Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!MathWorks.Com!news2.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet From: John Dyson <dysonj@delphi.com> Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: 4.4-lite? Date: Mon, 18 Jul 94 22:00:56 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Lines: 59 Message-ID: <Ze9RiNY.dysonj@delphi.com> References: <2vgvc7$3tg@spruce.cic.net> <Bs2yi5F.dysonj@delphi.com> <michaelv.774429899@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu> <Zi2ziVX.dysonj@delphi.com> <30em65$g17@autodesk.autodesk.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: bos1d.delphi.com X-To: I can teach you how to fish... <greywolf@autodesk.com> I can teach you how to fish... <greywolf@autodesk.com> writes: >I find it kind of difficult to believe that FreeBSD started with 4.4-Lite, >since the litigation was still going on when FreeBSD was kicking off their >first implementation; by the time the litigation finished, the 4.4-Lite >distribution wasn't even completely available yet (unless there were FreeBSD V2.0 code base started with a 4.4Lite kernel source and we (Mostly David Greenman with myself and others helping) added pieces and merged CHANGES into the V2.0 tree. Every piece of code has been carefully examined to make sure that there is no contamination of Net/2 into our tree. As our tree becomes public, you'll see. For example, if you look at our VM system, you'll notice that it is 4.4Lite based, even though there is little real difference between the 4.4Lite and Net/2 VM systems. >FreeBSD has never *claimed* to be a multi-platform OS; everyone I have talked >to regarding "why doesn't FreeBSD run on <X platform>?" has told me that >their desire was to build a stable OS for one platform. Others have >informed me that the code is SO x86/*SA-bus-centric that the amount of >work required to separate out the different architectures is sufficiently >overwhelming as to discourage that progress. (I have since deleted the >mail since I'm a NetBSD-type person myself, but I recall the comments >pretty clearly). FreeBSD has been concentrating on doing the X86 port correctly, and now we know how to get the most out of an architecture. It is simply not true that the FreeBSD machine independent part is X86 centric -- in fact I am proud to say that the FreeBSD machine dependent part is *very* X86 centric and optimized very carefully (there are some new tricks in the V2.0 stuff :-)). >I seriously don't see the extrication of a well-organised machine- >independent OS rising out of FreeBSD without a considerable amount of >effort spent on re-organizing the source tree. Interesting, since FreeBSD has essentially the same organization of the Net/2 and 4.4Lite distributions. FreeBSD stripped out the other architectures in place. If they would be put back in, then the organization would be the same as CSRG. Some other versions of *BSD have reorganized their trees :-). >Personally, I have a Sun SPARCstation IPC at home, and I'd rather not >trade it in for a machine which is better known for running NT. >And I'd certainly like to avoid the two-machine syndrome of which others >have complained. Ok, I am going to seek out a SUN, and it might take a month or two to get it -- if everything goes well, and it might take some time because I have other commitments (like big house payments, etc), I am going to try to start working on a SUN port. (BTW where did you get the notion of running NT? Are you talking about an X86?? NT is very slow and sluggish. *BSD (except for applications base) is MUCH better and faster.) I am not going to sacrifice my work on FreeBSD (kernel enhancements), but I will spearhead a SUN effort. John dyson@implode.root.com