I *quit* using Linux a number of years before then. For the most part. Slackware boxes are still sometimes useful, and fun to throw together for certain uses.
The beauty of NetBSD is that I can run the same core configuration (almost all the files in/etc can just be drug around to your various machines) on my Sparc hardware, my i386 boxes (including, finally, my quad PentiumPro box with a released version), my IBM PPC and my Apple 68K and PPC hardware. And even my Macintosh SE/30 machines (bless their little souls). I haven't been able to run it on my ancient MIPS palmpc, because it doesn't have enough memory.
There is one core configuration system, one userland for all the different machines. And it's all built from the same source tarballs.
Linux is the only platform for pissing off Microsoft.
As far as I can tell, that has never been a priority, or even an interest, of the NetBSD folks.
within the next major version or two.
Bear in mind that NetBSD is now on it's second 'major version' release. And has been around since the dawn of Linux and before (the code base long predates Linux.)
NetBSD was ported to AMD64 so fast because it's clean codebase has been 64-bit on UltraSparc and Alpha for years. And that means the kernel and core userland all build consistently on 64-bit platforms. It's not just a kernel, ya know.
If you'd looked, you might have noticed he said that NetBSD runs in 10M of memory.
I'm not knocking Solaris. There is stuff that won't ever be supported in NetBSD that keeps Solaris on some of my hardware.
But I know that I'm not going to be able to 'tune' Solaris down to run in 10M. And yes, it's not rare for a little IPX to have that little memory in it. IPX SIMMs are a hassle to locate. (IPC's, of course, are great to cram all those spare 30-pin 4M simms into. There's great justice in putting all that memory the screwdriver-operators stole out of old Sun hardware and stuck into their crummy 486 motherboards back into the hardware it started in- hardware that's still worth running)
Did he really build a computer into it, or did he just install an ITX board? Building a computer involves schematics, and either solder or a wire-wrap gun.
Actually, you might discover (through experimentation, or whatever) that inserting a processor in-line with an 'LED flasher' circuit can actually save significant power over just blinking the LED itself.
This is due to some esoteric details of how an LED is most efficiently driven. I learned when I was developing firmware for some small hand-held medical devices that used a Microcontroller (an NEC 4-bit controller) that you can actually get greater efficiency (more light output per power consumed) by driving LEDs with a VERY high current for a very short duty. Drive them to 100 mA or so at a 1% duty cycle, for starters, and experiment with high drive current and duty cycle. There is a dramatic current savings over driving an LED with a DC level to get equivalent brightness.
The power saving achived by this means will likely be more than enough to power the processor, if it's one of the tiny micro-power processors. Use one of the little 8 pin PIC parts or what-not.
You don't know what 'it' even is. Remember, you're the guy who started out (apparently) not even knowing the GNOME desktop is bundled with Solaris these past few releases...
Re:Solaris 10 on Sun Ultra 5/Ultra 10 questions
on
Solaris 10 Released
·
· Score: 1
Can we run Sun's Free Solaris 10 license on multi-processor boxes. Previous versions of the free-download Solaris were restricted to single-processor boxes. Not that we cared much, I ran Solaris 8 on my dual-proc SS10SX for quite awhile...
Does that mean it's 64-bit only? Will it run safely on my Ultra 1? (with an instruction exploit in it's firmware that means most people had the firmware that locked-out the capability to run 64-bit for security reasons)
That being said, I don't think anybody would buy a OS X designed to run on a commodity PC.
Hell, I would buy a sleek, lean OS X that would run well on my Beige G3. As it stands, though, I'm forced to run NetBSD or one of the Linux-based OSes. (or Darwin).
Why are we talking about Apple stuff in a Solaris topic, tho?
No. Apple would sell an OS for a narrow segment of the x86 market. Probably only 'certified' to run on branded first or second-tier hardware. And they would probably stick to third-party peripheral support only on the same USB/fireware devices they already support on their PPC hardware.
The notion that Apple would feel the need to 'reach down' to all the detris and cheap-junk add-on stuff that Windows struggles to support is laughable.
Sun's market is purely business class IT infrastructure, always has been.
That's very, very untrue. 'Purely' is far too strong a term for you to use. Sun started out as a workstation vendor. I would bet that even at this late date the market for licensed engineering workstation software for Sun hardware significantly dwarfs the same class of software on Apple hardware, in dollar amount.
Do your bosses at Apple know you're recklessly speculating about the "$150M from Microsoft" thing? Be careful. Apple has been chasing down employees on blogs lately.
Yes. The propertied-class can thank Washington (George, not DC) for stomping on the popular rebellion that happened shortly after 'the suits' decided that 'the revolution' had gone on long enough. Read up on Shay's Rebellion. The first betrayal of the American Revolution...
Slashdot Mirror
Also used to distance themselves from space westerns like the Lucas film from 1977 and it's derivative drivel.
Four Males.
There aren't any females involved.
Agreed. Spin that phillips screwdriver, you hardware wizard, you.
You can clearly make out where the people used to be in the edited photos on this story.
Editing them out that thoroughly probably wasn't a high priority. The photos were quite sufficiently edited for the purpose intended.
And i wouldnt say that BSD is a flop.. Its just not made it big in the comsumer market like linux has..
Linux has made it big in the consumer market???
Since 2002. Not that long.
I *quit* using Linux a number of years before then. For the most part. Slackware boxes are still sometimes useful, and fun to throw together for certain uses.
The beauty of NetBSD is that I can run the same core configuration (almost all the files in /etc can just be drug around to your various machines) on my Sparc hardware, my i386 boxes (including, finally, my quad PentiumPro box with a released version), my IBM PPC and my Apple 68K and PPC hardware. And even my Macintosh SE/30 machines (bless their little souls). I haven't been able to run it on my ancient MIPS palmpc, because it doesn't have enough memory.
