Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!crcnis1.unl.edu!
moe.ksu.ksu.edu!engr.uark.edu!news.ualr.edu!athena.ualr.edu!nmspillers
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: RE: Linux on Amiga?
Message-ID: <1993Apr14.095809.1@ualr.edu>
From: nmspill...@ualr.edu
Date: 14 Apr 93 09:58:09 GMT
Organization: University of Arkansas at Little Rock
Nntp-Posting-Host: athena.ualr.edu
Lines: 55
'Lo Larry,
>GNU software is a major component of Linux. Please consider the FSF's
>wishes wrt porting any of the GNU software to A.p.p.l.e. platforms.
>Here are a few excerpts:
>
>From /usr/local/lib/emacs/etc/APPLE:
>
>> Some of you may be considering using, buying, or recommending Macintoshes;
>> you might even be writing programs for them or thinking about it. Please
>> think twice and look for an alternative. Doing those things means more
>> success for Apple, and this could encourage Apple to persist in its
>> aggression. It also encourages other companies to try similar
>> obstructionism.
>>
>> [It is because of this boycott that we don't include support for Macintosh
>> Unix in GNU software.]
Look, I understand the FSF position regarding Apple, *but* I am still playing
around with porting Linux to the Mac platform along with other motivated people
(much more motivated than I am, as a matter of fact :-).
The point is, there are a lot of folks out there with Macs. They are not
encouraging facist computing, nor are they a member of Apple's "Evil Empire"
and wander around with a Borg-like mentality--"My user interface will
assimilate you, resistance is futile". They merely bought a nifty, well
built machine that fills their needs, why punish them? Shoot, most of 'em
don't even *know* about the FSF or GNU or any boycotts!
The last thing I need to hear is, "Ohhh, you're doing a *bad* thing,
you'd better stop it". I don't consider a Mac port wrong in any way shape or
form. Besides, if the FSF doesn't like Apple's legal tactics regarding their
user interface, what would be better than giving everybody a viable alternative
to that Mac OS that Apple is so protective of?
Ironically, the biggest stumbling blocks have been the lack of *useable* FSF or
GNU tools to get the job started in the correct spirit--free tools used to
develop a free OS. Actually, there *is* quite a lot of GNU stuff ported to
the Mac, my only beef is that gcc needs the MPW to run under. Irregardless, I
think I've solved that problem and I'm charging on.
I want to learn, I want to do something worthwhile and give a little back to
the computing community that has helped me so much, and I think this is a good
way of achieving these aims. . .
By the way, this is *not* an announcement of *anything*! I'm just starting
out, I don't expect anything anytime soon--Heck I don't know how far I'll get or
if I or others will even come close to such a beast in this decade!!!
So much code, so little free time :-)
nate
nmspill...@ualr.edu
"Life is a never-ending learning curve. . ."
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!matt.ksu.ksu.edu!news
From: st...@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Linux on Macintrashes? (Was: Re: Linux on Amiga?)
Date: 14 Apr 1993 12:24:55 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <1qhhd7INN7m0@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>
References: <1993Apr14.095809.1@ualr.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu
nmspill...@ualr.edu writes:
[excerpt from a GNU vs. Apple thread deleted]
>The point is, there are a lot of folks out there with Macs. They are not
>encouraging facist computing, nor are they a member of Apple's "Evil Empire"
>and wander around with a Borg-like mentality--"My user interface will
>assimilate you, resistance is futile". They merely bought a nifty, well
>built machine that fills their needs, why punish them? Shoot, most of 'em
>don't even *know* about the FSF or GNU or any boycotts!
If they don't know about FSF or GNU it is because they *have* been
'assimilated' by the Macintrash empire. If they were dumb enough to
buy an over-priced-one-mouse-button-tiny-black-and-white-screen-
bloated-awful-looking-os-without-a-cli-and-built-by-fascists computer
in the first place, there's really no reason for them to want or need
UNIX. After all, purchasing a Macintrash is acceptance of its point
and drool interface, AND a token of acceptance for Apple's business
practices-- both of which go against the free software/UNIX tradition.
>I want to learn, I want to do something worthwhile and give a little back to
>the computing community that has helped me so much, and I think this is a good
>way of achieving these aims. . .
Not at all. The best way would be to chuck that Mac out the window
and buy a real computer.
