[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposal for new architecture support/distribution

Ysgrifennodd Phillip R. Jaenke ar Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 04:50:08PM -0500:
> On 1 Feb 1999, Jim Pick wrote:
> > Wouldn't that make more sense as a subarchitecture of the PowerPC
> > port.  I gather that the userspace component would be the same.  You'd
> > just need work on the kernel and installation process.  Or are the
> > instruction sets somehow incompatible?
> My apologies for replying out of order and a bit slowly; I'm still sorting
> out several small bugs (just took my x86 box to slink, and managed to
> break much in the process! *GRIN*;) and things like that.
> Perhaps it would, but there are some serious differences that can be named
> offhand. Here's a quick reference table. Pardon my lack of ASCII skills.
> ;)
> Feature             | Apple & Clones PPC  | RS/6000 PPC
> - --------------------+---------------------+------------

Ok, so it has more features - why should it need a seperate distribution? If
you can add the i386 kernel code into the PowerPC, and only compile it in when
compiling a kernel for an RS/6000, that could go into the PPC kernel, get a
set of RS/6000 install disks, and there you go ..

For example, the Amiga has different hardware from a 68k or PPC Mac - it as a
Zorro bus, different IDE controller, different FD drivers, etc. etc.

> - -Phillip R. Jaenke (prj@nls.net | InterNIC: PRJ5)
>  "Look. It works this way." "Why?" "Because the designer said so."
>  "Why?" "Because the designer is a moron. Let's fix it." --anon.

Diolch, Edward.

Attachment: pgpBqEvOpvZhp.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: