From owner-freebsd-platforms Sun Mar 16 12:28:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA17686 for platforms-outgoing; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 12:28:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.50]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA17681 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 12:28:41 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id NAA06106; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 13:18:28 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199703162018.NAA06106@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: Some one working on a SPARC version? To: pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co (Pedro Giffuni) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 13:18:28 -0700 (MST) Cc: jb@cimlogic.com.au, srn@flibble.psrg.cs.usyd.edu.au, freebsd-platforms@freeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <332B4A23.7008@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> from "Pedro Giffuni" at Mar 15, 97 05:18:13 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-platforms@freeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Porting FreeBSD to other architectures is more than just using a ports > tree and adapting the VM. It is? > We must keep our stuff to retain our identity Why? What's so nifty about our identity? Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. From owner-freebsd-platforms Sun Mar 16 13:36:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA20981 for platforms-outgoing; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 13:36:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from bofh.cybercity.dk (bofh.cybercity.dk [195.8.128.254]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA20972 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 13:36:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from critter.dk.tfs.com (phk.cybercity.dk [195.8.133.247]) by bofh.cybercity.dk (8.8.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA07744; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 22:38:35 +0100 (MET) Received: from critter.dk.tfs.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.dk.tfs.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) with ESMTP id WAA06664; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 22:39:49 +0100 (MET) To: Terry Lambert cc: pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co (Pedro Giffuni), jb@cimlogic.com.au, srn@flibble.psrg.cs.usyd.edu.au, freebsd-platforms@freeBSD.org Subject: Re: Some one working on a SPARC version? In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 16 Mar 1997 13:18:28 MST." <199703162018.NAA06106@phaeton.artisoft.com> Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 22:39:48 +0100 Message-ID: <6662.858548388@critter.dk.tfs.com> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-platforms@freeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In message <199703162018.NAA06106@phaeton.artisoft.com>, Terry Lambert writes: >> We must keep our stuff to retain our identity > >Why? What's so nifty about our identity? We can actually recognize smileys even if they are not there... Well, some of us at least... :-) -- Poul-Henning Kamp | phk@FreeBSD.ORG FreeBSD Core-team. http://www.freebsd.org/~phk | phk@login.dknet.dk Private mailbox. whois: [PHK] | phk@tfs.com TRW Financial Systems, Inc. Power and ignorance is a disgusting cocktail. From owner-freebsd-platforms Sun Mar 16 13:56:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA21752 for platforms-outgoing; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 13:56:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.50]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA21746 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 13:56:34 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id OAA06368; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 14:44:45 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199703162144.OAA06368@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: Some one working on a SPARC version? To: phk@critter.dk.tfs.com (Poul-Henning Kamp) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 14:44:45 -0700 (MST) Cc: terry@lambert.org, pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co, jb@cimlogic.com.au, srn@flibble.psrg.cs.usyd.edu.au, freebsd-platforms@freeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <6662.858548388@critter.dk.tfs.com> from "Poul-Henning Kamp" at Mar 16, 97 10:39:48 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-platforms@freeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > >> We must keep our stuff to retain our identity > > > >Why? What's so nifty about our identity? > > We can actually recognize smileys even if they are not there... > > Well, some of us at least... :-) He had a smiley with a wink there, later. I was questioning the general mentality behind the Aristotilian mean that says "there must be a 'them' for there to be an 'us'". I just happen to disagree with the hidden assumptions that led to his smiley. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. From owner-freebsd-platforms Sun Mar 16 14:22:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA22728 for platforms-outgoing; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 14:22:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA22722 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 14:22:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from rover.village.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rover.village.org (8.8.5/8.6.6) with ESMTP id PAA03660; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 15:19:55 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199703162219.PAA03660@rover.village.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp Subject: Re: Some one working on a SPARC version? Cc: Terry Lambert , pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co (Pedro Giffuni), jb@cimlogic.com.au, srn@flibble.psrg.cs.usyd.edu.au, freebsd-platforms@FreeBSD.org In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 16 Mar 1997 22:39:48 +0100." <6662.858548388@critter.dk.tfs.com> References: <6662.858548388@critter.dk.tfs.com> Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 15:19:55 -0700 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-platforms@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In message <199703162018.NAA06106@phaeton.artisoft.com>, Terry Lambert writes: >Why? What's so nifty about our identity? That cool looking FreeBSD icon :-) Warner From owner-freebsd-platforms Sun Mar 16 17:24:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA08732 for platforms-outgoing; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 17:24:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from who.cdrom.com (who.cdrom.com [204.216.27.