[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Re^2: NetBSD-Mach?
[ Again, let's keep powerpc threads on port-powerpc, please ]
On Tue, 10 Dec 1996 18:51:43 -0600 (CST)
"The Great Mr. Kurtz [David A. Gatwood]" <davagatw%Mars.utm.edU@localhost>
> Binary compatibility - probably x86 only... and certainly not on
> the Powermacs (no NetBSD port as of yet to be compatible with).
"BZZT." NetBSD/powerpc. If one powerpc port's binaries are incompatible
with another's, it's because of a bug.
> Speaking of binaries... what about NetBSD-powerpc binaries? Any chance of
> inherent native binary compatibility without all sorts of hell? What
> sections of the arch-specific code describe binary formats?
If it's compatibility with Linux binaries, you have some re-engineering
of COMPAT_LINUX to do... Because of Linux's "design", they have
different syscall numbers, errno values, etc. for each of their
supported platforms. You have to deal with this in the compatibility
> Yes lites exists, no, I've never heard of anyone using it. I think
> the NetBSD name and affiliation of a server would actually make it
> competitive against Linux, especially if the installation were simple
> enough. With some work, I'd say it would be possible to make Mach3 handle
> the NetBSD style ufs (or is it ffs?) file system, and then you could use
> the existing mac68k mac-side stuff (mkfs, installer), far more mature than
> the stuff with MkLinux for powermac.
There's probably a reason for that... I'd go as far as to say that Mach
is a cool research OS (and, that's what it is; a research OS), but
I'm hesitant to base production servers and workstations on it.
Jason R. Thorpe
NASA Ames Research Center Home: 408.866.1912
NAS: M/S 258-6 Work: 415.604.0935
Moffett Field, CA 94035 Pager: 415.428.6939
Main Index |
Thread Index |