William Duke wrote:

>  
>
>>From: Dave Huang <khym@azeotrope.org>
>>Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:14:45 -0600
>>To: port-macppc@netbsd.org
>>Subject: Re: Cannot boot netbsd-3.0 on my powerbook 12'
>>
>>On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 06:56:55PM -0500, William Duke wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>I don't understand what you're talking about dixie.  The Indy is not a
>>>WinTel box and it does not use an Intel processor.  The Indy was built by
>>>      
>>>
>>I think his point is that whether a computer was designed to run *nix
>>isn't really related to how well it runs NetBSD. The standard IBM PCs
>>out there weren't designed to run *nix, but generally run NetBSD very
>>well. And Power Macs are arguably designed to run *nix (OpenFirmware,
>>PREP, CHRP, OS X have Unix ties).
>>-- 
>>    
>>
>
>I think that pretty much says it all: "And Power Macs are arguably designed
>to run *nix"  I would say that the "arguably" portion of that statement is
>perhaps the most telling.
>
>I guess you don't really appreciate how much more suited to unix a
>workstation can be, until you actually use one.   I have experience now in
>installing both Linux and NetBSD on Macintosh machines and on an SGI Indy.
>I can tell you that there is no contest.  Installing NetBSD on the Indy is
>easier than installing Mac OS on a Macintosh.  It's so absurdly simple to
>install BSD on the Indy that one wonders why all computers can't be so
>simple.
>
>The Indy PROM monitor retains the environment variables that I set no matter
>what changes I make.  Consider the effort that is required to reinstall or
>install NetBSD on to a Power Macintosh.  The process is really rather
>involved and the Open Firmware that Apple uses, leaves much to be desired.
>People are constantly having problems booting NetBSD on their Power
>Macintosh machines even if they manage to get the OS successfully installed.
>
>To install NetBSD on my Indy, it was a simple process of telling the Indy
>where to find the install kernel and waiting for it to boot.   Using the
>PROM monitor, I can set variables like netaddr very easily.  To switch
>between using the workstation or a serial console, is a simple matter of
>unplugging the keyboard.  The box recognizes that there's no keyboard and
>outputs to the serial port.  Compared to Open Firmware on the Macintosh or
>BIOS on the PC, there's really no contest.
>
>My Indy runs quite slowly though.  But I kind of expect that, given the age
>of the machine.  With a 150MHz processor on a 75MHz bus with only 32MB of
>physical RAM, there's a lot of thrashing on the swap partition.  Especially
>during a build of Mozilla!  Nevertheless, I can add RAM quite easily to this
>machine and this little old Indy should perform marvelously as a nice little
>NetBSD workstation.  That is, until I can get my hands on some IRIX install
>media.
>
>I'd like to get my hands on a Sun workstation too.  I've heard that Sun
>Microsystems is a little more encouraging of hobbyists, so I think that a
>Sun workstation will be one of my next "gotta have" machines.
>
>I used to really like the Macintosh for running Mac OS.  Once I began trying
>to get other operating systems running on the MacPPC hardware though, my
>opinion of Apple hardware turned quite sour.
>
>  
>
You got it Dave :)

William: I'm aware of MIPS and they fascinate me, I was about to buy an O2
some days ago but I abandoned the  pourpose due to the budget, same for
a SS10 :|

_Imho_ the point is that other ports such i386 are more addressed by
NetBSD's developers than macppc currently is.
More effort on development guarantees more stability, performances, hw
support
and features.
Why linux runs so smoothly on [i|Power]Books and macppc in general?
Imho this is due only to the big number of developers involved, that
increased the
development speed. (and the quality? Who cares about the quality? ;)

I would be very glad to contribute to NetBSD/macppc one day, let me
reach a decent
level of preparation :)

-- 

	dixie

I'm here only to improve my Inglisc.