Slashdot Mirror

Linux doesn't run on POWER (though a port from PowerPC might be possible), and doesn't support MCA. However, NetBSD seems at least interested in running on RS/6000. From http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/:

IBM RS/6000 (MCA based)

The pre-PowerPC RS/6000 machines were based on the POWER and POWER2 architecture, with Microchannel (MCA) bus. There is i386 MCA bus code in NetBSD tree now, which would help with the MCA aspect.

However, this is in the "Suggested Ports" category. So if you've got some time on your hands and like to hack stuff, you've got a great project. Otherwise you'll have to run AIX until someone gets around to doing it.

First post? :P

---
Note that the reason Be can't make the BeOS run on PowerMac G3 and G4 machines is not because of their processors but because Apple won't give Be the specs for the proprietary chips on the motherboards of the new machines.
---

Ah yes. Apple has been terrible about releasing the information used in order to port alternative operating systems on their hardware, eh?

Darwin
MkLinux
LinuxPPC
NetBSD
Yellow Dog Linux
Debian
SuSE

Think for yourself. No matter what Be's propaganda says, Apple has nothing to lose from Be porting their OS to their hardware, since they still gain sales either way. Perhaps they don't want to subsidize Be's development, but that's besides the point. Be's argument was questionable from the beginning, and is twice as questionable now that Apple has released Darwin.

Don't get me wrong - I love BeOS, but the company behind it doesn't seem to have any trouble hiding reality from their userbase. They got seduced by Wintel and they know it.

- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)

Try NetBSD.

I doubt a TV could be used to hack... no telnet, and i doubt you could install a *nix on it.... even if the (obviously dipshit, seeing as how she looked at internet access) judge meant WebTV, it's doubtful. but maybe the folks at NetBSD.org are working on it ;)

So what's the generic term for "operating systems that imitate System V"? According to the Open Group's guidelines (PDF here), NetBSD's "UNIX-like" is an abuse of the Trade Mark. There are several abuses and their alternatives listed, but "UNIX-like" is the only abuse listed without an alternative. I've been dropping the U and calling them "*Nix" systems, or simply "Nix" systems.

http://www.netbsd.org/Misc/feature s.html#large-ide

Well, uhhhh...if you like BSDish systems, why not just get BSD ? ;)

• FreeBSD
• NetBSD
• OpenBSD
• BSDi

The Linux "emulation" stuff works quite well with FreeBSD (have no experience with the others). However, yes, I agree that Slack is very cool and is the distro of choice if you are a Unix "purist"/BSD fan but must run Linux for whatever reason...

Is it OK to call GNU/Linux and *BSD "UNIX-like" systems? It seems that NetBSD is ripping off the GNU tagline.

Kudos to the Palm team for moving to the ARM processor family. Of course, it also runs NetBSD - check out: http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/arm32/

Now all we need is a way to get Ethernet into a Palm to have the ultimate portable rescue device. Imagine coming to rescue a down system and just plugging in your Pilot to restore basic service.

It doesn't get any cooler....

>Now - the real question is since there is a port of Linux on the StrongARM processor

Indeed. Here is the place to start looking.

There is also a NetBSD port in progress here.

Perhaps the best thing that WinCE^WPocket PC will do is drive the cost down for high-powered portable hardware. Who says you need to run a Microsoft OS on a Pocket PC anyway? NetBSD/hpcmips already runs on most of the Pocket PCs...

Microsoft is spurring the market for smaller, faster, cheaper hardware. That's fine with me.

Definitely NetBSD/pc532 :) Good luck finding a machine to run it on; less than 200 boards were made.

Well, I'm certainly not pissy that OpenBSD has integrated my code (although it is a bit annoying that they credit Allen Briggs, when he wrote none of the code. I mean the first line of the thing even says it's copyright David Huang... Allen was the NetBSD/mac68k portmaster, and certainly answered a lot of my questions and was very helpful in general though.)

Anyways, I think it's great that people are using my code, and I haven't seen any other NetBSD folks complain that OpenBSD is taking NetBSD code. I do see some grumbling when OpenBSD takes NetBSD code and makes out like it's some new feature of theirs, but that's human nature. They're not against OpenBSD taking the code, they just want some credit for it. NetBSD folks don't like Theo for a reason... while I've never met him in person, based on email conversations with him and watching him on the NetBSD mailing lists (before he was banned), he's rude and quite abrasive. To be fair, some NetBSD folks can be too, but Theo seems like that all the time :)

You're probably referring to running Linux on WinCE machines (pbsdboot). I'm not talking about that; I'm talking about PDAs that run Linux as shipped. E.g. the Yopy.

