Ysgrifennodd Phillip R. Jaenke ar Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 04:50:08PM -0500: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > 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 > - --------------------+---------------------+------------ [snip] 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:
pgpo_LE8x4j4s.pgp
Description: PGP signature