Slashdot Mirror
Linux Compatibility Available for NetBSD PowerPC Ports
Emmanuel Dreyfus writes "The Linux compatibility feature has been enabled on NetBSD PowerPC
ports (macppc, prep, bebox, ofppc, and amigappc). This means it
is now possible to run Linux binaries such as Netscape Communicator
on these ports. More information is available at the
NetBSD web site."
Bzzt... Wrong!
The LSB stanard is almost complete. There are few modifications that are needed, and they're looking for people who can create a Logo for the LSB 1.0 (Read Nick's coloumn about it in Linux world web site)..
Next time, Check before you post!
Hetz (Heunique)
I wonder if this will run binaries of Mac-on-Linux... Oddly enough, it may now be easier to run the binary of MOL than to port it to NetBSD! If anyone tries this, let us know!
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
Actually, there was a BSD syscall emulation for Linux at one point, but it has bit-rotted from lack of interest.
If Linux binaries runs just as well as "native" binaries, there isn't any advantage of getting native binaries any more. In fact, it would be best to stop thinking as the Linux ABI support as emulation, instead it becomes just another supported ABI.
From another perspective: Is it a bad thing to have a JVM for BSD? It means people can release JVM binaries, instead of developing native BSD binaries.
iNTEL Hardware is mostly bilt for Windows, however Linux rns well enogh on it to make ports of poplar apps worthwhile. Linux was allso ported to Mac Hardware ( I.e. PowerPC ismostly Mac bt allso RS6000 andafew other boxes ).
:)
NetBSD is mostly aporteble OS ( As Oposed to the secre OpenBSD and the featurefll FreeBSD ). It runs well on the PPC bt isn't very poplar and has very few propriatery apps. Now with this port it will rn those Linx propriatery apps writen for the x86 architectre.
In Other words. Wrong CPU, Wrong OS and Wrong software.
The strange thing isthat it may still be morestable than some properly integrated platforms ( I.e. MS apps for Windows on iNTEL
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
saint,
We recommend trying Debian/PPC. It's a project that we support through hardware donations, and we support the Debian effort. Go that way. It's tested, well-known, and it's... Debian. That says a lot, but hopefully it says good things to you.
Good luck!
Haaz: Co-founder, LinuxPPC Inc., making Linux for PowerPC since 1996.
-- haaz.
Right. That'll happen. We'll just roll over and die because, ohmygoodness, someone else made a UNIX variant for the PowerPC!
;-)
This actually is a major step in the right direction for a vision that I have: the unification of UNIX on the PowerPC.
This is Serious, so pay attention.
Look at the platform right now. We have approximately five major OSes on PowerPC: Mac OS "Classic", Linux, BSD (which includes OS X, NetBSD, etc.), and AIX, IBM's UNIX.
I honestly don't know the status of AIX; if someone could inform me, I'd appreciate it. I do know that a majority of the PPC machines that we running AIX are now either in the closet, landfill, or are running Linux/PPC.
BSD will soon rise on PPC with OS X.
The "Classic" Mac OS is the dominant player for consumer PPC systems. "Classic" (OS 7.x - 9.x) already runs under Linux/PPC, and may actually run better there than under OS X. (Unconfirmed; this is just what I have heard.)
Now, the PPC makes up a sadly small portion of the market. But it's not going to go away. The TiVo is a Linux/PPC box. The briQ is a LinuxPPC box that'll fit in a drive bay. OS X hopefully will help Apple a bit.
That said, we have a really good processor that's got three major OSes. Classic runs under just about everything, though BSD seems to be a sort of exception. Though that has/will change with OS X... (see how complicated it's getting?)
Let me just cut right to my Vision:
Global Compatibility for All UNIX Systems* on the PowerPC.
* currently in use.
It would help us if we could run an OS X app under LinuxPPC. It'd help them if they could run a LinuxPPC app under OS X. Apparently NetBSD can now run our apps, which makes things like Netscape (which we port; news on that soon), Applixware (guess who got that on Linux/PPC?), and Loki's PPC games theoretically possible to use under NetBSD.
Now, can we go the other way? NetBSD apps under Linux/PPC? Is there a point to that? Shouldn't you just recompile and be done with it? Good questions, all of which need answers.
The two platforms I would really like to get talking are OS X and LinuxPPC.
If we could run OS X apps, perhaps with a native Carbon layer, or with a cleverly coded system to catch Carbon calls, and have Aqua calls go to X (as in X11...too many X's!!), that would be a major breakthrough for us.
Perhaps they will soon be able to or already can run LinuxPPC apps on OS X. If we have that going both ways, there's a tremendous upside:
It unites the PowerPC platform without falling on one OS, one company, to unite us.
Look at the rest of the world. What are they running? Windows.
There's a ton of Linux/x86 people now, too, which is good. But they're not Linux/PPC users.
