Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FreeBSD on New Architectures

Posted by michael on from the daemon-power dept.

Kartoffel writes: "FreeBSD hackers have been hard at work getting the OS to run on PowerPC, IA64, and Sparc64 machines. These announcements are originally from FreeBSD.org. PowerPC: Benno Rice has committed a mega-patch which added support for OpenFirmware to the FreeBSD loader. The loader can now load a kernel over the network and execute it on an Apple iMac. IA64: After a few months of development Doug Rabson and Peter Wemm have committed patches which extends the FreeBSD/ia64 port's functionality and adds the possibility to boot on real hardware. Sparc64: Jake Burkholder and Thomas Moestl have been porting FreeBSD to the ultra sparc for the past few months and first booted a machine into single user mode on the 18th of October. The log from the serial console is available."

19 of 47 comments (clear)

  1. FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT by Kartoffel · · Score: 4, Informative

    In addition to the porting work going on moving FreeBSD to other platforms, I'm really looking forward to new stuff in 5.0-CURRENT.

    FreeBSD 4.x doesn't do SMP terribly well, for instance. Version 5.0 brings SMPng, kernel scheduler entities, a preemptable kernel and possibly more. It's gonna be awesome.

    It's also particularly nice to see FreeBSD booting on Mac hardware. Sure, Apple's already got big chunks of FreeBSD 3.2 inside Darwin, but now we've got 5.0-CURRENT running on PPC, and the source is available. Imagine how sweet MacOS X could be if Apple MFC'ed from this new PPC FreeBSD work that's going on. Mmmmm...

  2. IA 64 boots to multi-user mode on real hardware by GrumpyOldMan · · Score: 4, Informative

    The first boot on real hardware to single
    user mode happened about 2 weeks ago. See
    http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=3921+ 0+archive/2001/freebsd-ia64/20011007.freebsd-ia64

    The IA64 port is booting multi-user now, and has been for quite some time.

  3. Why? by akharon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I can understand the IA-64 port, as most of the x86 crowd will eventually be there, but why PPC and SPARC? Those are even more major changes, and makes a lot more work for drivers etc. Given that the SMP code in FBSD is nowhere near that of Solaris, it would make more sense to stick to the workgroup server sized market, with 4-8 CPU machines on x86 (what really needs 1 or 2 proc sun hardware that can't be accomplished on 1-2 way x86 or even 4-way x86?).

    1. Re:Why? by Garrett+Rooney · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The motivation behind these ports is the same motivation for everything else in FreeBSD. There are people willing and capable of doing the work, and it's presence will not adversely effect the rest of the OS. Porting to different architectures will improve the quality of the codebase as a whole, and allow people to use FreeBSD in places they otherwise could not. These are good things.

      Also, keep in mind, that they aren't going out and porting to everything on the planet. They are porting to modern, high quality hardware. As jkh said at some point 'It is not our place to support geriatric hardware, if people want that, they have NetBSD' (I'm probably badly misquoting that...).

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Given that the SMP code in FBSD is nowhere near that of Solaris

      Perhaps you missed the fact that this platforms are being added in 5.0-RELEASE,
      a release who's primary intention is to turn FreeBSD into baby solaris with respect to multiple processors.

      ...and don't troll along about what FreeBSD should and should not be doing. See
      this post for reasoning behind additional platforms. By the way, code speaks louder than slashtrash comments, if you think FreeBSD should be doing something that it isn't, perhaps you should be submitting patches.

    3. Re:Why? by akharon · · Score: 1

      This wasn't a troll, I just would hate to see FBSD go the way of linux with it's "let's see if this microwave will run 2.4" attitude.

  4. UltraSparc != Sparc64 by shrike · · Score: 2, Informative

    Please note that Sparc64 is Fujitsu's 64-bit SPARC processor, which is not completely compatibel with Sun own 64-bit SPARC processor, called UltraSparc. They've been working on getting FreeBSD to work on the UltraSparc architecture, since the DEC^H^H^HCompaq road seems to be a dead end...

    1. Re:UltraSparc != Sparc64 by kl76 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just to clarify, "sparc64" is what FreeBSD and NetBSD call the UltraSPARC architecture; "SPARC64" is Fujitsu's 64-bit SPARC v9 implementation. sparc64 != SPARC64.

    2. Re:UltraSparc != Sparc64 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Alpha death has nothing to do with the sparc64 port (yes, I'm calling it sparc64. sparc64 is a generic term implying "64 bit sparc", which is exactly what it is, not to mention that's what the extant NetBSD port calls it). The sparc64 port exists because Jake Burkholder decided he wanted to do it. Thomas Moestl

      It's not like FreeBSD-core formally decides "what we're porting to". Do the work, and if it's good, it gets added.