Commerical Applications - www.netbsd.org/gallery/software.html Also note that NetBSD can run Linux binaries due to the compatibility layer, so the BSD's have access to not only Linux binaries, but SCO, Solaris, and even Windows binaries (via WINE)

Yes, I know that... I was talking about native NetBSD commercial applications. There are many more commercial Linux apps.

So, as far as facts go, thanks for playing. When you take off the pro-linux rose colored glasses you will see that what you said is not backed up by facts.

Actually, they are backed up by facts. Linux PDA exists? Yes. NetBSD PDA exists? No. More commercial Linux software than commercial NetBSD software? Yes. And what pro-Linux rose-colored glasses? I don't like Linux, and I don't use it. I'm a NetBSD user and occasional developer (see the copyright line of this file? That's me.)

As for mine being a 'cheap ripoff', mine was a tasteless parody of a tasteless post. Scatalogical humor of someone using scatological humor. Humor via goring the sacred cow that is /.

Not much of a parody... not particularly tasteless either. well-done parodies involve some creativity. Running the original through sed to change a few names around does not make a good parody.

So rather than wasting time slamming other opensource projects, wouldn't the rising tide for OpenSource work better when ALL boats get floated?

When did I slam any open source projects? NetBSD is the best OS for me, but I know it's not perfect. I know its shortcomings. Even NetBSD's core developers recognize that NetBSD is just not gonna have a lot of apps compared to Linux and FreeBSD, and that NetBSD should make it's emulation good enough to run Linux and FreeBSD apps (and the emulation's not perfect yet; for example, I can't run the Linux version of the Pervasive.SQL 2000 database server).

All you need to do is dial the unit up using its native QNX (either to the Netpliance-provided ISP or, if you've wriggled your way into the internals, by using pppd itself with your own ISP), FTP a compressed boot/root filesystem image, and write that image to the raw SanDisk device.

Poof. Instant Linux installation. It's been done with BSD and there are already Linux "distros" (images) available to do the same. Check out their web site and the FAQ.

it's "unix-like", despite the FAQ's claim that this term is a trademark violation

Pepsi® One soft drink is Coke®-like. freepuzzlearena(TM) game is Tetris®-like. If it were a trademark violation, then NetBSD would already have taken down their Call It a Duck page.

Actually, Linux-based systems are GNU systems; GNU's not Unix (NetBSD is stealing this tagline).

Mac OS 10 has a BSD-heritage public-source kernel called Darwin and can be spelled with an X; does that count?

I'd say any system with multitasking, multiuser, devices with filenames (/dev/*), full POSIX compliance (refer to the Single UNIX® Spec available from the official Unix site), etc. could be called Unix-like.

Actually, Linux-based systems are GNU systems; GNU's not Unix (NetBSD is stealing this tagline).

Mac OS 10 has a BSD-heritage public-source kernel called Darwin and can be spelled with an X; does that count?

I'd say any system with multitasking, multiuser, devices with filenames (/dev/*), full POSIX compliance (refer to the Single UNIX® Spec available from the official Unix site), etc. could be called Unix-like.

France, with its tradition of rational centralized government, had fought bitterly even against the electric telegraph, which seemed to the French entirely too anarchical and frivolous. For decades, nineteenth-century France communicated via the "visual telegraph," a nation-spanning, government-owned semaphore system of huge stone towers that signalled from hilltops, across vast distances, with big windmill-like arms. In 1846, one Dr. Barbay, a semaphore enthusiast, memorably uttered an early version of what might be called "the security expert's argument" against the open media.

"No, the electric telegraph is not a sound invention. It will always be at the mercy of the slightest disruption, wild youths, drunkards, bums, etc. . . . The electric telegraph meets those destructive elements with only a few meters of wire over which supervision is impossible. A single man could, without being seen, cut the telegraph wires leading to Paris, and in twenty-four hours cut in ten different places the wires of the same line, without being arrested. The visual telegraph, on the contrary, has its towers, its high walls, its gates well-guarded from inside by strong armed men. Yes, I declare, substitution of the electric telegraph for the visual one is a dreadful measure, a truly idiotic act."

I see no reason why this measure shouldn't go the semaphore way.

FarHat

Life is a sexually transmitted disease.

See this link on the NetBSD website.

See this link on the NetBSD website.