Stratocaster
--
Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
st...@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
I assume that as a beginner you'll just want to blow people up. -- Red Shirt
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!louie!udel!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!
spool.mu.edu!torn!nott!bnrgate!bnr.co.uk!pipex!uknet!mcsun!ieunet!curia!
csws3.ucc.ie!chris
From: ch...@Odyssey.ucc.ie (Chris Higgins)
Subject: Re: Linux on Macintrashes? (Was: Re: Linux on
Message-ID: <C5HKC3.162@curia.ucc.ie>
Sender: use...@curia.ucc.ie
Reply-To: ch...@Odyssey.ucc.ie
Organization: Computer Science Department, University College, Cork
References: <1qhhd7INN7m0@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 18:21:39 GMT
Lines: 54
In article 1qhhd7INN...@matt.ksu.ksu.edu, st...@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>nmspill...@ualr.edu writes:
>
>[excerpt from a GNU vs. Apple thread deleted]
>
>>The point is, there are a lot of folks out there with Macs. They are not
>>encouraging facist computing, nor are they a member of Apple's "Evil Empire"
>>and wander around with a Borg-like mentality--"My user interface will
>>assimilate you, resistance is futile". They merely bought a nifty, well
>>built machine that fills their needs, why punish them? Shoot, most of 'em
>>don't even *know* about the FSF or GNU or any boycotts!
>
>If they don't know about FSF or GNU it is because they *have* been
>'assimilated' by the Macintrash empire. If they were dumb enough to
>buy an over-priced-one-mouse-button-tiny-black-and-white-screen-
>bloated-awful-looking-os-without-a-cli-and-built-by-fascists computer
>in the first place, there's really no reason for them to want or need
>UNIX. After all, purchasing a Macintrash is acceptance of its point
>and drool interface, AND a token of acceptance for Apple's business
>practices-- both of which go against the free software/UNIX tradition.
The thing is, that if they have a MAC and they don't know about the FSF/GNU then
they won't want a CLI, they won't want Un*x. So I agree that porting Linux to the
MAC would be in violation of the FSF recomendation/guideline/rule/whatever.
BUT, having said that, I do believe that the FREE OS / FREE Software thing from GNU
will have to be clarified....
>
>>I want to learn, I want to do something worthwhile and give a little back to
>>the computing community that has helped me so much, and I think this is a good
>>way of achieving these aims. . .
>
>Not at all. The best way would be to chuck that Mac out the window
>and buy a real computer.
The MAC *IS* a real computer. ('real' does not imply 'good')... It's the politics
behind it that is the problem.
>
>Stratocaster
>--
> Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
> st...@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
>
>I assume that as a beginner you'll just want to blow people up. -- Red Shirt
Why stop when you are no longer a beginner ?
---
Chris.
+ J.C. Higgins, Sys Admin + Auditor, Computer Science Society, U.C.C.
+ Ch...@csvax1.ucc.ie +
+ Ch...@odyssey.ucc.ie + If you love something, set it free. If it doesn't
+ C.Higg...@iruccvax.ucc.ie + come back to you, hunt it down and KILL it.
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
moe.ksu.ksu.edu!enterprise.ksu.ksu.edu!news
From: st...@enterprise.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux on Macintrashes? (Was: Re: Linux on
Date: 15 Apr 1993 08:23:55 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <1qjnlbINN4a0@enterprise.ksu.ksu.edu>
References: <1qhhd7INN7m0@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> <C5HKC3.162@curia.ucc.ie>
NNTP-Posting-Host: enterprise.ksu.ksu.edu
ch...@Odyssey.ucc.ie (Chris Higgins) writes:
>The thing is, that if they have a MAC and they don't know about the
>FSF/GNU then they won't want a CLI, they won't want Un*x. So I agree
>that porting Linux to the MAC would be in violation of the FSF
>recomendation/guideline/rule/whatever.
No, that's not the problem. Linux itself isn't a GNU project, nor are
many of the contributers members of the FSF. The sticky part comes
when you realize that Linux doesn't really *do* much without the help
of tools like gcc, and without the help and encouragement of the FSF
these tools might not have ever been ported to Linux in the first
place. FSF is boycotting apple, so they will do nothing to help the
developers put the system together; nor will they support the system
if (or when) it ever runs [at least as I understand it].
>BUT, having said that, I do believe that the FREE OS / FREE Software
>thing from GNU will have to be clarified....
