For what it's worth (and so far it only works on a win* machine, we use the following cheap programmer with our ST M29F040B parts. Works a treat, but programming through the lpt port is not the fasted.
The fact that only windows is supported is also a bit of a bummer.
http://www.jedmicro.com.au/PROM.htm
j
-----Original Message----- From: ron minnich [mailto:rminnich@lanl.gov] Sent: Wednesday, 21 April 2004 8:20 AM To: Ian Zimmerman Cc: linuxbios@clustermatic.org Subject: Re: flash_n_burn rom utils, /dev/bios ... resquest
On 20 Apr 2004, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
Same here.
I feel that the reliance on hotplugging flash chips has limited linuxbios audience to hard-core metal hackers.
but what else can you do? Can you afford a flash burner? The set of people who can afford this is smaller than the set of people who can hot plug.
I had not realized however that hot plug is such a big issue, so suggestions for alternatives that are affordable would be great
Thanks!
ron
_______________________________________________ Linuxbios mailing list Linuxbios@clustermatic.org http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
Hi
I am new to this group and currently in the lurk stage
but can I pass a comment/suggestion.
I get a huge amount of spam, and on a cursory glance a lot of the mail from this group "appears" spammy
I am not saying it is, just that when you view the subject lines they often appear like subjects designed to foil filtering systems
can I suggest a standard element be placed in the subject line such as I have done
that way it will be easier to seperate the linux bios mailings from the spam mailings
I am also a member of the ASRG "Anti Spam Research Group" and they use a system that looks like this
subject: [ASRG] 3: description
the number is for pre-organised topics such as 0 = general 1 = new ideas etc...
Regards Chris
-----Original Message----- From: linuxbios-admin@clustermatic.org [mailto:linuxbios-admin@clustermatic.org]On Behalf Of John Usher (Maptek) Sent: Wednesday, 21 April 2004 10:58 AM To: linuxbios@clustermatic.org Subject: RE: flash_n_burn rom utils, /dev/bios ... resquest
For what it's worth (and so far it only works on a win* machine, we use the following cheap programmer with our ST M29F040B parts. Works a treat, but programming through the lpt port is not the fasted.
The fact that only windows is supported is also a bit of a bummer.
http://www.jedmicro.com.au/PROM.htm
j
-----Original Message----- From: ron minnich [mailto:rminnich@lanl.gov] Sent: Wednesday, 21 April 2004 8:20 AM To: Ian Zimmerman Cc: linuxbios@clustermatic.org Subject: Re: flash_n_burn rom utils, /dev/bios ... resquest
On 20 Apr 2004, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
Same here.
I feel that the reliance on hotplugging flash chips has limited linuxbios audience to hard-core metal hackers.
but what else can you do? Can you afford a flash burner? The set of people who can afford this is smaller than the set of people who can hot plug.
I had not realized however that hot plug is such a big issue, so suggestions for alternatives that are affordable would be great
Thanks!
ron
Linuxbios mailing list Linuxbios@clustermatic.org http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios _______________________________________________ Linuxbios mailing list Linuxbios@clustermatic.org http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Chris wrote:
can I suggest a standard element be placed in the subject line such as I have done
we looked at doing this years ago but there were objections.
Any objections now from anyone?
ron
Hello from Gregg C Levine None from me. ------------------- Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------------------------------------ "The Force will be with you...Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi "Use the Force, Luke." Obi-Wan Kenobi
-----Original Message----- From: linuxbios-admin@clustermatic.org [mailto:linuxbios- admin@clustermatic.org] On Behalf Of Ronald G. Minnich Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 11:43 PM To: Chris Cc: John Usher (Maptek); linuxbios@clustermatic.org Subject: Re: [linuxbios] RE: flash_n_burn rom utils, /dev/bios ...
resquest
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Chris wrote:
can I suggest a standard element be placed in the subject line
such as I
have done
we looked at doing this years ago but there were objections.
Any objections now from anyone?
ron
Linuxbios mailing list Linuxbios@clustermatic.org http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
"Chris" linuxbios@rebel.com.au writes:
Hi
I am new to this group and currently in the lurk stage
but can I pass a comment/suggestion.
I get a huge amount of spam, and on a cursory glance a lot of the mail from this group "appears" spammy
I am not saying it is, just that when you view the subject lines they often appear like subjects designed to foil filtering systems
Subject lines are for humans the other headers are for machines.
can I suggest a standard element be placed in the subject line such as I have done
that way it will be easier to seperate the linux bios mailings from the spam mailings
Look at the List-Id: that should be completely constant. That is what I filter by and it makes it trivial. I filter not to get rid of spam but to separate the LinuxBIOS mailing list traffic and the linux kernel mailing list traffic etc.