We use slightly different terminology -- a NetBSD "port" is a port of NetBSD to a particular platform, and we install into /usr/pkg by default instead of /usr/local, to leave /usr/local free for truly local software, but if you're familiar with the FreeBSD ports collection, it should look very familiar to you..

See the list in the right-hand column on www.netbsd.org

Porting NetBSD is so easy that even we developers lose track of how many ports have been checked in to the master sources..

All it takes is people to use it.

Don't believe it? Go here and do a find on dreamcast.

Or, if /. is your source for news....validates that BSD is already there.

It's not slackware, but Debian also runs on powerpc. It's even going to be part of the next official release.

As to your other questions:

The BSD that runs on MacPPC is NetBSD OFPPC.

And SUSE has a page on installing SUSE for ppc.

For laptop installation hints, look at the archives for the LinuxPPC Mailing List. If your laptop is a pismo (the ones with firewire) support might not be 100% there yet; best bet is to post to the mailing list, several of the LinuxPPC kernel developers subscribe, as well as the author of the LinuxPPC booters (miBoot, yaboot, and BootX).

The same kernel and booter(s) are used for all LinuxPPC distros, so questions about booting and installing are appropriate on that list, because many list members have experience with those issues.

a) Spelling. Get some.

b) NetBSD runs on Macs too.

It seems from my limited experience (and yes, I want to always learn, so if I am wrong I hope I'll be corrected!) like you would have to build all the packages, then wrap them up in the .tgz files, before you could do the classic Slackware install onto your system. In other words, if you wanted to blaze the trail, which will NOT be a trivial task, then everyone else would have Slack/Sparc. I don't see any shortcut for you to arrive at a working system.

If you like the feel of Slack, why not install NetBSD on your Sparc hardware? NetBSD is good stuff, and the install has a concise feel to it, much like a Slackware install.

First, this is not a web-only service. We do like to provide web interfaces to as much as possible, but we do realize that for some things, program compliation and testing included, nothing can substitute for shell access.

A lot of people are asking about other hardware architectures and OS's. For now, the Compile Farm is i386 based, and contains several Linux distributions and FreeBSD. This does not mean that we have ruled out other possibilities. This is just another step in what we hope can be an expanding feature set for Open Source developers on SourceForge.

There is a lot of setup involved in something like this Compile Farm, not the least of which is having thousands of skilled Open Source developers with shell accounts on a set of boxes. We're attempting to keep things as secure as possible while also offering enough features to make this thing useful. One reason for the limited number of distributions/architectures/OS's now is the limitation of variables in a very complex system. Hopefully, we can work out the kinks in this system soon so that it can become a valuable resource to developers who might not otherwise have the capability of getting their hands on so many different machines.

Please be patient as we test this new system. We're definately open to criticism, but please also be constructive with it so that we can continue to improve these services. Thanks to all of the SourceForge users who have contributed patches, criticism, and helpful suggestions. Every day my confidence in the Open Source model increases...

Yep. Oddly enough, I'm running both OpenBSD and NetBSD. And I will be testing both of them. And it's a race to see which one will work in SMP mode on the Sun 670MP's that are sitting over in the corner. But alas, it looks like it's going to be just a little bit longer before either group gets busy with the sparc SMP.

*scratches head* I don't see anything but ports of Linux to sparc, alpha and i386 when I look on ftp.redhat.com. I've heard rumours of a port to the PPC of Linux, also, but it would seem anything but those three aren't worthy. ftp.linux.com doesn't work, ftp.linux.org has next to nothing useful (that could be easily found), ftp.debian.org has i386, alpha, sparc and m68k under "stable", with those four plus "arm" and "ppc" under unstable. I don't see anything about 390's or palm there...I wonder what could have happened to them ? If you goto ftp.netbsd.org, look in the /pub/NetBSD/arch directory, you will find snapshots available for each release. That is, a `complete' unix installation, not just a kernel you have to retrieve from some obscure website that may or may not be part of the real thing. If you want to checkout a real, portable, Unix, goto http://www.netbsd.org or download a snapshot for your platform from ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/arch/

*scratches head* I don't see anything but ports of Linux to sparc, alpha and i386 when I look on ftp.redhat.com. I've heard rumours of a port to the PPC of Linux, also, but it would seem anything but those three aren't worthy. ftp.linux.com doesn't work, ftp.linux.org has next to nothing useful (that could be easily found), ftp.debian.org has i386, alpha, sparc and m68k under "stable", with those four plus "arm" and "ppc" under unstable. I don't see anything about 390's or palm there...I wonder what could have happened to them ? If you goto ftp.netbsd.org, look in the /pub/NetBSD/arch directory, you will find snapshots available for each release. That is, a `complete' unix installation, not just a kernel you have to retrieve from some obscure website that may or may not be part of the real thing. If you want to checkout a real, portable, Unix, goto http://www.netbsd.org or download a snapshot for your platform from ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/arch/

If you want to see what netbsd can run on go here: http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/

As for running on more platforms, I can;t say which runs on more, but I think netBSD has the edge. Running on a Palm would be nice though, but any handheld that can run Windows CE can probably run NetBSD, so i think that area is covered.

