For its excellent backward compatibility: NetBSD 6.1 is still able to run a.out binaries built for NetBSD 1.0
For its system-independant build system. Building NetBSD needs a POSIX system with a C compiler, which does not need to be NetBSD. It first builds the tools for the host, including the compiler itself, and then the target NetBSD system, which may be for another CPU.
For its machine-independant drivers. Have a fancy platform with an odd CPU? If NetBSD has a driver for a chip, it will work as is, no need to port it
Theses two OSes are not really for the same usage. NetBSD is good for servers and embedded, but it is not very desktop friendly. It can be used as a desktop, but it required some work that you do not have to do with Fedora.
Wheres Fedora excels both as a server and as a desktop hence NetBSD is not really relevant.
IMO NetBSD is much better than Fedora as a server, but YMMV. This is what is nice with your troll-ish sentence: it works with any OS instead of Fedora and NetBSD.
For Embedded, why bother w/ NetBSD at all - Minix is smaller, but uses the same NetBSD userland. NetBSD is fine for servers. For desktops, I agree w/ you - they'd need to come up w/ their own equivalent of PC-BSD for a desktop OS. Maybe they could re-do the abandoned Desktop BSD distro to be based on NetBSD, borrow PBI/EasyPBI and build a laptop based distro based on that.
However, they may not wish to focus on the desktop at all, and instead, may want to focus on tablets. In which case, they should ta
Minix 2 used to support SPARC in addition to x86. But you're right - right now, Tannenbaum ain't interested in any platform other than ARM, so for people looking at MIPS or PowerPC or SH3/5, it's either Linux or NetBSD or even Windows CE. Incidentally, does Hitachi still do the SuperH CPUs?
Have you considered lending the machine to a NetBSD developer? In order to have hardware supported, we need the conjunction of (access to hardware, skills, time). You may lack the second entry of the tuple, but someone else may just lack the first one.
NetBSD mailing lists (port-sgimips here) are the right place to discuss such an arrangement
I don't know any NetBSD devs, and especially not any that live in close proximity to me (I'm in Baltimore, MD). It's a heavy machine (~25 Kilos), and I'd rather not pay shipping costs.
Based on your posts it sounds like you are a NetBSD developer. If there is an interest in making it work, perhaps something can be arranged.
Please subscribe to the port-sgimips mailing list [netbsd.org] and tell that you are ready to lend the machine to someone that would pick it up or pay shipping. You will get an answer or not, but at least you will have tried
Maybe you could just hook this machine to your DSL router plus some sort of KVM switch ? I am to privy to the details of KVM stuff, but there should not be a general reason it cannot work.
Then you could make this machine available to a guy in Norway or maybe even Morocco.
For kernel developement, a remote-controlled power socket is also required, as the machine will probably crash a lot
Reading the project page, X isn't supported on the Octane. While Gentoo was a pain to install on the Octane and get running (not supported anymore, this was back in 2007-8), it did have basic X support. Newer kernels probably don't work at all on this hardware. I've got two sitting in my room now (not the ones I got working in the LUG years ago), that it looks like IRIX is the only viable choice for.
A few years prior to that (probably around 2003 or so) Gentoo was a pain to install on a Mac but it was SOOOOO cool to see the penguin on the screen once I got it going.
OpenBSD runs on Octane supporting Octane 2 or ImpactSR graphics cards but no audio.....but it's one thing to run a server which is the main target of BSD, but quite another to make a desktop. There is GNU/Linux for Octane too such as Debian
I play with lots of different boards that use ARM application processors, but I've always used Linux of various flavors. It's not because of any particular attachment to Linux, but just because Linux runs on most things.
An alternative would be welcome. just for variety. And I did use BSD4.2 on VAXen a million years ago, so I'd like to deploy a bit of nostalgia too, if NetBSD can do it.
There are a lot of kernels built for ARM platforms [netbsd.org], but you will probably want to tweak and rebuild your own. This can be cross-built from your favorite Linux box, it is as simple as
You dodged the most important question: What is it good for? If I just want to get a job done, is there any kind of "job" beside "having fun setting up a strange OS" where NetBSD would be the appropriate choice?
NetBSD has unmatched features for embedded: cross-building out of the box and machine-independant drivers help a lot here.
It is also very good as a server. The backward compatibility seems to be a detail, but when you think of it, that means easy upgrades: reboot with a newer kernel without upgrading userland, it works. Then drop to single user, unpack up-to-date userland without upgrading the packages, return to multiuser, it works. Install a package built for version n-1, it works.
For its machine-independant drivers. Have a fancy platform with an odd CPU? If NetBSD has a driver for a chip, it will work as is, no need to port it
Last I checked, Itanium was not supported - it is supported on FreeBSD. Does NetBSD support it now, or have they abandoned plans of supporting it? It would certainly puncture their claims of being the most ported Unix around (aside from Linux)
That aside, it's nice to see some OSs, such as NetBSD, still strive for compatibility w/ different platforms. I'm disappointed that more recent versions of distros such as Red Hat have dropped support not just for Itanium, but for SPARC as well, while OpenIndiana
Why NetBSD? (Score:5, Informative)
Why NetBSD?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Wheres Fedora excels both as a server and as a desktop hence NetBSD is not really relevant.