If you want something practically spoof proof ask for the mailing list to gpg sign messages. Then you can be certain the message at least came from the mailing list.
I have not seen any spam come through this mailing list. Or even spoofed as such.
If you really want to stop spam. Don't concentrate on the fact that it is unwanted mail. Concentrate on the fact that it is bulk mail, and that it is generally fraudulent. Detecting mail is passing in bulk or that it does not have a legitimate source do not sound like hard problems.
I am also a member of the ASRG "Anti Spam Research Group" and they use a system that looks like this
subject: [ASRG] 3: description
the number is for pre-organised topics such as 0 = general 1 = new ideas etc...
Things like that get extremely ugly when you cross post, or the mailing system does not recognize your Re: line so you get things like:
Re: [linuxbios] Re: [linuxbios] or: Re: [linuxbios] RE: flash_n_burn rom utils, /dev/bios, ... resquest
And we have a diverse enough crowd we don't get consistent recognition of the Re: line anyway. Yhlu I think posts with Chinese character set which makes things interesting.
Hacked subject lines just clutter up things up.
As for adding numbers for general categories that is just silly. If you want to describe what is going on feel free to add: [IDEA] or [PATCH] or whatever. Enumerations with numerical values are just silly when they are for human consumption. The next logical step is to progress forward to writing programs in machine code to give more control so they are not susceptible to viruses.
Eric
I am not saying it is, just that when you view the subject
lines they often
appear like subjects designed to foil filtering systems
Subject lines are for humans the other headers are for machines.
I have given up on filters. Dont trust them to do the job. so I use them to pick the obvious spam then the remaining emails get scanned by trusty human eye and brain for the final decision.
Unfortunately some of the very cryptic subject lines appear to be spam so I tossed the first few until I realised my mistake. (bugger does that make me as reliable as spam filters)
I will try the list-id header. and mark it as friendly if it has it.
Re: [linuxbios] Re: [linuxbios]
If the list server placed the tag in it wouldn't be a problem and no-one would have to type it the list server can delete any redundant tags and then forward the mail
As for adding numbers for general categories that is just silly. If you want to describe what is going on feel free to add: [IDEA] or [PATCH] or whatever. Enumerations with numerical values are just silly when they are for human consumption.
not really its just shorter to read and write, with only 6 choices the ASRG works very well
The next logical step is to progress forward to writing programs in machine code to give more control so they are not susceptible to viruses.
now your just being really silly
Regards Chris
-----Original Message----- From: Eric W. Biederman [mailto:eric@lnxi.com]On Behalf Of Eric W. Biederman Sent: Wednesday, 21 April 2004 3:03 PM To: Chris Cc: John Usher (Maptek); linuxbios@clustermatic.org Subject: Re: flash_n_burn rom utils, /dev/bios ... resquest
"Chris" linuxbios@rebel.com.au writes:
Hi
I am new to this group and currently in the lurk stage
but can I pass a comment/suggestion.
I get a huge amount of spam, and on a cursory glance a lot of
the mail from
this group "appears" spammy
I am not saying it is, just that when you view the subject
lines they often
appear like subjects designed to foil filtering systems
Subject lines are for humans the other headers are for machines.
can I suggest a standard element be placed in the subject line such as I have done
that way it will be easier to seperate the linux bios mailings
from the spam
mailings
Look at the List-Id: that should be completely constant. That is what I filter by and it makes it trivial. I filter not to get rid of spam but to separate the LinuxBIOS mailing list traffic and the linux kernel mailing list traffic etc.
If you want something practically spoof proof ask for the mailing list to gpg sign messages. Then you can be certain the message at least came from the mailing list.
I have not seen any spam come through this mailing list. Or even spoofed as such.
If you really want to stop spam. Don't concentrate on the fact that it is unwanted mail. Concentrate on the fact that it is bulk mail, and that it is generally fraudulent. Detecting mail is passing in bulk or that it does not have a legitimate source do not sound like hard problems.
I am also a member of the ASRG "Anti Spam Research Group" and they use a system that looks like this
subject: [ASRG] 3: description
the number is for pre-organised topics such as 0 = general 1 = new ideas etc...
Things like that get extremely ugly when you cross post, or the mailing system does not recognize your Re: line so you get things like:
Re: [linuxbios] Re: [linuxbios] or: Re: [linuxbios] RE: flash_n_burn rom utils, /dev/bios, ... resquest
And we have a diverse enough crowd we don't get consistent recognition of the Re: line anyway. Yhlu I think posts with Chinese character set which makes things interesting.
