Dell Linux survery

allix · Post by **allix** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:20 pm

Tsuroerusu wrote: Dude, in case you don't know, none of the original source code of the early Linux kernel remains. The Linux kernel runs on a crapload of hardware architectures, and new ones are being added. IBM added a Cell port for the PS3, and they use it for their Cell blades etc. etc.

Modern Linux is quite portable, as far as I know. I have heard that when doing research into new CPU stuff, people would port Linux to it and see what results could come out of it and such and such.

I think the thing about Linux being a bastardized x86 OS is utter bullsh!t thought of my old UNIX zealots who hates everything that they didn't write themselves. In any case, FreeBSD is no better. It has had a lot more porting problems than Linux because of it's x86 focus. It's support for PowerPC is still quite limited, while Linux runs like a bat outta hell on a say a Mac mini.

Weather its a good source or not because i cannot find any references , the wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetBSD , page on NetBSD has this to say

With Linux, however, device driver code must be reworked for every new architecture. As a consequence, in recent porting efforts by NetBSD and Linux developers, NetBSD has taken as little as 10% of the time to port to new hardware. Engineers ported NetBSD to the SuperH processor core in under six weeks; Linux took three months. NetBSD was ported to the AMD x86-64 architecture (now known as AMD64) in about a month; Linux took six months.

Think what you want as its not cited where its from.

Tsuroerusu wrote: I'm not referring to Compiz stuff, but like hotplugging USB keys and automounting CDs, similar stuff as well.

http://freebsd.kde.org/
so kde has hal and dbus

Wally Balljacker · Post by **Wally Balljacker** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:58 pm

Linux still runs on more architectures than NetBSD does AFAIK. It "appears" that NetBSD runs on more arches due to the way they organize ports. For instance, Linux has a PowerPC port. That counts as one port. NetBSD count PowerPC as nine ports since they divide it up into amigappc, pmppc, macppc, mvmeppc, evbppc, ibmnws, ofppc, sandpoint, and prep. I also think it's unfair to say Linux is a bastardized OS since it was originally x86 only. What do you think NetBSD originated from?

Ding Ding Ding! 386BSD!

adam · Post by **adam** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:25 am

There is no such thing as "BCC",

Actually, BCC is a 16-bit x86 C compiler, but nevertheless, I don't think they could use it.

allix · Post by **allix** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:23 pm

Wally Balljacker wrote: What do you think NetBSD originated from?

Ding Ding Ding! 386BSD!

386BSD derives from BSD used at UC Berkeley which was not a x86.

Tsuroerusu · Post by **Tsuroerusu** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:43 pm

allix wrote:
Wally Balljacker wrote: What do you think NetBSD originated from?

Ding Ding Ding! 386BSD!
386BSD derives from BSD used at UC Berkeley which was not a x86.

Maybe not, but 386BSD was heavily focused on the Intel architecture. Also, NetBSD didn't focus on portability from the start, their initial structure were really inefficient in regards to portability.

Thinking that NetBSD is so much better than Linux in terms of portability is a big mistake in my opinion, because Linux is part of hardware research a lot of times.

allix · Post by **allix** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:47 pm

Tsuroerusu wrote: Thinking that NetBSD is so much better than Linux in terms of portability is a big mistake in my opinion, because Linux is part of hardware research a lot of times.

well, there are more developers working linux

Tsuroerusu · Post by **Tsuroerusu** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:55 pm

allix wrote:
Tsuroerusu wrote: Thinking that NetBSD is so much better than Linux in terms of portability is a big mistake in my opinion, because Linux is part of hardware research a lot of times.
well, there are more developers working linux

True, but saying Linux is less portable because it started on x86 sounds plain stupid to me.

allix · Post by **allix** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 6:00 pm

Tsuroerusu wrote: True, but saying Linux is less portable because it started on x86 sounds plain stupid to me.

ok, its my stint on getting some publicity for the BSD's

Tsuroerusu · Post by **Tsuroerusu** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:16 pm

allix wrote:
Tsuroerusu wrote: True, but saying Linux is less portable because it started on x86 sounds plain stupid to me.
ok, its my stint on getting some publicity for the BSD's

Well, I know what kind of publicity you'd like to see for the BSDs, and you don't get that by saying that "BSD is better than Linux for this", what you wanna do is say "BSD is great for this, makes things really really easy".

Some people are always gonna run one thing, because they don't believe in trying something else, or playing around with other things.

I personally don't consider myself a "Linux, GNU/Linux person" or a "BSD person" for that matter. I see myself as a free software guy. BSD gives me the four freedoms, so that makes it a great OS in my eyes.
I find OpenBSD extremely easy to use, because I just load it up and then it's all secured and ready to go for use. This is why I like it. I think GNU/Linux is great for a desktop, or specialized tasks because of all the cool distros you can get that specialize in a different area.

allix · Post by **allix** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:01 am

Tsuroerusu wrote:
I personally don't consider myself a "Linux, GNU/Linux person" or a "BSD person" for that matter. I see myself as a free software guy.

Ive never known you to whistle about Plan 9,AROS,Syllable,Inferno,HelenOS,E/OS,Visopsys and there all free operating systems under gpl or bsd licences.