Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
BSD Operating Systems Businesses Apple

NetBSD Now Supports Dual Power PC Processors 85

Posted by timothy from the shiny-boxes dept.
djcdplaya writes: "DaemonNews is reporting that the good guys over at NetBSD have gotten dual PowerPC processors working on dual-G4 Apples. The NetBSD mailing can be found here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NetBSD Now Supports Dual Power PC Processors More

NetBSD Now Supports Dual Power PC Processors

Comments Filter:

  • To all the ppl saying BSD is dead (Score:5, Insightful)

    by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2002 @03:05PM (#4026953) Homepage Journal
    I see like 12 or so totally offtopic comments saying BSD is dead. Here is what I have to say about it.

    In the last month, as a hobbyist i've set up 3 BSD systems.

    I like BSD, the install isn't bloated, the system boots up REALLY fast, and it really is a better place to start than Linux if you want to learn UNIX standards.

    This message is coming to you through a transparent squid proxy :)

    Now for some on topic stuff.

    SMP on PPC? Cool beans!

    --toq

    • Re:To all the ppl saying BSD is dead (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BitGeek ( 19506 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2002 @03:59PM (#4027467) Homepage

      How can BSD be dead when Apple ships more BSD systems every year than Linux has in its entire history??

      Really, though, these comparitive unix arguments are just silly.

      Above the kernel, everyone has vi, emacs, gcc, curl, et al. Inside the kernel everyone has access to the open source kernels and so anything competitively advantageous will eventually make it to the other kernels.

      Sure, there's a difference in the kernels, some being better than others at some tasks-- but really, to users, its unix, unix, unix, unix.

      *UNIX* in all its flavors, is taking over the world... one Mac, one PC, one Workstation, one Server at a time.

      When microsoft is the alternative, why squabble over kernel flavors?

      • Re:To all the ppl saying BSD is dead (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        > Really, though, these comparitive unix arguments are just silly.

        Not at all. Some systems are better at some things than others. Try
        running Linux on a Sun Fire, and tell me it's silly to compare them.

        > Above the kernel, everyone has vi, emacs, gcc, curl, et al.

        Curl? When did _everyone_ get Curl, and why have I never used a system
        that has it?

        > Inside the kernel everyone has access to the open source kernels and so
        > anything competitively advantageous will eventually make it to the other
        > kernels.

        Well, no, at least not as easily as you imply. Linux can freely
        integrate code from the BSDs, but because of the GPL the opposite is not
        true.
        • Linux can freely integrate code from the BSDs, but because of the GPL the opposite is not true.

          You have this backwards. Because the GPL requires all code it associates with to also become GPL'ed, you can't simply take code from BSD.

          FreeBSD, on the other hand, has incorporated GPL code in the kernel and userland applications. They were careful, however, to keep the GPL stuff separate from the BSD stuff. If you are going to use FreeBSD in a commercial product, you can easily build a system without the GPL code, thereby honoring the license.

          BSD Licensed code can be freely used; you can use it for personal projects or you can sell a product based upon it. Yet the GPL prevents the GNU camp from being able to use the code. This isn't much of an issue, though, since the GNU and Linux camps have a terminal case of NIH syndrome.

          • why couldn't you simply take the BSD code and reliscense it under the GPL? why would that be against the BSD?
          • >You have this backwards. Because the GPL requires
            >all code it associates with to also become GPL'ed,
            >you can't simply take code from BSD.

            *Completely* wrong. BSD is compatible with the GPL, so you can integerate BSD code into a GPL project without problems.

            The reverse is not possible, because the GPL has additional restrictions over BSD code.

            --
            GCP
      • When microsoft is the alternative, why squabble over kernel flavors?

        Just ignore the trolls, this is exactly what they want.

        I am running Linux- and Windowsless too, I like BSD, there's nothing wrong with it. It's just a UNIX flavour indeed. Just like Solaris (and SunOS, which was BSD based too)

        And for the poor people that actually believe the "BSD is dead" trolls, well, I hope they happen on a BSD system one day and see the beauty of it.

        Everything I have runs on BSD, and it hasn't let me down once (well, not counting my FreeBSD CURRENT box, but hey, that's bleeding edge for ya).

        Oh, and even the allmighty Redmondian Giant uses BSD. Check out hotmail mail headers, you might see a Qmail MTA in there somewhere. Microsoft still uses FreeBSD at HotMail for the backend. Apparently the Win2k machines can't keep up :)

  • Pardon my skeptism, but I think that as of right now a port of NetBSD in a dual ppc system is unnecessary.
    Why would anyone in their right mind want a dual ppc NetBSD system when Apple already markets/supports and extends the leading OS for the platform: OSX?
    • Somebody put effort in it. Therefore someone must have some benefit??? What if you are familiar with netbsd and have a dual-apple lying around. Not very likely I admit but those guys are a bit crazy if I may say so...

    • Re:What for? (Score:4, Informative)

      by hubertf ( 124995 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2002 @08:31PM (#4029702) Homepage Journal
      Um, maybe not all PPC hardware is made by Apple?
      Look at the list of NetBSD ports that use a PPC:

      amigappc bebox macppc mvmeppc ofppc pmppc prep sandpoint walnut

      Of these, only 1 runs OSX.
      All of them run NetBSD though.

      - Hubert
  • on my old 8500/120 (single CPU) last week. Exposing the boot loader was tricky, but after that it went ok. An "huzzah" seems in order for this news.

  • NetBSD in OS X (Score:3, Interesting)

    by foniksonik ( 573572 ) on Thursday August 08, 2002 @04:05AM (#4031246) Homepage Journal
    I thought the point of this was so that the NetBSD portion of OS X's Darwin would finally be capable of utilizing dual CPUs. Am I missing something?