Hacked subject lines just clutter up things up.
As for adding numbers for general categories that is just silly. If you want to describe what is going on feel free to add: [IDEA] or [PATCH] or whatever. Enumerations with numerical values are just silly when they are for human consumption. The next logical step is to progress forward to writing programs in machine code to give more control so they are not susceptible to viruses.
Eric
No not really I was just passing comment
But I do have a question, based a little on laziness cause I could not find adequate mention of my ideas in respect to LinuxBios.
I have thought about a embedded operating system for some time, for two main reasons the first is obvious and well documented
That is the desire to have a computer come with an OS that runs as soon as it is started. perfect for all sorts of things
The second does not seem to have been covered or at least I have not been able to unearth much information about it. So I wanted to see if it was in the charter of this group.
What I am referring to is a method to enable device manufacturers to have a consistant interface to the hardware.
If an OS writer such as M$ does not support a device it is very hard to get that device to work if at all.
Manufacturers have to write device drivers for many different os's and versions, consequently they only write for the most popular and forget less popular and older systems.
What I envisage is a common device interface. Allowing any manufacturer create one piece of software for their hardware and except for constraints such as recompiling for different cpu's etc their hardware will work on any system. (within reason).
So all you need is one API written for each OS that gives the the manufacturer access to that particular device REGARDLESS of whether the OS was written to handle that device.
For example NT 4.0 has no idea what a USB device is. So you can't use one. period! this was the main reason I went to XP and its griped me ever since.
I am sure that in the linux world it is annoying to have to write new drivers for every little piece of hardware that comes out.
Wouldn't it be nice if the device manufacturer could simply recompile their driver to suit linux or sun or mac(bsd)
the only real place for such an interface is at the BIOS level, lest OS writers pervert it for their own good.
and if that BIOS was provided licence free to Mainboard manufacturers wouldn't that be something.
Sorry If I am going over old material, As I said I have not found articles relating to this.
Regards Chris
-----Original Message----- From: Chris [mailto:linuxbios@rebel.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, 21 April 2004 3:21 PM To: Eric W. Biederman; Chris Cc: John Usher (Maptek); linuxbios@clustermatic.org Subject: [linuxbios]RE: flash_n_burn rom utils, /dev/bios ... resquest
I am not saying it is, just that when you view the subject
lines they often
appear like subjects designed to foil filtering systems
Subject lines are for humans the other headers are for machines.
I have given up on filters. Dont trust them to do the job. so I use them to pick the obvious spam then the remaining emails get scanned by trusty human eye and brain for the final decision.
Unfortunately some of the very cryptic subject lines appear to be spam so I tossed the first few until I realised my mistake. (bugger does that make me as reliable as spam filters)
I will try the list-id header. and mark it as friendly if it has it.
Re: [linuxbios] Re: [linuxbios]
If the list server placed the tag in it wouldn't be a problem and no-one would have to type it the list server can delete any redundant tags and then forward the mail
As for adding numbers for general categories that is just silly. If you want to describe what is going on feel free to add: [IDEA] or [PATCH] or whatever. Enumerations with numerical values are just silly when they are for human consumption.
not really its just shorter to read and write, with only 6 choices the ASRG works very well
The next logical step is to progress forward to writing programs in machine code to give more control so they are not susceptible to viruses.
now your just being really silly
Regards Chris
-----Original Message----- From: Eric W. Biederman [mailto:eric@lnxi.com]On Behalf Of Eric W. Biederman Sent: Wednesday, 21 April 2004 3:03 PM To: Chris Cc: John Usher (Maptek); linuxbios@clustermatic.org Subject: Re: flash_n_burn rom utils, /dev/bios ... resquest
"Chris" linuxbios@rebel.com.au writes:
Hi
I am new to this group and currently in the lurk stage
but can I pass a comment/suggestion.
I get a huge amount of spam, and on a cursory glance a lot of
the mail from
this group "appears" spammy
I am not saying it is, just that when you view the subject
lines they often
appear like subjects designed to foil filtering systems
Subject lines are for humans the other headers are for machines.
can I suggest a standard element be placed in the subject
line such as I
have done
that way it will be easier to seperate the linux bios mailings
from the spam
mailings
Look at the List-Id: that should be completely constant. That is what I filter by and it makes it trivial. I filter not to get rid of spam but to separate the LinuxBIOS mailing list traffic and the linux kernel mailing list traffic etc.