NetBSD users work together if they use computer types of different kinds. VM additions done from architecture ONE also benefit architecture TWO and THREE - same deal with networking, security, pkgsrc, toolchain, userland, X11, kernel, ports and homepage right?

FreeBSD is missing support on Intel for a number of hardware devices available from NetBSD now you know? Even if "NetBSD supports many more platforms than FreeBSD, but compared to the Intel platform it's a drop of water in the river" a good number of soundcards, cardbus, pcmcia and scsi cards are available in NetBSD but not FreeBSD. Your point?

NetBSD users work together if they use computer types of different kinds. VM additions done from architecture ONE also benefit architecture TWO and THREE - same deal with networking, security, pkgsrc, toolchain, userland, X11, kernel, ports and homepage right?

FreeBSD is missing support on Intel for a number of hardware devices available from NetBSD now you know? Even if "NetBSD supports many more platforms than FreeBSD, but compared to the Intel platform it's a drop of water in the river" a good number of soundcards, cardbus, pcmcia and scsi cards are available in NetBSD but not FreeBSD. Your point?

1. Poor user base. More people with Macs run MacOS than run LinuxPPC and NetBSD/macppc put togther. Should we all switch to MacOS then?
2. NetBSD can't read Apple Partition maps. True for the 1.4 release edition, but not true for -current (for the brave), or the upcoming 1.5 release (for the patient).
3. No support for Linux/PPC binaries. True, but only a valid reason if running LinuxPPC binaries is on your list of priorities. It's not a sign of lack of support on NetBSD/macppc's part, but yet another indicator that NetBSD/macppc is still in its infancy. And neither system can run MacOS binaries, so maybe we should all just switch to that?
4. 8-bit XServer - Blah. I don't recall running into this issue, but I'm not a graphics weenie. If you need to run TheGIMP or something like that, then yes, this is an issue.

I tried out both systems on a PowerBook 3400 last year. Both were okay for my purposes, (NetBSD/macppc was marginally superior for me), but trying to get X to cope with one pointer button just ruined the whole experience.

Once I get the hardware straightened out, I'll likely set up a desktop box to dual-boot NetBSD/macppc and Debian/PowerPC until one or the other has all the features I want. Since I lack any MacOS, installing LinuxPPC isn't likely to be worth the effort.

1. Poor user base. More people with Macs run MacOS than run LinuxPPC and NetBSD/macppc put togther. Should we all switch to MacOS then?
2. NetBSD can't read Apple Partition maps. True for the 1.4 release edition, but not true for -current (for the brave), or the upcoming 1.5 release (for the patient).
3. No support for Linux/PPC binaries. True, but only a valid reason if running LinuxPPC binaries is on your list of priorities. It's not a sign of lack of support on NetBSD/macppc's part, but yet another indicator that NetBSD/macppc is still in its infancy. And neither system can run MacOS binaries, so maybe we should all just switch to that?
4. 8-bit XServer - Blah. I don't recall running into this issue, but I'm not a graphics weenie. If you need to run TheGIMP or something like that, then yes, this is an issue.

I tried out both systems on a PowerBook 3400 last year. Both were okay for my purposes, (NetBSD/macppc was marginally superior for me), but trying to get X to cope with one pointer button just ruined the whole experience.

Once I get the hardware straightened out, I'll likely set up a desktop box to dual-boot NetBSD/macppc and Debian/PowerPC until one or the other has all the features I want. Since I lack any MacOS, installing LinuxPPC isn't likely to be worth the effort.

