Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.sys.powerpc:30257 comp.sys.intel:26098 comp.os.misc:3549 comp.unix.bsd:15680 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:7843 comp.unix.sys5.r4:8884 comp.unix.misc:15191 comp.os.linux.development:21601 comp.os.linux.misc:32155 comp.os.linux.misc:32156 comp.os.386bsd.development:2869 comp.os.386bsd.misc:4504 Newsgroups: comp.sys.powerpc,comp.sys.intel,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.misc,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.386bsd.development,comp.os.386bsd.misc Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!agate!news.duke.edu!convex!bcm!newsfeed.rice.edu!news.sesqui.net!uuneo.neosoft.com!bonkers.taronga.com!peter From: peter@bonkers.taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Would the design be right this time? (Re: Interested in PowerPC for Linux / FreeBSD / NetBSD? Followup-To: comp.sys.powerpc,comp.sys.intel Organization: Taronga Park BBS Message-ID: <D14yw2.1nw@bonkers.taronga.com> References: <3cilp3$143@news-2.csn.net> <3crhm2$fm8@tuba.cit.cornell.edu> <D1116s.Jo7@bonkers.taronga.com> <3d5vs5$t3a@news.primenet.com> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 01:02:25 GMT Lines: 28 In article <3d5vs5$t3a@news.primenet.com>, Lawson English <english@primenet.com> wrote: >Peter da Silva (peter@bonkers.taronga.com) wrote: >: In article <3crhm2$fm8@tuba.cit.cornell.edu>, >: S. Lee <sl14@crux4.cit.cornell.edu> wrote: >: >I hate to admit this really sounds like a Mac, but Apple did get their >: >designs right. >: Sorta. So long as they don't follow Apples "document nothing and break >: compatibility on a whim" policy. Otherwise you're not going to get any >: third party software on them. >Could you go into more detail about this policy? Just ask Apple. They make a point of exporting only the operating system interfaces to the hardware, and changing the underlying hardware from model to model. This means that if you want to program on Mac hardware, you have to use Apple's operating systems. This is really a reasonable policy for the sorts of markets they sell into, but I'm reading this in comp.os.386bsd.misc and for the "market" represented by the readers of this group it's kind of tough. So I'd prefer that IBM stick to standardizing things at a bit lower level, that's all. I'm redirecting followups to this message out of the O/S groups, because it's obviously causing too much confusion.