Why don't you just read the FSF texts on the matter. Read the
CopyLeft, the GNU Manefesto, or the many GNU mail lists.
>>Not at all. The best way would be to chuck that Mac out the window
>>and buy a real computer.
>The MAC *IS* a real computer. ('real' does not imply 'good')... It's
>the politics behind it that is the problem.
I stand corrected on this issue, of *course* Macintrashes are real
computers, there are working UNIX ports to them! (:P) The question is:
Is it really worth anyone's time to port Linux over to them knowing
that
1. The Linux kernel depends on a 386 protected mode architecture.
Meaning, of course, that binary compatibility is out of the
question, and that "porting software to Linux" would mean
having to work on two completely different architectures.
(Part of the reason for Linux's success to date is that
all 386 and 486 systems at least share the same architecture.)
To put it in simpler terms, a Linux port to the Macintrash
*wouldn't be Linux*.
2. FSF wants nothing to do with the project. This means that there
won't be any support for the compilers, and none for the
tools compiled with them. Macintrash Linux users might
have to *ghasp* write their own patches to software or deal
solely in precompiled packages (something else FSF isn't
very fond of).
Having said this, we get to the issue of what Macintrash users want or
need. Far be it from me to criticize someone for buying a tool that
works perfectly for their particular use, but I fail to see reason in
trying to make a Macintrash something that it's not. Macintrashes
*have* a stable, multitasking operating system and a reasonable
selection of software and tools. You don't have to option to get the
OS unbundled as you do in MS-DOGland, nor could you really get far
without commercial software packages.
The few people I know that bought Macintrashes for personal use (most
have used Macintrashes at work, and consequently go to the computer
store looking for an alternative), the machines were purchaced for
homework (word processing) or business (spreadsheets, et al.) and
wouldn't know the difference between UNIX and VM/CMS if their lives
depended on it. If the machine was bought for business, its because
Macintrashes are a plug-and-play system. They're handy for plunking
down on someone's desk with minimal configuration and getting the work
done.
Perhaps I'm missing something important here, but I fail to see where
something like Linux would fit into such an environment. If
Macintrashes are bought for their stability, compactness, and ease of
use ... it seems to me that most Mac users would run in the opposite
direction if confronted with a monster like UNIX. I realize there are
a handful of Macs that run UNIX, but the market is tiny and is already
saturated with commercial offerings.
Finally, I see no particular advantages in running Linux on your home
Macintrash rather than purchasing a power PC with the expandibility,
compatibility, and portability issues already dealt with. Computer
Shopper this month is selling complete 386SX/16 systems (the minimum
configuration) for under $500 and complete 486DX2/66 systems (top of
the line) for under $2500. If you order your machine UPS Red today
and copy the SLS distribution off someone elses disks or your Internet
account tonight before you go home from work you could have a working,
stable, complete, recognised, supported, *FREE* UNIX look-alike
workstation by Wednesday (complete with 3 button mouse and *color*
display!).
>If you love something, set it free. If it doesn't
>come back to you, hunt it down and KILL it.
Haha! The new FSF motto? :)
Stratocaster
--
Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
st...@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
Anarchy means having to put up with things that really piss you off.
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
uunet.ca!canrem!rrwood
From: rrw...@canrem.com (Roy Wood)
Subject: Re: Linux on Macintrashes? (STOP ALREADY!)
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 23:01:11 GMT
Message-ID: <1993Apr15.230111.15291@canrem.com>
References: <1993Apr14.095809.1@ualr.edu> <1qhhd7INN7m0@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>
<C5HoJJ.3Jw@crdnns.crd.ge.com>
Lines: 19
Look, this sort of adolescent bickering about the merits/shortcomings of
a particular brand of computer were fun when I was an adolescent, but now
they're just irritating. Please take it somewhere other than comp.os.linux.
And since I can't stop myself from adding....
Computers are just tools. Just as most people don't use hacksaws to pound
nails, so too do certain computers/OS's have sensible applications. I've
got access to Macs and PC clones, and whatever does the job best gets used
at that particular moment.
Of course, if you're determined to be irrationally biased as to the fact that
your particular computer is the greatest all-around computing device since
Charles Babbage first coined the expression "Difference Engine"-- well, I'm
certainly not going to waste any more time talking to you.
-Roy
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU!philipr
From: phil...@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Philip Rhoades)
Subject: Re: Linux on Macintrashes? (STOP ALREADY!)
Message-ID: <philipr.735117380@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>
Sender: n...@ucc.su.OZ.AU
Nntp-Posting-Host: extro.ucc.su.oz.au
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
References: <1993Apr14.095809.1@ualr.edu> <1qhhd7INN7m0@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>
<C5HoJJ.3Jw@crdnns.crd.ge.com> <1993Apr15.230111.15291@canrem.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1993 07:16:20 GMT
Lines: 45
rrw...@canrem.com (Roy Wood) writes:
>Look, this sort of adolescent bickering about the merits/shortcomings of
>a particular brand of computer were fun when I was an adolescent, but now
>they're just irritating. Please take it somewhere other than comp.os.linux.
>And since I can't stop myself from adding....
>Computers are just tools. Just as most people don't use hacksaws to pound
>nails, so too do certain computers/OS's have sensible applications. I've
>got access to Macs and PC clones, and whatever does the job best gets used
>at that particular moment.
>Of course, if you're determined to be irrationally biased as to the fact that
>your particular computer is the greatest all-around computing device since
>Charles Babbage first coined the expression "Difference Engine"-- well, I'm
>certainly not going to waste any more time talking to you.
>-Roy
The "tools" argument is valid but it is not the whole story - it seems to
me that there is an important philosophical (dare I say political?)
component to this whole discussion - a very rough analogy: A car with a
polluting internal combustion engine might (?) get you to work every day
faster than the train but is it a good idea to use the car? Is not the
general good better served by using the train?
I am not going to argue the merits of corporations like Apple, IBM,
Microsoft etc but on balance, with all things taken into account, surely
open systems are better for the general good? To be specific: In
Australia, Macs are 100% imported but some IBM compatibles have up to 50%
Australian content in their manufacture - is the marginal improvement in
productivity for some computer jobs (by using Macs) worth the substantial
negative effect on the country's current account deficit?
I know this is getting further away from the main topic for discussion for
this newsgroup but I had to put my 2c worth in.
Phil.
--
Philip Rhoades
First Year Biology
University of Sydney
p...@biox.bio.su.OZ.AU or phil...@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!bogus.sura.net!
news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!emory!ogicse!netnews.nwnet.net!news.u.washington.edu!
stein2.u.washington.edu!tzs
From: t...@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux on Macintrashes? (STOP ALREADY!)
Message-ID: <1r4taiINN9cf@shelley.u.washington.edu>
Date: 22 Apr 93 01:44:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: shelley.1r4taiINN9cf
References: <C5HoJJ.3Jw@crdnns.crd.ge.com> <1993Apr15.230111.15291@canrem.com>
<philipr.735117380@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Lines: 17
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein2.u.washington.edu
phil...@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Philip Rhoades) writes:
>I am not going to argue the merits of corporations like Apple, IBM,
>Microsoft etc but on balance, with all things taken into account, surely
>open systems are better for the general good? To be specific: In
The Mac is an open system by any rational definition of the term. The
hardware is well documented, so anyone can make cards and expansion
devices (and Apple will help you if you have problems). The OS is
extensively documented, and again Apple provides ample help, even if
you are doing something that you really shouldn't be doing (e.g., mucking
with OS data structures that will change in the future).
The only sense that the Mac is closed is that only Apple makes them.
In that sense, nearly every hardware platform is closed: only DEC
makes VAXes, only Compaq makes Compaqs, only IBM makes IBMs, etc.
--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!uunet!
mcsun!sun4nl!star.cs.vu.nl!rmast
From: rm...@cs.vu.nl (Mast RN)
Subject: Re: Linux on Macintrashes? (STOP ALREADY!)
Message-ID: <C5vrG9.G4C@cs.vu.nl>
Sender: n...@cs.vu.nl
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam
References: <C5HoJJ.3Jw@crdnns.crd.ge.com> <1993Apr15.230111.15291@canrem.com>
<philipr.735117380@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> <1r4taiINN9cf@shelley.u.washington.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 10:21:45 GMT
Lines: 12
t...@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>The only sense that the Mac is closed is that only Apple makes them.
I thought Sony made the portable Mac?
By the way, my opinion about Linux on a Mac is that If it is allowed then
It would be a help to the development of 68000-linux, also for the Amiga,
because more programmers would program for it.
