On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:53:56 -0600 Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org> wrote: > > No it doesn't. I've yet to even hear of an architecture that NetBSD runs > > on but which Linux doesn't. They just have a different definition of > > "architecture" than us. (ie: our "hppa" may be three or four arches to > > the NetBSD kernel folk.) > > There are a couple. I don't think most people care about any of them, > right now (and quite possibly never will, in the case of old VAXen, > for example). There's a working VAX port including a relatively complete driver set, at least, so that's not one. :) But, regardless; > In discussing it the other day, I actually found a concise way to > express one of the major reasons I choose to work on the port and find > it worthwhile: I think ports to other kernels are generally worthwhile in and of themselves, simply for cleaning up the codebase and getting rid of unportable stuff. It's just plain old healthy is all. The previous comment about it was just meant in an informative manner is all. (I've never heard of a "Turbochannel" machine either, so I won't bother looking into it.)
Attachment:
pgp0B3tYgUzhS.pgp
Description: PGP signature