Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NetBSD/sun2 port

Posted by michael on from the all-inclusive dept.

sparcv9 writes "Matt Fredette has begun merging his experimental NetBSD/sun2 port into the main NetBSD tree. This port supports the older Sun 2/120 and Sun 2/170 machines based on the Motorola 68010 processor. It's not yet available via FTP, but it's already in CVS."

9 comments

  1. If... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...it had been Linux has been ported to the sun2 I bet people would be overjoyed and saying look this is really cool etc, oh well one rule for the linux users and one for the rest. It's a sad state when slashdot readers don't recognise technical acheivement, but rather slander it.

  2. Re:sun ][ rox!!1! by The+Finn · · Score: 1
    It's great to see NetBSD technology catching up to the mid-1980s!

    but I'll bet linux running on a sun2 would be big news...

    NetBSD isn't catching up to the mid-1980s -- it is being extended to 1980s vintage machines -- there is a difference. heck, it runs on VAX 11/780s, many of which are older than some /. readers.

    --
    NetBSD: the cathedral vs the bizzare.
  3. About Linux by pp · · Score: 1

    Linux for sun3 is completely functional, its only a matter of dumbening down a bit more for sun2 (the MMU is the same except even more limited. Hell, they barely changed it for the first sparcs, and that's true for other bits of hardware too).

    Also someone would have to do drivers for the multibus devices, but that's doable too.

    Specs for the machines would be a problem (but since netbsd did it, one could just read the source), even sun3 ones are hard to find.

    Not that there really is anything else but hack value in such a project, sun3's at least are quite common and make reasonable X terminals when a modern OS is loaded on them.
    (and one might argue there's nothing but hack value in sun3's either!)

    Still, congrats to the NetBSD people!

  4. damn browser by pp · · Score: 1

    Sorry about the duplicate :)

  5. Re:Because it's there. by edhall · · Score: 2

    Sure, wanting to see your efforts find wide use is a worthy goal, but what the other posters were saying implied that other goals -- such as a satisfying technical challenge -- weren't significant. I never said that usefulness and marketability were to be avoided. But unlike Microsoft (and most other commercial software companies), the BSD and Linux efforts have other goals which are often as important or more important than shear commercial heft.

    One of the primary goals of NetBSD is a generally portable architecture -- an emphasis that distinguishes it from the other BSD's. Even a port to an otherwise "useless" achitecture can enhance that generality. So it can be argued that an effort like this contributes to NetBSD's usefulness.

    But this (as well as your post) misses my point: the hacker asthetic can be orthogonal to utility. Almost anyone who loves to program as an activity (and not just a way to make money) will understand this. What shocked me was that none of the Slashdotters responding tho this article seemed to have such an understanding.

    That's sad.

    -Ed
  6. Because it's there. by edhall · · Score: 4

    Sometimes the highest mountains are also the oldest. A hacker doesn't need to ask "why?" and doesn't worry about "what use is it?" Hackers know: it's the sheer pleasure of creating, of exploring uncharted territory, of building up clever solutions and finally emerging victorious over the challenge. If wide usefulness ane marketability are your goals, go join Microsoft -- they're their goals, too.

    I think the responses to this post make it pretty damn clear that few Slashdot posters are hackers anymore.

    -Ed
    1. Re:Because it's there. by ajs · · Score: 2

      If wide usefulness ane marketability are your goals, go join Microsoft -- they're their goals, too.

      That's a rather self-defeating attitude. If wide usefulness and marketability are your goals you should not be involved with BSD? Why continue to support the X86 architecture, then? Would that be because most BSD users are X86 users? Would that not be attention to "usefulness"?

      I understand why one would want to port an OS to an obsolete platform. I'm not so clear on why the port would be absorbed into the primary codebase, but I guess that's not my maintenance headache.

      However, I certainly think you want people to be involved who are interested in usefulness. I certainly think you want people to be involved who are interested in marketability (after all, how do you attract new blood without maintaining a certain attrictiveness in the project?)

      No?

  7. wow by stilwebm · · Score: 1

    I bet development on these dinosaurs is really slow. I wonder what the kernel compilation time on a 68010 is.

  8. Important day by ideut · · Score: 1
    I think i speak for the entire slashdot crowd when I say this is an important day for open source.

    --

    --

    --