1. Poor user base. More people with Macs run MacOS than run LinuxPPC and NetBSD/macppc put togther. Should we all switch to MacOS then?
2. NetBSD can't read Apple Partition maps. True for the 1.4 release edition, but not true for -current (for the brave), or the upcoming 1.5 release (for the patient).
3. No support for Linux/PPC binaries. True, but only a valid reason if running LinuxPPC binaries is on your list of priorities. It's not a sign of lack of support on NetBSD/macppc's part, but yet another indicator that NetBSD/macppc is still in its infancy. And neither system can run MacOS binaries, so maybe we should all just switch to that?
4. 8-bit XServer - Blah. I don't recall running into this issue, but I'm not a graphics weenie. If you need to run TheGIMP or something like that, then yes, this is an issue.

I tried out both systems on a PowerBook 3400 last year. Both were okay for my purposes, (NetBSD/macppc was marginally superior for me), but trying to get X to cope with one pointer button just ruined the whole experience.

Once I get the hardware straightened out, I'll likely set up a desktop box to dual-boot NetBSD/macppc and Debian/PowerPC until one or the other has all the features I want. Since I lack any MacOS, installing LinuxPPC isn't likely to be worth the effort.

1. Poor user base. More people with Macs run MacOS than run LinuxPPC and NetBSD/macppc put togther. Should we all switch to MacOS then?
2. NetBSD can't read Apple Partition maps. True for the 1.4 release edition, but not true for -current (for the brave), or the upcoming 1.5 release (for the patient).
3. No support for Linux/PPC binaries. True, but only a valid reason if running LinuxPPC binaries is on your list of priorities. It's not a sign of lack of support on NetBSD/macppc's part, but yet another indicator that NetBSD/macppc is still in its infancy. And neither system can run MacOS binaries, so maybe we should all just switch to that?
4. 8-bit XServer - Blah. I don't recall running into this issue, but I'm not a graphics weenie. If you need to run TheGIMP or something like that, then yes, this is an issue.

I tried out both systems on a PowerBook 3400 last year. Both were okay for my purposes, (NetBSD/macppc was marginally superior for me), but trying to get X to cope with one pointer button just ruined the whole experience.

Once I get the hardware straightened out, I'll likely set up a desktop box to dual-boot NetBSD/macppc and Debian/PowerPC until one or the other has all the features I want. Since I lack any MacOS, installing LinuxPPC isn't likely to be worth the effort.

1. Poor user base. More people with Macs run MacOS than run LinuxPPC and NetBSD/macppc put togther. Should we all switch to MacOS then?
2. NetBSD can't read Apple Partition maps. True for the 1.4 release edition, but not true for -current (for the brave), or the upcoming 1.5 release (for the patient).
3. No support for Linux/PPC binaries. True, but only a valid reason if running LinuxPPC binaries is on your list of priorities. It's not a sign of lack of support on NetBSD/macppc's part, but yet another indicator that NetBSD/macppc is still in its infancy. And neither system can run MacOS binaries, so maybe we should all just switch to that?
4. 8-bit XServer - Blah. I don't recall running into this issue, but I'm not a graphics weenie. If you need to run TheGIMP or something like that, then yes, this is an issue.

I tried out both systems on a PowerBook 3400 last year. Both were okay for my purposes, (NetBSD/macppc was marginally superior for me), but trying to get X to cope with one pointer button just ruined the whole experience.

Once I get the hardware straightened out, I'll likely set up a desktop box to dual-boot NetBSD/macppc and Debian/PowerPC until one or the other has all the features I want. Since I lack any MacOS, installing LinuxPPC isn't likely to be worth the effort.

1. Poor user base. More people with Macs run MacOS than run LinuxPPC and NetBSD/macppc put togther. Should we all switch to MacOS then?
2. NetBSD can't read Apple Partition maps. True for the 1.4 release edition, but not true for -current (for the brave), or the upcoming 1.5 release (for the patient).
3. No support for Linux/PPC binaries. True, but only a valid reason if running LinuxPPC binaries is on your list of priorities. It's not a sign of lack of support on NetBSD/macppc's part, but yet another indicator that NetBSD/macppc is still in its infancy. And neither system can run MacOS binaries, so maybe we should all just switch to that?
4. 8-bit XServer - Blah. I don't recall running into this issue, but I'm not a graphics weenie. If you need to run TheGIMP or something like that, then yes, this is an issue.

I tried out both systems on a PowerBook 3400 last year. Both were okay for my purposes, (NetBSD/macppc was marginally superior for me), but trying to get X to cope with one pointer button just ruined the whole experience.

Once I get the hardware straightened out, I'll likely set up a desktop box to dual-boot NetBSD/macppc and Debian/PowerPC until one or the other has all the features I want. Since I lack any MacOS, installing LinuxPPC isn't likely to be worth the effort.

Actually, netbsd imported support for these cards about a week ago:

http://www.netbsd.org/Changes/changes-1.5.html

(scroll on down to January 2000, section pcmcia)

Same for NetBSD:

See NetBSD/hpcmips for MIPS based PDAs.

There's of course a SH3 port as well: NetBSD/SH3, but they currently don't support any SH3-handhelds (AFAIK).

Same for NetBSD:

See NetBSD/hpcmips for MIPS based PDAs.

There's of course a SH3 port as well: NetBSD/SH3, but they currently don't support any SH3-handhelds (AFAIK).

While I won't debate slippery issues like "quality", I will point out a few historical errors: Win'95 does not have true preemptive multitasking, nor was it the first desktop OS to have the "semicooperative" multitasking that it does have. Unix had true preemptive multitasking around the time PCs were first made. Macs had cooperative multitasking (make an explicit call to switch context) when they first came out ('84?) and Amigas had "semicooperative" (a context switch will be forced most of the time) when they first came out ('85?). Win'95 was, in other words, ten years behind the Amiga.

Unix had virtual memory long before Winduhs did, too. Again I don't know exactly when, but I was using it in '86, so it's likely at least ten years ahead of Winduhs again.

I don't know if I want to say BSD was a pioneer in portability, but it was ported to the 386 long before NT was thought of. Look at NetBSD if you want to see an OS that runs on a lot of processors.

"Something that had never been done before in the industry" - that's a real hoot. The only way to make it so is to define "the industry" as "what M$ makes"

Lest the Slashdot community get too holier-than-thou when it comes to security, let us remember that GNU/Linux has had its share of security problems over the years.

Now, of course, GNU/Linux developers are generally faster than Microsoft when it comes to fixing security holes and they don't, as a rule, engage in the same coverups and spin control as the Microsoft's PR flaks, but the question remains, why are there so many bugs in the first place?

Other open source operating systems, such as FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD have had security problems, but not in such numbers as the various GNU/Linux distributions.

Rather than making fun of Microsoft for its own failings in the security realm, GNU/Linux users and developers could better spend their time improving the security of their OS of choice.

http://www.is.s.u-t okyo.ac.jp/tech-reports/TR94-02-letter.ps.gz

There was a recent discussion on NetBSD's mailing list about implementing this high-performance thread architecture for NetBSD. You can read about it below, under the ``upcalls'' thread.

http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-k ern/1999/12/

Tru64, Irix, and Solaris 2.6 all use scheduler activations. Linux does not. And IBM is not suggesting it. The Masuda Lab implementaiton is slightly better than scheduler activations and far more elegant. I do not think commercial OS's have adopted the Masuda & Inohara architecture.

Naive many-to-many without scheduler activations is simply not an efficient enough threading model. Note that all this research I have cited is over five years old, and yet Linus still wants kernel threads like NT uses (does he?). In my opinion, it is very important to keep current with a diverse array of research, because I've found that when I only pay attention to white papers and press releases from Intel, Sun, IBM, Ars Technica, whatever--I miss a lot of highly relevant work that later turns out to be every bit as essential as the usual wise softspoken few knew it was going to be from the beginning.

If you liked the IBM paper, I highly reccommend reading the ones I've referred you to. You might look at some academic papers on scheduler activations or threads in general from your neighborhood university library--they're surprisingly accessible even to people like me who aren't research studs.

There's already a port of NetBSD to the Super-H SH3 CPU, closely related to the SH4 in the Dreamcast (and they're currently working on SH4 support). Take a look here.

There's a link on the vic page to IVS, another very similar also-opensource tool.

I haven't used either of these tools myself because I can't afford the hardware, but I have a feeling that the Linux/Wintel crowd is ignoring a lot of research that has already taken place. Research people are often uninterested or incompetent in packaging and marketing their tools, but they may well have already done the hard part for you. And it looks to me like Apple and Microsoft stole most of their ideas from these guys.

There's a port in the works, latest patches were sent today (if it's 4.1. 2000 in where you're from).

Address is http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/~atp/linux-vax/ and there's a link to all source and cross-tools and the patches.

However, there's always NetBSD.

I've had good luck with other changes I've submitted too... I've even been offered commit privileges twice, so I can make my own changes without going through someone else, but I haven't taken 'em up on it, since I've been way too busy with work lately...

I've seen other people, even some who are fairly new to NetBSD, get commit privileges. At least with NetBSD, if you know your stuff, it's not hard to become a full-fledged developer.