on 10/25/05 4:14 AM, Riccardo Mottola at zuse@libero.it wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> On Tuesday, October 25, 2005, at 08:07 AM, iMac wrote:
> 
>> Is it just me or is the LCIII a really bad choice for running NetBSD?
> 
> I have netbsd 1.4 running on my LC3.. but without X. FOr lack of ram and
> diskspace mainly :)
>

I started out with 2.0 on my LCIII and it wouldn't run X either, but other
than that, there weren't too many problems.   In an effort to get X working,
I installed 2.0.2 on the LCIII and the result was very near the same as with
2.0.   In a last ditch effort, I installed 2.1_RC6 and the problems began
trickling down like an avalanche.

The ten or so hours it takes to do a full installation on the LCIII makes me
somewhat hesitant to attempt another version, but I'll give the softfloat
2.1_RC6 version a try and see how that goes.

 
>> I have NetBSD 2.1_RC6 installed on my LCIII and everything seems to work
>> except for X windows.   What really has me concerned is the bootup
>> messages
>> though.   When I boot the LCIII into BSD, I get all sorts of weird
>> messages.
>> Here's a few paraphrased examples:
> 
> sadly, netbsd 2.1 seems to have problems that don't get sorted out :( I
> have a hard time getting my IIci to usable state and it is not yet
> there :( It used to work fine with 1.6.2 though.
> 
> So what you experience is a mix of possibly FPU problems and "2.x
> effect". For the lack of fpu I would reccomend you to install the
> fpu-less distribution that floats around that is thought for 040. I
> don't know if it is still compiled to work on a 030 too, but it might be
> an interesting option.
> 

I'm going to download the softfloat binaries sometime today and get it
installing tonight.  Hopefully this will cure what ails. :)


>> What about my Quadra 950, what are the odds of me getting NetBSD
>> running on
>> that machine?   I've read about the problems with the IOP's, and I
>> wouldn't
>> be too troubled with running from a terminal.   Are there any other
>> problems
>> with running NetBSD on a Q950 that could make installing on that
>> machine a
>> pain?
> 
> well, there are scsi troubles, the q950 has two controllers and there
> are device mapping problems. I wasn't ever get able to boot netbsd on my
> quadra. I only could get linux 2.2 to  boot on it, nothing newer either
> and even that with ridiculous performances.
> 
> It would be nice to support the IIfx and the Q950, also because after
> some "hardware death" that I am affected from those are the only two
> reasonable powerful 68k macs that I have currently available, however I
> think that the sparse coding efforts in mac68k (if someone still codes
> at all) would be better spent in getting 2.1 into shape again before
> "stretching" to new platforms.
> 

Leave it to me to become obsessed with an operating system while it's
nearing its final days on my platform of choice. :(