There is one core configuration system, one userland for all the different machines. And it's all built from the same source tarballs.
That is cool.
Linux is the only platform for pissing off Microsoft.
As far as I can tell, that has never been a priority, or even an interest, of the NetBSD folks.
within the next major version or two.
Bear in mind that NetBSD is now on it's second 'major version' release. And has been around since the dawn of Linux and before (the code base long predates Linux.)
NetBSD was ported to AMD64 so fast because it's clean codebase has been 64-bit on UltraSparc and Alpha for years. And that means the kernel and core userland all build consistently on 64-bit platforms. It's not just a kernel, ya know.
A 'processor' is not always an 'architecture.' There are many archs that share a processor, i.e. the many good machines that used a 68K chip.
It's really time for people who think only in terms of there being an Intel or AMD choice of parts to step back and look at the world.
If you'd looked, you might have noticed he said that NetBSD runs in 10M of memory.
I'm not knocking Solaris. There is stuff that won't ever be supported in NetBSD that keeps Solaris on some of my hardware.
But I know that I'm not going to be able to 'tune' Solaris down to run in 10M. And yes, it's not rare for a little IPX to have that little memory in it. IPX SIMMs are a hassle to locate. (IPC's, of course, are great to cram all those spare 30-pin 4M simms into. There's great justice in putting all that memory the screwdriver-operators stole out of old Sun hardware and stuck into their crummy 486 motherboards back into the hardware it started in- hardware that's still worth running)
Did he really build a computer into it, or did he just install an ITX board? Building a computer involves schematics, and either solder or a wire-wrap gun.
Actually, you might discover (through experimentation, or whatever) that inserting a processor in-line with an 'LED flasher' circuit can actually save significant power over just blinking the LED itself.
This is due to some esoteric details of how an LED is most efficiently driven. I learned when I was developing firmware for some small hand-held medical devices that used a Microcontroller (an NEC 4-bit controller) that you can actually get greater efficiency (more light output per power consumed) by driving LEDs with a VERY high current for a very short duty. Drive them to 100 mA or so at a 1% duty cycle, for starters, and experiment with high drive current and duty cycle. There is a dramatic current savings over driving an LED with a DC level to get equivalent brightness.
The power saving achived by this means will likely be more than enough to power the processor, if it's one of the tiny micro-power processors. Use one of the little 8 pin PIC parts or what-not.
There- interesting (hopefully) topic drift.
Indeed. All I want when I buy a Mandrake CD is the Linux kernel, a barebones userland, and the Tab Window Manager.
I think TWM is stuck in there, too, isn't it? (it's part of the core X binaries, after all...)
I don't think this is it.
You don't know what 'it' even is. Remember, you're the guy who started out (apparently) not even knowing the GNOME desktop is bundled with Solaris these past few releases...
Can we run Sun's Free Solaris 10 license on multi-processor boxes. Previous versions of the free-download Solaris were restricted to single-processor boxes. Not that we cared much, I ran Solaris 8 on my dual-proc SS10SX for quite awhile...
I know people who've done the same in early Linux installs. I don't think all of them ran screaming with fury from Linux.
(why the Mac-ism for a nick? are you a mole for Steve?)
Does that mean it's 64-bit only? Will it run safely on my Ultra 1? (with an instruction exploit in it's firmware that means most people had the firmware that locked-out the capability to run 64-bit for security reasons)
That being said, I don't think anybody would buy a OS X designed to run on a commodity PC.
Hell, I would buy a sleek, lean OS X that would run well on my Beige G3. As it stands, though, I'm forced to run NetBSD or one of the Linux-based OSes. (or Darwin).
Why are we talking about Apple stuff in a Solaris topic, tho?
I'm scrolled about a third of the way down the whole thread and it's mostly been about Apple thus far.
And this isn't even apple.slashdot.org. Good gracious. Can't we have a Solaris topic without it turning into an Apple astroturf fest?
No. Apple would sell an OS for a narrow segment of the x86 market. Probably only 'certified' to run on branded first or second-tier hardware. And they would probably stick to third-party peripheral support only on the same USB/fireware devices they already support on their PPC hardware.
The notion that Apple would feel the need to 'reach down' to all the detris and cheap-junk add-on stuff that Windows struggles to support is laughable.
Sun's market is purely business class IT infrastructure, always has been.
That's very, very untrue. 'Purely' is far too strong a term for you to use. Sun started out as a workstation vendor. I would bet that even at this late date the market for licensed engineering workstation software for Sun hardware significantly dwarfs the same class of software on Apple hardware, in dollar amount.
Do your bosses at Apple know you're recklessly speculating about the "$150M from Microsoft" thing? Be careful. Apple has been chasing down employees on blogs lately.
You screwed that one up, dude.
'John Galt.' You were supposed to say 'John Galt.'
Take a puff on your cigarette, the one with the dollar sign on the filter, and try again. .
ESR is hardly a fanatic. He is much more of a pragmatist, falling somewhere between RMS and Torvalds, but much closer to Torvalds than Stallman.
I wouldn't go so far as to put the three on a line in continuum.
RMS is an ideologue, with ideas and ideals. Linus is a pragmatist.
Raymond is just an opportunist.
Thank you, Washington (DC, not George)!
Yes. The propertied-class can thank Washington (George, not DC) for stomping on the popular rebellion that happened shortly after 'the suits' decided that 'the revolution' had gone on long enough. Read up on Shay's Rebellion. The first betrayal of the American Revolution...