If you want something practically spoof proof ask for the mailing list to gpg sign messages. Then you can be certain the message at least came from the mailing list.
I have not seen any spam come through this mailing list. Or even spoofed as such.
If you really want to stop spam. Don't concentrate on the fact that it is unwanted mail. Concentrate on the fact that it is bulk mail, and that it is generally fraudulent. Detecting mail is passing in bulk or that it does not have a legitimate source do not sound like hard problems.
I am also a member of the ASRG "Anti Spam Research Group" and
they use a
system that looks like this
subject: [ASRG] 3: description
the number is for pre-organised topics such as 0 = general 1
= new ideas
etc...
Things like that get extremely ugly when you cross post, or the mailing system does not recognize your Re: line so you get things like:
Re: [linuxbios] Re: [linuxbios] or: Re: [linuxbios] RE: flash_n_burn rom utils, /dev/bios, ... resquest
And we have a diverse enough crowd we don't get consistent recognition of the Re: line anyway. Yhlu I think posts with Chinese character set which makes things interesting.
Hacked subject lines just clutter up things up.
As for adding numbers for general categories that is just silly. If you want to describe what is going on feel free to add: [IDEA] or [PATCH] or whatever. Enumerations with numerical values are just silly when they are for human consumption. The next logical step is to progress forward to writing programs in machine code to give more control so they are not susceptible to viruses.
Eric
"Chris" linuxbios@rebel.com.au writes:
No not really I was just passing comment
But I do have a question, based a little on laziness cause I could not find adequate mention of my ideas in respect to LinuxBios.
I have thought about a embedded operating system for some time, for two main reasons the first is obvious and well documented
That is the desire to have a computer come with an OS that runs as soon as it is started. perfect for all sorts of things
The second does not seem to have been covered or at least I have not been able to unearth much information about it. So I wanted to see if it was in the charter of this group.
What I am referring to is a method to enable device manufacturers to have a consistant interface to the hardware.
If an OS writer such as M$ does not support a device it is very hard to get that device to work if at all.
Manufacturers have to write device drivers for many different os's and versions, consequently they only write for the most popular and forget less popular and older systems.
No, OS developers do. Manufacturers only need to provide documentation.
What I envisage is a common device interface. Allowing any manufacturer create one piece of software for their hardware and except for constraints such as recompiling for different cpu's etc their hardware will work on any system. (within reason).
You are describing an OS. An OS is the hardware abstraction layer. All attempts to the contrary are non sense.
So all you need is one API written for each OS that gives the the manufacturer access to that particular device REGARDLESS of whether the OS was written to handle that device.
For example NT 4.0 has no idea what a USB device is. So you can't use one. period! this was the main reason I went to XP and its griped me ever since.
This is a problem with closed source not with the driver development model. If you have the source and modification rights to it. When something is important enough you can do whatever you like.
I am sure that in the linux world it is annoying to have to write new drivers for every little piece of hardware that comes out.
If they are close enough a generic driver can be written. This is why there are standards for hardware manufacturers.
Wouldn't it be nice if the device manufacturer could simply recompile their driver to suit linux or sun or mac(bsd)
Only if it was not utter crap. Occasionally that happens. Mostly hardware manufacturers are not good at writing code.
the only real place for such an interface is at the BIOS level, lest OS writers pervert it for their own good.
and if that BIOS was provided licence free to Mainboard manufacturers wouldn't that be something.
It is almost impossible to update a BIOS in the field, (human factors). And it is very dangerous. Who wants to update take the risk of killing their machine just so their new whatzit will work?
Sorry If I am going over old material, As I said I have not found articles relating to this.
I don't know if it has ever been written about. But the idea comes up often. You would probably find some sympathy at Intel among their EFI group. But then EFI is peculiar DOS/WIN clone anyway...
Eric
I just want to rise, RESPECTFULLY, *YOUR* paradox :
Look you are talking about spams on maillist right ? >: Gosh ! And you dare keeping up the title flash_n_burn rom utils, /dev/bios ... title that has no meaning in regards of your mail's content. That's a bit strong ! As a result (maybe) a depreciation of the original topic : who'd like to follow a swinging topic from flashin' chips to spam issue on maillist ?
Nevertheless, this resquest (the early one : "fear" of the hot plug and means to avoid it) on which you gained attention -as you said- may be not of your interest but you could respect it and not try (intended or not !) to pollute it.
Have you noticed, moreover, it seems to be a shared resquest (many reactions) ?