  5. Re:why go FreeBSD ... by dfr · · Score: 1

    NetBSD doesn't have ia64 yet. Of course, they are welcome to use the FreeBSD/ia64 low-level code as a starting point for a port...

  6. Re:why go FreeBSD ... by little_fluffy_clouds · · Score: 1

    NetBSD doesn't have ia64 yet. Of course, they are welcome to use the FreeBSD/ia64 low-level code as a starting point for a port...

    Oh ? So what is this I see that was committed on June 19th?

    http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/x86_64/

    --
    What were the skies like when you were young?
  7. IGNORE that idiotic statement please by little_fluffy_clouds · · Score: 1

    I'm an idiot! ia64 != x86_64. Damn companies and their pet architectures!

    --
    What were the skies like when you were young?
  8. Re:why go FreeBSD ... by Garrett+Rooney · · Score: 1

    that's the port to AMD's 64 bit processors. ia64 is intel's new processor. they are very different beasts.

    (not that NetBSD isn't cool or anything, but i don't think they have ia64 yet. at least it isn't on their home page if it does exist.)

  9. Re:*BSD is dying by duffbeer703 · · Score: 3, Informative

    As a user of FreeBSD in a large enterprise environment, I cannot agree with you less.

    Not only does FreeBSD power our enterprise servers and network archicecture, but it also runs many of our call center's agents pcs as well!

    --
    Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
  10. Re:why go FreeBSD ... by RLiegh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have no idea about other platforms; but my experience recently w/ NetBSD on the i386 platform left a bad (not bitter, unpleasent, kinda like fish) taste in my mouth.

    Here's the things I did not like, from my POV...

    setting up DHCP is a huge PITA under NetBSD, it's automatic under FreeBSD

    There is no (practical) Xfree86 4.x under NetBSD (you have to set arcane options when you re-compile X from scratch); FreeBSD includes X 4.x as an optional package

    FreeBSD is optimized for the x86 platform and shows it when contrasted against NetBSD.

    Just my opinion...

  11. Re:why go FreeBSD ... by little_fluffy_clouds · · Score: 1

    DHCP ? Manpages. That's all I have to say. I never had a problem with it, and I have used it with all kinds of DHCP servers (including NT).

    XFree86 4 compiles just fine if you grab the 'xsrc' tree from cvs or sup. Then you just:

    cd xsrc/xfree/xc && make && make install

    Now, that wasn't too hard, was it ? There are also binary packages on ftp.netbsd.org for i386. Try this directory:

    /pub/NetBSD/arch/i386/XF86-4.1.0-1.5.1/

    I also disagree with you complaint that it 'shows' that it is not optimised. I find NetBSD quit fast on my desktop, and especially on my servers. Give me real world benchmarks showing me where it 'shows'.

    Next time, try to sort these things out. It really wasn't rocket science.

    --
    What were the skies like when you were young?
  12. Re:DHCP on netbsd is a pain in the ass?!? by poiuyt23 · · Score: 1

    It's hard if you've never done it before and don't know where to look.

  13. Re:DHCP on netbsd is a pain in the ass?!? by RLiegh · · Score: 1

    It's also hard if you read the manpages (prolly the wrong ones, but WTF) or if you read the web-site, follow the online instructions and still get error messages up the yin-yang when you manage to finally get it to run. While it may not be "rocket science", it IS a waste of time wich FreeBSD, Linux and Winders do not make me go through for, really, no reason than being albe to say "if you can't figure this out, you're obviously not as l33t as we are". As far as the X compilation goes, I tarded out on that (admittedly, compiling X intimdates the F*k out of me, personally speaking). And to the person saying "show me the benchmarks", no. First off, there are no benchmarks, and second off, I was saying "From My Point Of View..". So, you've stated your POV ("works great here, less filling"). Bravo, bully for you...please, by all means use it then. That has nothing to do w/ the original question; wich was "why would anyone use FreeBSD when there is NetBSD?". If I use *BSD (wich is becoming rarer these days, though who knows about the future), I go w/ FreeBSD for the reasons I stated in my previous post. Basioally, FreeBSD takes care of alot of grunge work so that I can spend more time using my computer as opposed to setting up my computer.(reading manpages, configuring DHCP tho almost every other OS does so automatically, compiling X, etc etc) Use what you want; I still stand w/ the reasons I stated for why I won't. :):)

  14. Re:*BSD is dying by zoombah · · Score: 1

    i've always wanted to know where this post originaly came from. where was this copied from?