Re: Proposal for new architecture support/distribution
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Edward John M. Brocklesby wrote:
> 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.
Kernel and hardware incompatibilities can lead to binary
incompatibilities. Plus, IIRC, the current PowerPC distributions are all
compiled for UP. As I said, most RS/6000's are SMP. And a multi-threaded
application will still work on a UP system, of course. Another reason is
due to the almost totally commercial use of the RS/6000. Unlike your
standard Linux distribution, to actually make headway in the RS/6000
arena, it would require a focus more on applications that are used in the
server market; ie, Apache, SSL webservers, NFS, Samba, and commercial
applications such as Oracle, etc, providing an 'official' distribution for
the RS/6000 convinces them to port to said distribution.
- -Phillip R. Jaenke (firstname.lastname@example.org | 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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----