bloody well 
> told.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Phil Hobbs

My favorites are Debian and Ubuntu in that order. The main feature I 
like about the former is the package management system. It's far 
superior to that used in RHeL et al. 

I mean:
apt-get update
apt-get upgrade 

That's all it takes to keep your system up to date. 

And if you want an app:

apt-get install mysql

It gets all the dependencies necessary too. 

On 10/08/2013 10:40 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> On 10/9/2013 1:21 AM, George Neuner wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 22:46:08 -0400, Phil Hobbs
>> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>

<SNIPPED>

>
> That's assuming that semi-sane versions of Windows continue to be
> available to host it.  Microsoft seems to be hell-bent on killing off
> Windows, so I think some future-proofing is in order.  I've been buying
> Win7 and XP licenses recently so that I can continue to run my old S/W
> past next April.
>
> Cheers
>
> Phil Hobbs
>
>
Have you found a source for legit XP "retail" licenses? I really could 
use one...the OEM license is not supposed to be run in a virtual 
machine. Natch, that;\'s what I need it for!

Bill M

On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 01:40:32 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

>On 10/9/2013 1:21 AM, George Neuner wrote:
>
>> ... more recent fdisk, parted, etc.
>> allow creating partitions and logical drives that are not cylinder
>> aligned.  A lot of non-Linux partitioning software expects cylinder
>> alignment and won't edit - or worse, won't even read - tables that
>> have "illegal" sizes.
>
>Linux has *allowed* that for awhile, but earlier versions of the tools 
>didn't _force_ partition boundaries to be unaligned.  The Fedoras I was 
>thinking about would have been about V7, i.e. 2.6ish kernels.

I never said Linux "forced" unaligned partitions - the simple fact
that Linux tools permit them is what made them (semi)incompatible with
non-Linux tools.  

Linux tools make only minimal effort to inform a user that a partition
is not aligned and may be a problem for another OS.  They do nothing
to help the user in sizing a partition so it will be aligned.


>> Fortunately VMware (at least since v6) seems to be able to run most
>> versions of Linux without difficulty, so I no longer have any pressing
>> need for multi-booting.  I mention the problem simply because others
>> may yet want to do it.
>
>That's assuming that semi-sane versions of Windows continue to be 
>available to host it.  Microsoft seems to be hell-bent on killing off 
>Windows, so I think some future-proofing is in order.  I've been buying 
>Win7 and XP licenses recently so that I can continue to run my old S/W 
>past next April.

VMware also runs *on* Linux hosts  8-)   

VirtualBox does a good job for some guest OSes  (and it gets better
every time I look at it),  but so far VMware works more smoothly,
handles more devices and can run a wider selection of guests OSes
without problems.

YMMV,
George

T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> writes:

> In article <l3121s$nep$1@dont-email.me>, 
> pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net says...
>> 
>> On 10/8/2013 9:32 AM, Roberto Waltman wrote:
>> > Cross posting to sci.electronics.design
>> >
>> > What linux distros do techies like?
>> >
>> > R.
>> >
>> >
>> > Roberto Waltman wrote:
>> >> David Brown  wrote:
>> >>> ... I use Linux for most of my work and play.
>> >>
>> >> Just curious - Which Linux distribution do you use?
>> >>
>> >> I used Ubuntu for several years, but I'm not sure I want to follow
>> >> Canonical in whatever path they want to take it.
>> >>
>> >> Thinking of switching to Scientific Linux (Fedora) when I get back to
>> >> "work and play." (Crunchbang Linux is also in the run.)
>> 
>> Being a vanilla sort of guy, I mostly use CentOS 6.  I'm more of a KDE 
>> fan, though, so there are occasional curiosities that I haven't invested 
>> the time in fixing--for instance, clicking on a link in kmail doesn't 
>> open it correctly in Firefox.
>> 
>> I have an old P4 box that's running Kubuntu.  The main thing I disliked 
>>   about Ubuntu when I used it last is that it doesn't play nicely with 
>> the other children--if I set up disk partitions on cylinder boundaries 
>> for other OSes, and tell it to use the existing partitions, it 
>> nevertheless insists on futzing with the partition table to save a 
>> quarter of a cylinder.  I like computers that do as they're bloody well 
>> told.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Phil Hobbs
>
> My favorites are Debian and Ubuntu in that order. The main feature I 
> like about the former is the package management system. It's far 
> superior to that used in RHeL et al. 
>
> I mean:
> apt-get update
> apt-get upgrade 
>
> That's all it takes to keep your system up to date. 
>
> And if you want an app:
>
> apt-get install mysql
>
> It gets all the dependencies necessary too. 

Don't forget

  apt-get moo



-- 

John Devereux

On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 08:14:15 -0700 mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote in
Message id: <l33rrb$g8i$1@dont-email.me>:

>
>They self-activate, as do many OEM's.

They don't "self activate" whatever that means, they just don't require
activation.

>I'm hoping they'll be immune to MS turning off the activation server.

For the record, Microsoft has already stated that they will issue a patch
when they shut down the XP activation servers.