For all his, I think that you've act like people you denounce and I'am sorry for you.
respectfully and with no hard feelings mathieu
ps final 'peak' : IMO, putting [linuxbios] before titles is a *bad* idea : on a linuxbios maillist, the only root topic is linuxbios obviously so no need to repeat it in title ...
Le mer 21/04/2004 à 07:50, Chris a écrit :
I am not saying it is, just that when you view the subject
lines they often
appear like subjects designed to foil filtering systems
Subject lines are for humans the other headers are for machines.
I have given up on filters. Dont trust them to do the job. so I use them to pick the obvious spam then the remaining emails get scanned by trusty human eye and brain for the final decision.
Unfortunately some of the very cryptic subject lines appear to be spam so I tossed the first few until I realised my mistake. (bugger does that make me as reliable as spam filters)
I will try the list-id header. and mark it as friendly if it has it.
Re: [linuxbios] Re: [linuxbios]
If the list server placed the tag in it wouldn't be a problem and no-one would have to type it the list server can delete any redundant tags and then forward the mail
As for adding numbers for general categories that is just silly. If you want to describe what is going on feel free to add: [IDEA] or [PATCH] or whatever. Enumerations with numerical values are just silly when they are for human consumption.
not really its just shorter to read and write, with only 6 choices the ASRG works very well
The next logical step is to progress forward to writing programs in machine code to give more control so they are not susceptible to viruses.
now your just being really silly
Regards Chris
-----Original Message----- From: Eric W. Biederman [mailto:eric@lnxi.com]On Behalf Of Eric W. Biederman Sent: Wednesday, 21 April 2004 3:03 PM To: Chris Cc: John Usher (Maptek); linuxbios@clustermatic.org Subject: Re: flash_n_burn rom utils, /dev/bios ... resquest
"Chris" linuxbios@rebel.com.au writes:
Hi
I am new to this group and currently in the lurk stage
but can I pass a comment/suggestion.
I get a huge amount of spam, and on a cursory glance a lot of
the mail from
this group "appears" spammy
I am not saying it is, just that when you view the subject
lines they often
appear like subjects designed to foil filtering systems
Subject lines are for humans the other headers are for machines.
can I suggest a standard element be placed in the subject line such as I have done
that way it will be easier to seperate the linux bios mailings
from the spam
mailings
Look at the List-Id: that should be completely constant. That is what I filter by and it makes it trivial. I filter not to get rid of spam but to separate the LinuxBIOS mailing list traffic and the linux kernel mailing list traffic etc.
If you want something practically spoof proof ask for the mailing list to gpg sign messages. Then you can be certain the message at least came from the mailing list.
I have not seen any spam come through this mailing list. Or even spoofed as such.
If you really want to stop spam. Don't concentrate on the fact that it is unwanted mail. Concentrate on the fact that it is bulk mail, and that it is generally fraudulent. Detecting mail is passing in bulk or that it does not have a legitimate source do not sound like hard problems.
I am also a member of the ASRG "Anti Spam Research Group" and they use a system that looks like this
subject: [ASRG] 3: description
the number is for pre-organised topics such as 0 = general 1 = new ideas etc...
Things like that get extremely ugly when you cross post, or the mailing system does not recognize your Re: line so you get things like:
Re: [linuxbios] Re: [linuxbios] or: Re: [linuxbios] RE: flash_n_burn rom utils, /dev/bios, ... resquest
And we have a diverse enough crowd we don't get consistent recognition of the Re: line anyway. Yhlu I think posts with Chinese character set which makes things interesting.
Hacked subject lines just clutter up things up.
As for adding numbers for general categories that is just silly. If you want to describe what is going on feel free to add: [IDEA] or [PATCH] or whatever. Enumerations with numerical values are just silly when they are for human consumption. The next logical step is to progress forward to writing programs in machine code to give more control so they are not susceptible to viruses.
Eric
Linuxbios mailing list Linuxbios@clustermatic.org http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
Hi all,
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 11:33:06PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
If you want something practically spoof proof ask for the mailing list to gpg sign messages. Then you can be certain the message at least came from the mailing list.
GPG signed mails are not readable with old versions of outlook. And yes, outlook is not the best choice but sometimes the only client which is allowed to be used.
Andreas
based on Eric's writeup I think we'll forgo [linuxbios] in the subject. Thanks, Eric.
ron
-
andreas.huebner＠hp.com -
Chris -
ebiederman＠lnxi.com -
Gregg C Levine -
John Usher (Maptek) -
Mathieu Deschamps -
Ronald G. Minnich