Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 17 Apr 1997 10:11:06 -0500 | From | Miguel de Icaza <> | Subject | Re: Linux on PA/RISC |
| |
Martin said: > Miguel said: > > Considering that the team at Utah University was responsible from > > merging the Mach VM system into BSD, I bet they were the ones actually > > doing the PA-RISC work. > > Yes indeed. They've also ported gcc and binutils to PA first. > However, I believe that the mklinux port to PA mentioned on > http://www.gr.osf.org/mklinux/index.htm > was developed indepently at the OSF RI. OSF/Mach 6 is somewhat different > from CMU/Utah Mach 4. For example, the former uses collocated servers to > get some speed, the latter doesn't.
Good. Anyways, the point is that there are sources available *now* for people to look at if they are interested in an HP-PA port. No need to wait for the OSF guys to release their code.
Probably, the reason we don't have an HP-PA port is because there are not many people interested in it: the source code for mach4/hppa has been there since at least 2 years. Compare this to the Linux/SPARC effort: there is little or no information for most SPARC hardware, and still the SPARC port is now even shipped by Red Hat.
> As for native ports, Theo de Raadt apparently plans a port of OpenBSD > to PA (see http://www.openbsd.org/hppa.html). AFAIK, this is the only > effort in this direction.
Well, he has been planning that port for at least one year now :-). But nobody has even attempted to do the port. And OpenBSD is probably the most easy to port OS nowadays (and before someone tells me ``Linux is easier to port'': OpenBSD, is ported to more architectures in a single tree than any single other OS -including the userland- and to do a port to an old machine, they usually can grab most of the code from an old BSD port that is out there on the net waiting to be merged, like the case of the IBM/RT port).
> Mach 6 supports HP-UX 9, Mach 7.2 does HP-UX 10 as well. They claim > to be actually *faster* than HP-UX, at least compared to > 9.0x.
Oops. That does not speak of Mach being good, but rather than hp-ux is rather poor. Hope Stephen is not reading me. I like the idea of having the microkernel version of Linux around, since it may prove to be a useful thing for debugging kernels, but hopefully a monolithic version will be available as well.
Cheers, Miguel.
| |