On 8/6/05, Jeremy C. Reed <reed@reedmedia.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
>=20
> > In his article about the current state of the Linux kernel[0], Geoff
> > Broadwell writes ``Linux now supports more devices on more platforms th=
an any
> > other operating system ever (Linux passed NetBSD last year, an impressi=
ve
> > achievement)''.
>=20
> I also wonder how did he define "passed".
>=20
> > My question in that context is: What is that "Linux" that's supporting =
all
> > these devices? Is it what everyone can grab on kernel.org? Or is it jus=
t a
> > term for a set of operating system kernels that behave roughly the same=
 on
> > all platforms they run? Or do they really all run kernels from the same
> > sources? Reminds me of my musing about portability[1] some time ago... =
is
> > Linux (the kernel) really there were NetBSD is today?
> >
> > What are your thoughts? Anyone know Linux good enough?
>=20
> http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/User-Group-HOWTO-1.html (last updated a year
> ago) is probably the best list for Linux ports. It also says:
>=20
>    "Note that some items listed were probably one-time forks, little or
>    not at all maintained since creation. On some of the rarer architectur=
es,
>    NetBSD may be more practical."
>=20
> I also think that Debian supports the most Linux *operating systems* and
> has a list at http://www.debian.org/ports/
>=20
> There are some good answers for this in the "how many hardware
> architectures supported by BSD kernels?" thread at
> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-advocacy/2003/10/
>=20
> It would be good to compare and document the above three references for a=
n
> article.

I remember a few months back reading a slashdot post about some arm
board that had Linux and NetBSD ported to it, and it started to turn
into a mini flame war.

Then the guy who actually did the porting chimed in and said something
like (and I'm really trying to get it right but I might not be):

It took me a few weeks to get NetBSD working where it took months to
get Linux working.

The difference is the machine independent nature of NetBSD. Which I
guess Linus thinks is stupid or something... I could be out of context
on that one too.

This is really apples and oranges. 90% of what is out there for NetBSD
is easily installable by the average unix geek, and much closer to
100% if you count netbooting. Can Linux claim this? I seriously doubt
it. You have to go out and hack something together, if you actually
know enough about doing it.

The only site I see that's Linux related that is really trying to be
platform independent (even though i386 rules), is Debian, and good on
them.

I probably should start posting references to this stuff I read so I
don't seem so loose handled...

Andy