Hello. I recently acquired a NetWinder...

[Ralph Siemsen]

Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:

> I was referring to the website of NetWinder, Inc. The site currently at  
> that address appears to be nothing more than a server running blogging  
> software that had a few random quotes from the previous website pasted  
> in. WHOIS shows something in the South Pacific. I can only surmise that  
> at some point, NetWinder, Inc started hemorrhaging assets, and that's  
> who picked up the website.

You know as much as I do at this point!

> I was under the impression that the firmware included a miniature Linux  
> kernel. Wouldn't that make it a derived work?

Indeed, but the situation is complicated, please see old mailing list 
achives if you really want to go there.  The short of it is we don't 
have permission from the copyright holder, even though they should 
release it, since there is GPL code inside.  Going after them isn't 
likely to help, especially since they seem to not be interested in 
netwinder.  It leaves me in an uneasy situation, I don't want to deal 
with legal issues on either side, so the only choice was to pull the 
binaries.

> Mark Lord's nw-9 live image is what I installed for the time being. It  
> had some brokenness that needed tweaking (e.g. X was not setuid root),  
> but it seems to be, in a way, the worst of both worlds: missing some of  
> the NetWinder-specific stuff characteristic of the DM images, yet  
> missing the currentness of Debian (I have not yet looked into Gentoo  
> for ARM, but based on my past Gentoo experiences, I don't expect to be  
> choosing that option.). BTW, the "stuff currently missing from the  
> netwinder.org website" also includes a period of mailing list archives  
> that may or may not prove somewhat enlightening to me.

When netwinder.org moved to OSU, only the web and FTP sites moved, and 
this means we have lost access to things like the pipermail list 
archives.  I figured with services like gmane and marc this wouldn't be 
a problem; but perhaps I am mistaken.  What era of stuff are you trying 
to find?

> Easier said than done, since the board appeared to be multilayered. If  
> I knew why they actually included the connectors instead of just pads  
> like for the chips/magnetics, I might have a better idea.

I believe it was an FCC regulation that you are not allowed empty holes 
on the box, so the connector was populated for this reason.

Helpful photos:
http://netwinder.osuosl.org/devteam/ralphs/public_html/images/nw-top2.jpg
and also
http://netwinder.osuosl.org/users/t/tinymoth/public_html/daughtercard.htm

> Only 1.4-3 is available on debian.org, and most recent word on the  
> matter appears to be this:
> 
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/2005/11/msg00026.html
> 
> Version 1.8-1 has been "pending upload" for two weeks. 

There was a lot of off-list chatter to get all the little bugs worked 
out; 1.8 was the result.  I can send you a copy privately if you wish.
Actually I should just get my mirror master in order...

 > BTW, your
> directory includes some of the NeTTrom binaries you said should not be  
> anywhere.

Hmm, indeed, they are showing up elsewhere too.  We had chmod'ed all 
these files to make them inaccessible (we were hoping to resolve the 
issue with NetWinder Inc.), but it seems that the permissions have 
returned.  I'll be correcting this ASAP.  Thanks for pointing it out.

> In the last kernel RPM available in the updates directory, dated  
> 01/2004, FastFPE is compiled as a module while NWFPE is compiled into  
> the kernel. Boot messages show that NWFPE is in effect with double  
> precision. How are they irrelevant to binaries that may also be used on  
> non-NetWinder ARM hardware with hard-float support? I think using  
> soft-float on those machines is rather dumb, unless libfloat can detect  
> hard-float support at run time and use it.

Granted, if you want to share binaries across machines, there are 
issues, however, as there are very few ARM systems with FPE's (the 
StrongARM doesn't support one at all), I think you'll find that 
soft-float will become the dominant way of doing things on ARM.

> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/610127

So we're in unsupported land.  Wonderful!  Most of my netwinders run 
2.4.25 kernel so I haven't noticed what's missing in 2.6.x...

> That would explain why I couldn't get VGA mode to work with the 01/2004  
> kernel RPM. I would expect VGA mode to be faster. Should I expect it to  
> ever be fixed?

Probably not.  Framebuffer is necessary for running X, as there is no 
cyberpro support in X.org to my knowledge.  The DM disk images had a 
hacked-up X server, but this work never got merged back, AFAIK.

> I was under the impression that those apps used the Philips and/or  
> CyberPro chips, ignoring the Winbond. Am I wrong? I would expect the  
> Winbond to improve performance over the Philips/CyberPro alone.

Not sure to be honest.  The chip may be depopulated on later boards.

> Since NW9 and beyond (e.g. Debian) are the established future of the  
> NetWinder, I believe that it would be worthwhile to preserve its past  
> in that manner.

Agreed, and the recent work on nwutils is a step in that direction.

> I may obtain an IDE flash drive, which I was considering for the  
> NetWinder, but I can't figure out a way to have it physically inside  
> the case along with a hard disk. Any ideas?

The modern IDE drives are much thinner than the original ones; 9mm 
versus 15mm if memory serves.  If you have an original drive, its 
probably past its service life anyways.

You can also do some clever cable-folding to make use of "free" space in 
the case.  Using a two-headed IDE cable, run it on top of the HDD, then 
do a 90 degree diagonal bend, and you'll have room on the side.  The 
only issue is supporting it mechanically.

> Even today, 64-bit 256MB SODIMMs are not all that cheap. I figure very  
> few NetWinders ever had 256MB in them, even though they could really  
> use the boost. I think some type of banana-board would certainly be no  
> less feasible than some of the other RAM upgrade options that have been  
> proposed. I'd bet that some units are still stuck with only 32MB. Some  
> type of light at the end of the NetWinder RAM non-availability tunnel  
> would greatly expand the possibilities of NetWinder use. While the  
> prospect of every remaining unit getting upped to 256MB may only serve  
> to increase software bloat, their potential as internet appliances may  
> offset that if concurrent processes to run are carefully chosen.

If you're adventurous and want to try it, sure :)  I have lots of 32MB 
machines that would love more memory, then again, going from 64 to 128 
didn't really give me the kind of boost I was expecting; I think 
applications just assume you've got a gig nowadays.

-R