    If previously NetBSD in OS X, et al was only cinlge CPU aware then OS X Server has been sub-optimal from it's inception as a server and now should see very nice performance improvements to such things as the TCP/IP stack and many other networking technologies.

    I'm definitely curious to see what impact this will have for OS X Server. I assume that it was Apple's engineers that privided the 'last mile' details to get this working... nicde work people.

    Maybe we'll be seeing TiVos with Dual G4 PPCs running NetBSD in the future or something too..

    BTW, does anyone know if PPC Linux distros are MP aware?

    • Re:NetBSD in OS X (Score:3, Informative)

      by LizardKing ( 5245 )

      I thought the point of this was so that the NetBSD portion of OS X's Darwin would finally be capable of utilizing dual CPUs

      Mac OS X uses portions of FreeBSD (user land bits mostly), but is built on top of the Mach microkernel. Mach began life as the BSD Unix kernel, but was extensively rewritten as an academic attempt at a working microkernel. While on his extended hiatus from Apple, Steve Jobs founded Next, who used this microkernel version of BSD in the NextStep operating system.

      Mac OS X is arguably NextStep given a bit of a makeover, hence the continued interest in GNUstep as a free version of OpenStep (and now the newer Apple API's). OpenStep was the user land API's from the NextStep operating system, packaged up to run on many other systems.

      The Mach kernel was adapted for multiple processors a long time ago, but I don't think the support was completed until Apple released OS X. So basically, NetBSD SMP support is something independent from Mac OS X's.

      • Mac OS X uses portions of FreeBSD (user land bits mostly), but is built on top of the Mach microkernel.

        My understanding of this, is OS X is a hybrid Microkernel, kind of like how NT Microkernel is. In pure MKs, the MK only abstracts the hardware and manages raw hardware resources. Any interpretation is user level. For example, the network adabter driver would be in the kernel, but the TCP/IP stack would be user level. Sometimes it gets kind of slow, because you'd have to pass messages from user level app code through the MK and then to the user level tcp/ip stack, then back though the kernel and back to user-level app. Most MKs in use now are hybrids because of this, thy hybridization is to short circuit the message passing delays. I think Debian on GNU/Hurd is a "pure" MK implementation, using a Debian UNIX "server" to get UNIX APIs and all that under the Hurd.

        OS X has a Mach core, but the BSD subsystem is also kernel level. They glue together, it's not just user-level stuff, which has a lot of NeXT thrown in as well. It also started as NetBSD code, I guess for portability reasons, then they realized they liked FreeBSD kernel a bit too, so now the BSD layer is a hybrid NetBSD/FreeBSD 2.x, soon to be FreeBSD 4.x layer.
    • Darwin is the underlying OS (sans GUI and iApps) of OS X. OS X and OS X Server are both SMP-aware/capable-Mach-mk-under-BSD based OSs (really the same OS, the server version has more chrome). NetBSD is not supplying the SMP for OS X and Darwin, it's there already. There are no major performance problems with the server portion of OS X (although there are some lingering GUI performance issues and, of course, some Mac architectural issues).

  • Take it Tux? (Score:3, Funny)

    by cant_get_a_good_nick ( 172131 ) on Thursday August 08, 2002 @07:01PM (#4036316)
    Hell, I was karma capped for a while, I can live with the negative mods...

    Take it tux [www.wtf.dk]

    This is a joke, I've set up both Linux and FreeBSD, Linux has more apps, FreeBSD is cleaner. I've used Solaris, SCO, Tru64, AIX, HPUX, SunOS, even DG/UX on a Motorla 88K. Pick whatever works best for you and be happy with it.

  • Why FreeBSD is dying (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The End of FreeBSD

    [editor's note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]

    When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.

    Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.

    FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.

    It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.

    So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.

    Discussion

    I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.

    From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.

    There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.

    Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.

    Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?

    Shouts

    To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.

    To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. It's when you get distracted by the politickers that they sideline you. The tireless work that you perform keeping the system clean and building is what provides the platform for the obsessives and the prima donnas to have their moments in the sun. In the end, we need you all; in order to go forwards we must first avoid going backwards.

    To the paranoid conspiracy theorists - yes, I work for Apple too. No, my resignation wasn't on Steve's direct orders, or in any way related to work I'm doing, may do, may not do, or indeed what was in the tea I had at lunchtime today. It's about real problems that the project faces, real problems that the project has brought upon itself. You can't escape them by inventing excuses about outside influence, the problem stems from within.

    To the politically obsessed - give it a break, if you can. No, the project isn't a lemonade stand anymore, but it's not a world-spanning corporate juggernaut either and some of the more grandiose visions going around are in need of a solid dose of reality. Keep it simple, stupid.

    To the grandstanders, the prima donnas, and anyone that thinks that they can hold the project to ransom for their own agenda - give it a break, if you can. When the current core were elected, we took a conscious stand against vigorous sanctions, and some of you have exploited that. A new core is going to have to decide whether to repeat this mistake or get tough. I hope they learn from our errors.

    Future

    I started work on FreeBSD because it was fun. If I'm going to continue, it has to be fun again. There are things I still feel obligated to do, and with any luck I'll find the time to meet those obligations.

    However I don't feel an obligation to get involved in the political mess the project is in right now. I tried, I burnt out. I don't feel that my efforts were worthwhile. So I won't be standing for election, I won't be shouting from the sidelines, and I probably won't vote in the next round of ballots.

    You could say I'm packing up my toys. I'm not going home just yet, but I'm not going to play unless you can work out how to make the project somewhere fun to be again.

    = Mike

    --

    To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. - Theodore Roosevelt

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close