We can better face Windows, the x86 platform, and the many disconceptions about the PowerPC if we have a united platform.
Together we stand, divided we fall.
Those words never rang truer to me.
Haaz: Co-founder, LinuxPPC Inc., making Linux for PowerPC since 1996.
-- haaz.
"Making it easier to run Linux binaries on BSD systems makes it that much less likely for software vendors to produce native BSD binaries. "
.|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
And this is somehow bad? Gordon Bennet, "software vendors", can we not let them take over the linux luser-marketplace and keep the *BSDs Free instead? I *hate* this "software vendor" sponge ethic!
~Tim
--
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
It's a f*cking conspiracy ;) Actually, I'm kinda surprised that there is a NetBSD port for the BeBox. Less than 2000 of them were made (and they sell for thousands even though they are only dual 133's at most). These people *do* have nothing better to do than port the OS. The BeBox was great hardware though. A little before my time, but one can appreciate the design.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Funny you should mention UVM, I just printed out the thesis of the guy who invented it. He used UVM to get his doctorate, and after reading about half of the 170-odd pages, I must say that its pretty cool. Some things are a little too BSD-ish for me (such as wasting perfectly good efficiency opportunities in order to keep pagetables throw-away-able) but hopefully, this will get implemented into Free/OpenBSD soon. If it works, then maybe the Linux guys will make a copy of it ;)
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Well, BeOS R5 still runs fine on the BeBox. Besides, its not a primary machine kind of purchase. You'd buy a BeBox for the same reason you'd buy on old Amiga. It really was a beautiful machine. (Besides, it had a "GeekPort" how could you NOT like it?)
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
If only commercial application developers would write good, portable code, and if only freeware/shareware/GNU programmers would stop writing Linux-centric software.
It's amazing how many unneeded Linuxisms I find in free software, from Makefiles that won't work without GNU make to install scripts that expect /bin/sh to be BASH. It's sad, really.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
I'm told the SlackWare folks have a port in progress, but it's not ready yet. If it were here, I'd say it's exactly what you want, but as it's not... why not give NetBSD a try?
If you are really adventurous, though, you could also try Slackintosh - it's an unofficial port from the slackware source tree. It has no installer - you will have to set up another linux/ppc distro to install it, but a very minimal install should work fine.
"That old saw about the early bird just goes to show that the worm should have stayed in bed."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Geee, this sounds so familiar. Do you cut and paste that shit everytime there is something positive about BSD? Next time, be fucking original! BSD is not dead. It's quite alive. Just because it's not the media buzzword, it doesn't mean that it's not doing well. I'm not going to say that BSD is bettter than any other OS, because those types of comments are as stupid as the bullshit you wrote. BSD has many strong features that make it appealing to advanced and seasoned Unix users. BSD users are the type that don't give a flying fuck about how many people use BSD, or how much money BSD companies are making, or if BSD is in all the weenie magazines. These are the users that care about quality, stability and usability. That's why they use BSD. I'm not saying that BSD users wouldn't like to have more public mention, because it's always nice to be noticed. I'm just saying that we don't measure our success on how many times we get somethin published in a magazine or how many users it has. People, if you're curious about BSD then give it a try. You might like it, or not. I for one was a Linux user and then moved on to BSD. I don't think I'll ever turn back.
If Linux could natively execute Windows binaries, would that cause any less of an effort to develop native Linux software? I think just about everyone that is opposed to native Linux execution on NetBSD is barking up the wrong tree. If you looked at it in retrospective, would the ability to natively execute Linux binaries on Windows halt the development of Windows software? Do the math.
Try either Yellow Dog or SuSE's PowerPC distribution. Both should support the same platforms that LinuxPPC supports.
There's also a PowerPC version of Debian if you want to use apt-get (which, although I have never used it myself, is supposedly comparable to BSD's ports).
Or, wait two weeks and swallow the blue pill....
--
I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
I'd rather see the effort spent on 'Binary compatibility to run Linux apps' be used to encourage vendors to produce native BSD binaries.
Some might claim that this shows the technical superiority of BSD, but in my opinion Linux emulation is harmful to the future of BSD operating systems.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
Then I could run netscape in 4 OS's at the same time (OSX, Mac OS9, Linux, and Winders, using VirtualPC or something like that)...
That would make quite a screenshot... =)
As bad as Netscape is, it's maintained a lot better for Linux than it is for other UNIX platforms (at least on i386).
You also seem to misunderstand the idea of Linux binary compatability -- it's not "emulation", the binaries run *natively*. The BSD kernel reconfigures itself to appear like a Linux kernel to the Linux binaries, and everything runs just as if it was on a Linux machine, on the bare hardware. Therefore Linux binaries run at full-speed, just like native BSD binaries. It's very cool - in fact, I'm typing this as we speak in a Linux mozilla daily build on my FreeBSD box.
There's a good entry in the FreeBSD handbook about this if you're interested in more details.