Robert (rm...@cs.vu.nl)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!ira.uka.de!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!uunet!mcsun!
news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!torvalds
From: torva...@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Torvalds)
Subject: Re: Linux on Macintoshes? (STOP ALREADY!)
Message-ID: <1993Apr22.125627.6334@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Organization: University of Helsinki
References: <philipr.735117380@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>
<1r4taiINN9cf@shelley.u.washington.edu> <C5vrG9.G4C@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 12:56:27 GMT
Lines: 23
In article <C5vrG9....@cs.vu.nl> rm...@cs.vu.nl (Mast RN) writes:
>
>By the way, my opinion about Linux on a Mac is that If it is allowed then
>It would be a help to the development of 68000-linux, also for the Amiga,
>because more programmers would program for it.
It's most certainly "allowed" - I'd be very unhappy if some macintosh
user who wants to try to port linux to the mac would desist only due to
the FSF mac standpoint. I personally like macs (not that I'd want to
have one at home, but...), and find this discussion ridiculous. Yes, I
know the FSF aren't officially supporting mac development of GNU tools,
but as far as I'm concerned, anybody is free to try to port linux to the
mac and I'll try to answer questions etc with no regard for the "evil
Apple empire". Can we please stop bickering about it? This thread is
almost as boring as the GPL/386BSD one.
Also note that if somebody actually succeeds in porting linux to the
mac, and does a good enough job of it (and it won't be easy, I'm sure),
most GNU software should work out of the box quite as they work on the
386 version, so a mac-linux would have all the software the current
linux has (with the exception of X11r5 - that might be problematic).
Linus
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.uoregon.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!
news.u.washington.edu!stein.u.washington.edu!tzs
From: t...@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux on Macintrashes? (Was: Re: Linux on
Date: 22 Apr 1993 18:11:33 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <1r6n4lINN1nf@shelley.u.washington.edu>
References: <C5HKC3.162@curia.ucc.ie> <1qjnlbINN4a0@enterprise.ksu.ksu.edu>
<1r628n$ce5@smurf.sub.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu
In comp.os.linux, article <1qjnlbINN...@enterprise.ksu.ksu.edu>,
> Is it really worth anyone's time to port Linux over to them knowing
> that
> 1. The Linux kernel depends on a 386 protected mode architecture.
> Meaning, of course, that binary compatibility is out of the
> question, and that "porting software to Linux" would mean
> having to work on two completely different architectures.
First of all, why would applications care about the architecture? It would
simply be a matter of compiling them for the 68k.
Second, how much of the kernel depends on the 386? If it's more than a
small amount, why was it done this way?
--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!
uknet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!torvalds
From: torva...@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Torvalds)
Subject: Re: Linux on Macintrashes? (Was: Re: Linux on
Message-ID: <1993Apr22.210829.26093@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Organization: University of Helsinki
References: <1qjnlbINN4a0@enterprise.ksu.ksu.edu> <1r628n$ce5@smurf.sub.org>
<1r6n4lINN1nf@shelley.u.washington.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 21:08:29 GMT
Lines: 38
In article <1r6n4lINN...@shelley.u.washington.edu> t...@stein.u.washington.edu
(Tim Smith) writes:
>In comp.os.linux, article <1qjnlbINN...@enterprise.ksu.ksu.edu>,
>> Is it really worth anyone's time to port Linux over to them knowing
>> that
>> 1. The Linux kernel depends on a 386 protected mode architecture.
>> Meaning, of course, that binary compatibility is out of the
>> question, and that "porting software to Linux" would mean
>> having to work on two completely different architectures.
>
>First of all, why would applications care about the architecture? It would
>simply be a matter of compiling them for the 68k.
>
>Second, how much of the kernel depends on the 386? If it's more than a
>small amount, why was it done this way?
The current kernel is much less i386-dependent than early versions were:
early versions made heavy use of the 386 segmentation features (which is
one of the less portable things to use) to keep processes separate etc.
The current version still uses segments (you can't avoid it on a i386),
but the use is generally not that much of a problem - it should be
reasonably easy to just use paging to do all memory protection.
On the other hand, porting an OS is never trivial, especially for the
first time. It gets easier to do later ports due to the machine-
dependent parts usually being fixed or at least more well known during
the first port. Linux still uses a lot of available 386 features to
implement task switching etc, and this needs some work for another
processor. But task switching is generally the easiest part: memory
management code is also very hardware dependent, as are all the device
drivers and so on. And to do a port you generally need to know the
target machine very well, as well as knowing something about the
original machine (or you won't understand why things are done like they
are in the first place).
