[I'm not really arguing for or against, I just thought I'd throw my couple
of pennies in]

Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>  wrote:
 >   (d) pmaxes -- at least those I've seen -- tend not to have
 >       bootable read-write removable media (e.g., floppy drives).

Actually, mine has a TK-50.. Not sure if that counts because I think
TK-50's bite big time.

 > Given all those points, the word that comes to my mind to describe
 > installation of NetBSD on a pmax, _WITHOUT_ using an ecoff-format
 > kernel at some point, is ``insurmountable''.  Clearly it can be done,
 > but it's not easy. Especially if one doesn't have some other machine
 > running NetBSD to help out.  (And why would one care about something
 > as old and slow as a pmax, if one had a 486 or pentium that's as fast
 > or faster, and better supported by NetbSD?)

I don't agree.  The hp300 port doesn't support hpux executables, and
the hpux bootblocks don't support NetBSD kernels but installing NetBSD
from *any* machine regardless of whether it is running NetBSD or not
is not all that difficult.  It's not a pleasant experience like installing
some dorky commercial Unix for the i386 where the mouse lets you choose
pretty much everything, but it's not "insurmountable".

 > I really, sincerely wonder if NetBSD has been ported to any other
 > platform where the impedance mismatch between the vendors' OS and
 > native NetBSD is so great? (Not counting DOS, which is so deficient

err, well, see above. "hp300".  There *is* hpux_compat code in there which
is more of a remnant of a distant past (at least I think so) but no one
has taken the initiative to actually get it running... I mean, "I" don't
care to run any hpux executables on my hp300.

Whatever... My personal preference is to see Ultrix compatibility in
there but I don't think it's the most important thing right now.  If I
could just get NetBSD/pmax to build a NetBSD/pmax kernel, I'd be happy
and I'm pretty much there. Just don't have much time; that's all.