IMO NetBSD is much better than Fedora as a server, but YMMV. This is what is nice with your troll-ish sentence: it works with any OS instead of Fedora and NetBSD.
Why not Minix? (Score:2)
For Embedded, why bother w/ NetBSD at all - Minix is smaller, but uses the same NetBSD userland. NetBSD is fine for servers. For desktops, I agree w/ you - they'd need to come up w/ their own equivalent of PC-BSD for a desktop OS. Maybe they could re-do the abandoned Desktop BSD distro to be based on NetBSD, borrow PBI/EasyPBI and build a laptop based distro based on that.
However, they may not wish to focus on the desktop at all, and instead, may want to focus on tablets. In which case, they should ta
Re: (Score:2)
For Embedded, why bother w/ NetBSD at all - Minix is smaller, but uses the same NetBSD userland.
Right, but what about kernel support for embedded CPUs? You have ARM, but you could want SH3, SH5, MIPS, PowerPC...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The one system I really wanted to run NetBSD on isn't supported (SGI Octane). Ruined the whole "Of course it runs NetBSD" joke for me.
Re:Why NetBSD? (Score:5, Informative)
Have you considered lending the machine to a NetBSD developer? In order to have hardware supported, we need the conjunction of (access to hardware, skills, time). You may lack the second entry of the tuple, but someone else may just lack the first one.
NetBSD mailing lists (port-sgimips here) are the right place to discuss such an arrangement
Re:Why NetBSD? (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know any NetBSD devs, and especially not any that live in close proximity to me (I'm in Baltimore, MD). It's a heavy machine (~25 Kilos), and I'd rather not pay shipping costs.
Based on your posts it sounds like you are a NetBSD developer. If there is an interest in making it work, perhaps something can be arranged.
Re:Why NetBSD? (Score:5, Informative)
Please subscribe to the port-sgimips mailing list [netbsd.org] and tell that you are ready to lend the machine to someone that would pick it up or pay shipping. You will get an answer or not, but at least you will have tried
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you could just hook this machine to your DSL router plus some sort of KVM switch ? I am to privy to the details of KVM stuff, but there should not be a general reason it cannot work.
Then you could make this machine available to a guy in Norway or maybe even Morocco.
For kernel developement, a remote-controlled power socket is also required, as the machine will probably crash a lot
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Reading the project page, X isn't supported on the Octane. While Gentoo was a pain to install on the Octane and get running (not supported anymore, this was back in 2007-8), it did have basic X support. Newer kernels probably don't work at all on this hardware. I've got two sitting in my room now (not the ones I got working in the LUG years ago), that it looks like IRIX is the only viable choice for.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
OpenBSD runs on Octane supporting Octane 2 or ImpactSR graphics cards but no audio.....but it's one thing to run a server which is the main target of BSD, but quite another to make a desktop. There is GNU/Linux for Octane too such as Debian
Re: (Score:2)
Debian doesn't run on Octane (least not last time I checked). Gentoo was the only option when I was playing with it several years ago.
What's the ARM support like? (Score:1)
I play with lots of different boards that use ARM application processors, but I've always used Linux of various flavors. It's not because of any particular attachment to Linux, but just because Linux runs on most things.
An alternative would be welcome. just for variety. And I did use BSD4.2 on VAXen a million years ago, so I'd like to deploy a bit of nostalgia too, if NetBSD can do it.
Re: (Score:3)
Here is a good starting point [netbsd.org].
There are a lot of kernels built for ARM platforms [netbsd.org], but you will probably want to tweak and rebuild your own. This can be cross-built from your favorite Linux box, it is as simple as
That's all? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
NetBSD has unmatched features for embedded: cross-building out of the box and machine-independant drivers help a lot here.
It is also very good as a server. The backward compatibility seems to be a detail, but when you think of it, that means easy upgrades: reboot with a newer kernel without upgrading userland, it works. Then drop to single user, unpack up-to-date userland without upgrading the packages, return to multiuser, it works. Install a package built for version n-1, it works.
Re: (Score:2)
Why NetBSD?
Last I checked, Itanium was not supported - it is supported on FreeBSD. Does NetBSD support it now, or have they abandoned plans of supporting it? It would certainly puncture their claims of being the most ported Unix around (aside from Linux)
That aside, it's nice to see some OSs, such as NetBSD, still strive for compatibility w/ different platforms. I'm disappointed that more recent versions of distros such as Red Hat have dropped support not just for Itanium, but for SPARC as well, while OpenIndiana
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked, Itanium was not supported - it is supported on FreeBSD. Does NetBSD support it now, or have they abandoned plans of supporting it?
There is a work in progress port [netbsd.org], but no formal release. I do not know how usable it is