So while linux may not be quite as i386-dependent as it once was,
porting it is not exactly a weekend hack.
Linus
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
uwm.edu!ogicse!netnews.nwnet.net!news.u.washington.edu!stein2.u.washington.edu!tzs
From: t...@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux on Macintrashes? (Was: Re: Linux on
Message-ID: <1rabneINNeam@shelley.u.washington.edu>
Date: 24 Apr 93 03:21:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: shelley.1rabneINNeam
References: <1r628n$ce5@smurf.sub.org> <1r6n4lINN1nf@shelley.u.washington.edu>
<1993Apr22.210829.26093@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Lines: 93
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein2.u.washington.edu
torva...@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Torvalds) writes:
>The current kernel is much less i386-dependent than early versions were:
>early versions made heavy use of the 386 segmentation features (which is
>one of the less portable things to use) to keep processes separate etc.
>The current version still uses segments (you can't avoid it on a i386),
>but the use is generally not that much of a problem - it should be
>reasonably easy to just use paging to do all memory protection.
How extensive is segment use, compared to, say, System V for Intel
machines? System V basically runs everything in small model (or
maybe it's tiny model). It pretty much sets up the segment registers
at process initialization, and then leaves them alone.
>On the other hand, porting an OS is never trivial, especially for the
>first time. It gets easier to do later ports due to the machine-
>dependent parts usually being fixed or at least more well known during
>the first port. Linux still uses a lot of available 386 features to
>implement task switching etc, and this needs some work for another
>processor. But task switching is generally the easiest part: memory
>management code is also very hardware dependent, as are all the device
>drivers and so on. And to do a port you generally need to know the
>target machine very well, as well as knowing something about the
>original machine (or you won't understand why things are done like they
>are in the first place).
The big question is how much 386-specific stuff is in the hard parts?
I did the design a few years ago for a System III port from either VAX
or some 3B (I don't know which!) to a 68k, adding virtual memory, and
found that memory management, task switching, and process handling
aren't really that hard. Later, at Interactive, I did a lot of work on
porting System V Release 3 to the 286 (gag!), and found that was much
harder. The big difference, I think, was that on the System III port,
I didn't even really look at the memory management, etc. (that's one
of the reasons I don't know what machine the source code was for!).
I wanted to do it my way, so I did. At Interactive, we tried to
keep as much of the 3B code as we could, even though the 3B and the
286 do not think at all alike.
The lesson, I think, is that memory management, etc., aren't really
that hard, unless you try to make them work in ways that aren't
natural for your machine. Thus, I think the way to do a Linux port
to the Macintosh is to forget about the 386 code for these sort
of things.
The things to port are things like the file system the device interface
code and things like that. Are these very 386 specific?
Device drivers present a problem. Let's look at what would be needed:
SCREEN Screen should not be too bad. For NuBus video cards,
there is a driver in ROM on the card. I believe the interface
to this is documented, so a Mac Linux driver for NuBus video
shouldn't be too bad.
For built-in video, I believe all Macs use a simple memory
mapped display, which is pretty easy to deal with.
SCSI Almost all Macs have SCSI, using either 5380 or 5396. Both of
these chips are pretty easy to use. If there is a Linux SCSI
driver that uses any sort of structure-based interface (e.g.,
ASPI), it would probably take under a week or two to write
a compatible version for the Mac.
KEYBOARD and MOUSE Here things get harder. I'm not sure how well
these are documented. On the other hand, we might not need
to deal with them directly. I think the Mac ROM could be
convinced to handle them even without the Mac OS running.
I seem to recall doing some experimentation once, and determining
that they worked at boot time, before the OS loaded. If I'm
remembering right, then there's no problem.
FLOPPY This is a mystery area.
NETWORKING I've only got one computer, so I don't care! :-)
Seriously, this could be a pain. I don't know if Apple
documents their ethernet cards or not. All the cards I've
worked with (both Apple and non-Apple) use normal ethernet
chips (NIC, LANCE, SONIC), and so aren't hard to deal with
if you can get documentation on where the heck the chip is,
but I don't know if that information is easily obtained.
