Slashdot Mirror


FreeBSD Support for AMD64 On the Way

BSD Forums writes "FreeBSD operating system is making progress towards support for several 64bit platforms. FreeBSD 5.0 introduced SPARC64 and IA64 (Itanium) to its list of platforms and AMD64 is likely to be added in version 5.2."

22 comments

  1. correction by JDizzy · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    I was reading this:

    FreeBSD is often cited as being a better choice for government funding of development work due to its far less onerous licensing. Basically, code from FreeBSD can be lifted by anyone who is interested in using it. Apple's Mac OSX is based on FreeBSD but heavily modified and Microsoft has been known to borrow a snippet or two.
    ... and I would like to point out that Microsoft has borrowed from BSD, but not neccesarily FreeBSD. More like the original BSD that the others (Free, NET, and Open) came from. As far as I know OS X is based on NEXT, and a bit of FreeBSD userland (It depends who you ask).
    --
    It isn't a lie if you belive it.
    1. Re:correction by JDizzy · · Score: 1

      Woops! wrong article!

      --
      It isn't a lie if you belive it.
    2. Re:correction by cpeterso · · Score: 1


      I believe Mac OS X borrows from NetBSD's userland programs, not FreeBSD. Ironically, Mac OS X borrows from FreeBSD code for the Mach kernel's BSD "server".

    3. Re:correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just thought about it but couldn't Microsoft replace HAL with Mach and make a W32 server?

    4. Re:correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows release notes give credit to Luigi Rizzo, a regular committer to the FreeBSD project.

    5. Re:correction by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As far as I know OS X is based on NEXT, and a bit of FreeBSD userland (It depends who you ask).

      Darwin (the underpinnings of MacOS X) is based on a Mach MicroKernel kinda semi-bound to a BSD "server" in kernel space. Mach handles the low level hardware, the BSD server handles the other normal interactions you'd expect from a Unix.

      The BSD server is actually ahybrid. From what I remember, they started off as more NetBSDish, then got more and more FreeBSDish. They seem to be tracking FreeBSD more and more now. I'm not sure what the userland is.

      On top of that, you're allowed to have other "servers" as they're called in MicroKernel land. There's a Classic server which is all MacOS 9 and under. The NeXT part is the Cocoa server. And there's obviously Carbon which is essentially for "native" MacOS X apps.

    6. Re:correction by JDizzy · · Score: 1

      That interesting hwo you use the word "server" very loosly. Are you talking about a proccess in the user-land, or a kenel function? I'm a bit unclear when you went into the NEXT being a coccoa server, or something like that. Thanks in advance. =)

      --
      It isn't a lie if you belive it.
  2. And when BSD gets it... by Odinson · · Score: 1
    OOh ohhh That means 64 windows is comming soon too.

    ;p

  3. Re:correction correction by The+Ego · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No, Mac OS X does _not_ allow for multiple servers in the Mach 3 sense.

    Darwin is a monolithic kernel where BSD is wedded to the Mach services (bound, not semi-bound). Cocoa and Carbon are purely user-space entities. Classic does have some support in the kernel but it is _not_ a server in the Mach sense, and it is also mostly a user-space thing.

    From following the Darwin mailing lists, you seem quite correct regarding the BSD lineage. Early MacOS X builds had more of a NetBSD lineage and that shifted to FreeBSD over time. Userland is closest to FreeBSD IIRC.

    Hopefully this post won't require a correction^3.

  4. NetBSD is already there; FreeBSD won't take long by Brett+Glass · · Score: 2, Informative

    All of the brouhaha over Linux seems to have overshadowed the fact that it was actually NetBSD that was the first UNIX-like operating system to boot on the AMD64 architecture (under simulation, several years ago, long before there was silicon). If FreeBSD and OpenBSD leverage this work, they won't be far behind. (OpenBSD has diverged from NetBSD, but not so much that they can't bring in the architecture-dependent stuff from NetBSD very quickly if they want to.)

  5. Re:Whoa by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
    I'm sure both users will be happy to know this.

    I don't think either of the Itanium users care much about FreeBSD...

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  6. Death and the Trail of Tears: What Killed FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The End of FreeBSD

    [Note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]

    When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.

    Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.

    FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.

    It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.

    So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.

    Discussion

    I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.

    From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.

    There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.

    Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.

    Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?

    Shouts

    To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.

    To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. It's w

  7. Re:NetBSD is already there; FreeBSD won't take lon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, but NetBSD is specifically focussed on cross-platform compatibility. Not performance. So linux or freebsd is rather more relevant for real-world use.