On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Markus Baeurle wrote:

> -What do you call "Linux-compatible"? If the software was written 

Well, for the purposes of that, I was thinking of all the software that's
already packaged up and ready to compile by people like Red Hat.  Creating
a distribution for the ARM should just be a case of saying "rpm --rebuild
*", sitting back and waiting.  Yes, there will be _some_ porting work,
but not a lot.

> carefully, it should not be hard to compile it under BSD. You'll have to 
> recompile the programs anyway so all the things which are not available 
> as source are out of reach under ARM-Linux as well as RiscBSD anyway.

Yes. 

> -What's the big difference between Linux and BSD from a user's and 
> administrative point of view? I don't think that's really severe. I use, 

It's not _desperately_ serious.  I use Linux mostly, but I've had to
maintain FreeBSD systems at work (and I have one NetBSD at home), and it
was survivable.

> Anyway, it's good to have more people working on free Unix for Acorn 
> machines and it's always good to have a choice. Competition is never bad too.

Indeed.

> A5000 because of the work involved to port it to the RiscPC. Not much 
> seemed to be happening to ARM-Linux when you were looking at it as an 
> outsider like me.

No, and that's a bit of a shame.  I have told Russell repeatedly that
ARMLinux would do a lot better if he would only loosen his grip on it a
little.  However, that's his choice...

phil