SERIAL PORTS 8350, straightforwardly implemented. The chip is a
royal pain in the ass to use, though (e.g., it's one of those
things you put on your resume to show that you are tough :-))
The big problem I see is compatibility. I'd want to be able to run
Mac applications from within Mac Linux. I think that would be a lot
of work. I know it would be a lot of work, because the way I want to
do it is by doing a virtual machine, and letting the Mac OS boot in
the virtual machine. This is probably not the best way, of course,
but I've never done a virtual machine, and I want to.
--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!torvalds
From: torva...@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Torvalds)
Subject: Re: Linux on Macintrashes? (Was: Re: Linux on
Message-ID: <1993Apr24.080226.6712@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Organization: University of Helsinki
References: <1r6n4lINN1nf@shelley.u.washington.edu>
<1993Apr22.210829.26093@klaava.Helsinki.FI> <1rabneINNeam@shelley.u.washington.edu>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1993 08:02:26 GMT
Lines: 54
In article <1rabneINN...@shelley.u.washington.edu> t...@stein2.u.washington.edu
(Tim Smith) writes:
>
>How extensive is segment use, compared to, say, System V for Intel
>machines? System V basically runs everything in small model (or
>maybe it's tiny model). It pretty much sets up the segment registers
>at process initialization, and then leaves them alone.
Linux uses just one segment per task (actually 4, but 2 of them are
special i386 things like TSS- and LDT-segments, and the other two are
identical but needed due to the i386 wanting separate segments for code
and data). That might be called "tiny" model, but the name is somewhat
belied by the segment size - 3GB.. The user segment does no relocation:
it extends from virtual 0 to virtual 3GB, and the only reason to use it
is that on a i386, you have to (additionally, it also catches references
to the 3GB-4GB area reserved for the kernel, but that could be done with
paging with equal ease).
The only slightly problematic use of segments is that the kernel segment
is 1GB in size, and covers the 3GB-4GB virtual address space. Thus it
relocates the kernel, so that 99.9% of the kernel code thinks it runs
from address 0, and with kernel addresses corresponding 1:1 to physical
addresses. On an architecture without segments this isn't the way you'd
want to do it, so the kernel would have to be actually linked against
the 3GB starting point, and you'd have to do (a trivial) translation
from kernel addresses to actual physical memory addresses in some cases
(DMA and memory management). It shouldn't be a big problem, but it
would require some work.
>The big question is how much 386-specific stuff is in the hard parts?
Memory management can be a problem - on the other hand, the complete mm
code is less than 2000 lines of C code, and it shouldn't be impossible
to port. It does assume that you have access to real paging (with write
faults etc for COW), and porting it would probably be *much* easier if
your chip has a reasonably similar page-translation scheme (as the 68k
has). Still, mm code is not fun to debug, and single-bit errors in the
page tables usually mean instant reboots/hangs/whatever.
>The things to port are things like the file system the device interface
>code and things like that. Are these very 386 specific?
Shouldn't be any problem - the low-level file system code needs to do
byte swapping if it wants to be able to read 386-linux disks directly
(it currently assumes 386 order for all multi-byte values), and a lot of
things in linux assume that integer = long = pointer = 32 bits with
short being 16, but that's what the 68k gcc port uses as well, I think.
Porting linux to some other setup (64 bits) would be more painful, but
probably not much worse (but forget smaller machines than 32 bits).
Note that the above is just theoretical - I know enough about the 68k
family to think the port shouldn't be too bad, but actually doing it is
another kettle of fish altogether..
Linus
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Path: gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!uunet!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!ljg
From: l...@space.physics.uiowa.edu (Larry Granroth)
Subject: Re: Linux on Macintoshes? (Linus Torvalds' position)
Message-ID: <C62JI6.84F@space.physics.uiowa.edu>
Organization: The University of Iowa, Department of Physics and Astronomy
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
References: <1993Apr22.125627.6334@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 02:13:16 GMT
Lines: 38
Linus Torvalds (torva...@klaava.Helsinki.FI) wrote:
: In article <C5vrG9....@cs.vu.nl> rm...@cs.vu.nl (Mast RN) writes:
: >
: >By the way, my opinion about Linux on a Mac is that If it is allowed then
: >It would be a help to the development of 68000-linux, also for the Amiga,
: >because more programmers would program for it.
