home.social

#realmode — Public Fediverse posts

Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #realmode, aggregated by home.social.

  1. @peteorrall

    The actual message is not, strictly speaking, an error. It just means that you're bootstrapping the non-EFI way, and your machine's firmware does not adhere to a convention (I believe from DOS+Windows 95 and the 1990s) for marking "not an MBR virus and safe" firmware add-on disc device I/O handlers.

    It's unlikely that F000:F0BF is actually unsafe, as that's in (notional) ROM.

    This message is very likely a red herring.

    #RealMode #IA32 #BootLoaders #FreeBSD

  2. @peteorrall

    The actual message is not, strictly speaking, an error. It just means that you're bootstrapping the non-EFI way, and your machine's firmware does not adhere to a convention (I believe from DOS+Windows 95 and the 1990s) for marking "not an MBR virus and safe" firmware add-on disc device I/O handlers.

    It's unlikely that F000:F0BF is actually unsafe, as that's in (notional) ROM.

    This message is very likely a red herring.

    #RealMode #IA32 #BootLoaders #FreeBSD

  3. @peteorrall

    The actual message is not, strictly speaking, an error. It just means that you're bootstrapping the non-EFI way, and your machine's firmware does not adhere to a convention (I believe from DOS+Windows 95 and the 1990s) for marking "not an MBR virus and safe" firmware add-on disc device I/O handlers.

    It's unlikely that F000:F0BF is actually unsafe, as that's in (notional) ROM.

    This message is very likely a red herring.

    #RealMode #IA32 #BootLoaders #FreeBSD

  4. @peteorrall

    The actual message is not, strictly speaking, an error. It just means that you're bootstrapping the non-EFI way, and your machine's firmware does not adhere to a convention (I believe from DOS+Windows 95 and the 1990s) for marking "not an MBR virus and safe" firmware add-on disc device I/O handlers.

    It's unlikely that F000:F0BF is actually unsafe, as that's in (notional) ROM.

    This message is very likely a red herring.

    #RealMode #IA32 #BootLoaders #FreeBSD

  5. @peteorrall

    The actual message is not, strictly speaking, an error. It just means that you're bootstrapping the non-EFI way, and your machine's firmware does not adhere to a convention (I believe from DOS+Windows 95 and the 1990s) for marking "not an MBR virus and safe" firmware add-on disc device I/O handlers.

    It's unlikely that F000:F0BF is actually unsafe, as that's in (notional) ROM.

    This message is very likely a red herring.

    #RealMode #IA32 #BootLoaders #FreeBSD

  6. @peteorrall

    The odd thing is that the linear address does not match the segmented address.

    It's likely not the true cause of your problems, though; but the mis-match might be symptomatic.

    #RealMode #80386 #IA32 #BootLoaders

  7. @peteorrall

    The odd thing is that the linear address does not match the segmented address.

    It's likely not the true cause of your problems, though; but the mis-match might be symptomatic.

    #RealMode #80386 #IA32 #BootLoaders

  8. @peteorrall

    The odd thing is that the linear address does not match the segmented address.

    It's likely not the true cause of your problems, though; but the mis-match might be symptomatic.

    #RealMode #80386 #IA32 #BootLoaders

  9. @peteorrall

    The odd thing is that the linear address does not match the segmented address.

    It's likely not the true cause of your problems, though; but the mis-match might be symptomatic.

    #RealMode #80386 #IA32 #BootLoaders

  10. @peteorrall

    The odd thing is that the linear address does not match the segmented address.

    It's likely not the true cause of your problems, though; but the mis-match might be symptomatic.

    #RealMode #80386 #IA32 #BootLoaders