: It's most certainly "allowed" - I'd be very unhappy if some macintosh
: user who wants to try to port linux to the mac would desist only due to
: the FSF mac standpoint. I personally like macs (not that I'd want to
: have one at home, but...), and find this discussion ridiculous. Yes, I
: know the FSF aren't officially supporting mac development of GNU tools,
: but as far as I'm concerned, anybody is free to try to port linux to the
: mac and I'll try to answer questions etc with no regard for the "evil
: Apple empire". Can we please stop bickering about it? This thread is
: almost as boring as the GPL/386BSD one.
: Also note that if somebody actually succeeds in porting linux to the
: mac, and does a good enough job of it (and it won't be easy, I'm sure),
: most GNU software should work out of the box quite as they work on the
: 386 version, so a mac-linux would have all the software the current
: linux has (with the exception of X11r5 - that might be problematic).
: Linus
(In the unlikely case that someone doesn't already know) Linux is a freely
distributed Unix clone running on the Intel 386 architecture. It draws
heavily upon the work of the GNU project. There has been discussion
(probably quite a lot here . . . I don't read this group regularly) about
porting this OS along with its GNU components over to Apple platforms.
On occasion I have pointed out that the FSF clearly would prefer that
its code not be used to support Apple. I believe that Linus Torvalds
(the "Father" of Linux) is quite familiar with this, however his position
appears to be to encourage/support development on any company's hardware.
I certainly respect this position, but still believe it is at least
impolite to advocate porting GNU code to Apple hardware.
larry-granr...@uiowa.edu
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
moe.ksu.ksu.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!ljg
From: l...@space.physics.uiowa.edu (Larry Granroth)
Subject: Re: Linux on Macintoshes? (Linus Torvalds' position)
Message-ID: <C63Iw5.MGG@space.physics.uiowa.edu>
Organization: The University of Iowa, Department of Physics and Astronomy
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
References: <KJETILHO.93Apr26092233@gyda.ifi.uio.no>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 14:57:39 GMT
Lines: 25
Let me clarify my feelings on this issue:
I have the utmost respect for Linus. The work that he has donated for
free distribution is certainly as significant as anything that the FSF
has done. (Thanks, Linus!)
I never meant to suggest that the Linux kernel had anything to do with
GNU code. (Well, I suppose GNU tools may have been useful in its development,
but that's beside the point.) However, I'm sure some would agree with me that
Linux as an operating system would not be nearly as appealing without gcc,
emacs, etc, etc. Even though the FSF would not even suggest that you don't
have the right to port their code to Apple hardware, they clearly ask
you to avoid this. (Consider how far you would get distributing a free
Macintosh emulator for Linux.)
Once again, my understanding of Linus' position (which I posted earlier)
is that he wants to insure that no-one is discouraged from working with
Linux on any platform. I think that this is a noble "above the politics"
view. I don't feel that Linus should waste any of his time worrying about
this further.
However, *my* opinion is that the FSF Apple boycott should be respected more.
Feel free to disagree (you still have that freedom).
larry-granr...@uiowa.edu
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!torvalds
From: torva...@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Torvalds)
Subject: Re: Linux on Macintoshes? (Linus Torvalds' position)
Message-ID: <1993Apr29.100018.2972@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Organization: University of Helsinki
References: <1993Apr22.125627.6334@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
<C62JI6.84F@space.physics.uiowa.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 10:00:18 GMT
Lines: 25
[ actual posts deleted - if your newsreader is stupid enough not to find
them, bother your sysadmin ]
Note that my standpoint on porting linux to anything imaginable is quite
clear: as long as it's technically feasible, I don't care who does the
machine, nor about their politics. I don't actually think a linux port
to the macintosh is anything that will come about soon (or ever), but if
somebody wants to try, he's got my support. This only concerns the
kernel (which, as has been pointed out, is not actually a FSF project),
and I don't have any say in the matter when it comes to normal GNU
tools.
Naturally, if linux actually got ported (and not in some crippled form),
99% of all GNU tools would naturally compile out of the box for it quite
as they do for the 386 version, and it would need no support from the
FSF nor me. If that is a problem for anybody, I don't really care.
Sorry. I like the GPL, but I'm not religious about it, and for me to
boycott Apple machines just because GNU programs might port easily
sounds idiotic, especially as I find the Apple boycott a bad idea in the
first place (*).
Linus
(*) That's ok - I didn't write the GNU programs, so if the FSF thinks a
boycott is right, I'll support it as long as it concerns their code.