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA08714 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 17:24:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.50]) by who.cdrom.com (8.8.5/8.6.11) with SMTP id QAA23889 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 16:28:25 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id RAA06856; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 17:16:32 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199703170016.RAA06856@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: Some one working on a SPARC version? To: jb@cimlogic.com.au (John Birrell) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 17:16:32 -0700 (MST) Cc: terry@lambert.org, phk@critter.dk.tfs.com, pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co, jb@cimlogic.com.au, srn@flibble.psrg.cs.usyd.edu.au, freebsd-platforms@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <199703162221.JAA02054@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au> from "John Birrell" at Mar 17, 97 09:21:11 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-platforms@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > > Well, some of us at least... :-) > > > > He had a smiley with a wink there, later. > > > > I was questioning the general mentality behind the Aristotilian mean > > that says "there must be a 'them' for there to be an 'us'". > > I get awfully confused about who is/are "them" and who is/are "us". 8-) us/them: unified VM/buffer cache coherent user space advanced component installation SMP wants kindom control over areas claimed by them/us them/us: multiple platforms working stacking FS (easier to do in the old VM) clean multiplatform source/target build environment VM86 wants kindom control over areas claimed by us/them > The time that would be spent porting NetBSD/Sparc or NetBSD/Alpha > to FreeBSD would be better spent making *BSD userland code build > and run on NetBSD/* _and_ FreeBSD/i386. And/or porting the unified VM code to NetBSD. > Let FreeBSD kernel hackers hack FreeBSD/i386 and let FreeBSD userland > hackers hack *BSD. You mean "let *BSD userland hackers hack *BSD". This solves "coherent user space" everywhere, but fails on "advanced component installation" everywhere, since it requires active maintenance on a per platform basis. > Remove the "wall" and agree that there are lots of things that > will continue to differ between FreeBSD and NetBSD, but accept the > fact that there are a *lot* of things that can remain the same -- > build on that. The wall is there for a reason... it seperates the kingdoms and keeps the nominal kings mollified about their toes: a convenient fiction, assuming we care about the kings toes... I don't. Remember the "Falkland Islands" (Merge) "discussions"? Let us eat cake, I suppose... Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. From owner-freebsd-platforms Sun Mar 16 17:24:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA08971 for platforms-outgoing; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 17:24:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from who.cdrom.com (who.cdrom.com [204.216.27.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA08940 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 17:24:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from werple.net.au (melb.werple.net.au [203.9.190.18]) by who.cdrom.com (8.8.5/8.6.11) with SMTP id QAA23736 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 16:02:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 10829 invoked by uid 999); 17 Mar 1997 00:02:05 -0000 Received: (from jb@localhost) by freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA02101; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:27:33 +1100 (EST) From: John Birrell Message-Id: <199703162227.JAA02101@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au> Subject: Re: Some one working on a SPARC version? To: imp@village.org (Warner Losh) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:27:32 +1100 (EST) Cc: phk@critter.dk.tfs.com, terry@lambert.org, pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co, jb@cimlogic.com.au, srn@flibble.psrg.cs.usyd.edu.au, freebsd-platforms@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <199703162219.PAA03660@rover.village.org> from Warner Losh at "Mar 16, 97 03:19:55 pm" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL22 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-platforms@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Warner Losh wrote: > In message <199703162018.NAA06106@phaeton.artisoft.com>, Terry Lambert writes: > >Why? What's so nifty about our identity? > > That cool looking FreeBSD icon :-) Hmmm, I have clients who think the icon looks childish. They're from the school that says if you're going to wear a baseball cap, the peak goes to the front. 8-) > > Warner > -- John Birrell - jb@cimlogic.com.au; jb@netbsd.org CIMlogic Pty Ltd, 119 Cecil Street, South Melbourne Vic 3205, Australia Tel +61 3 9690 6900 Fax +61 3 9690 6650 Mob +61 418 353 137 From owner-freebsd-platforms Sun Mar 16 17:25:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA09032 for platforms-outgoing; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 17:25:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from who.cdrom.com (who.cdrom.com [204.216.27.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA08967 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 17:24:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from werple.net.au (melb.werple.net.au [203.9.190.18]) by who.cdrom.com (8.8.5/8.6.11) with SMTP id QAA23744 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 16:03:12 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 10933 invoked by uid 999); 17 Mar 1997 00:02:56 -0000 Received: (from jb@localhost) by freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA02054; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:21:12 +1100 (EST) From: John Birrell Message-Id: <199703162221.JAA02054@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au> Subject: Re: Some one working on a SPARC version? To: terry@lambert.org (Terry Lambert) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:21:11 +1100 (EST) Cc: phk@critter.dk.tfs.com, terry@lambert.org, pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co, jb@cimlogic.com.au, srn@flibble.psrg.cs.usyd.edu.au, freebsd-platforms@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <199703162144.OAA06368@phaeton.artisoft.com> from Terry Lambert at "Mar 16, 97 02:44:45 pm" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL22 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-platforms@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Terry Lambert wrote: > > Well, some of us at least... :-) > > He had a smiley with a wink there, later. > > I was questioning the general mentality behind the Aristotilian mean > that says "there must be a 'them' for there to be an 'us'". I get awfully confused about who is/are "them" and who is/are "us". 8-) The time that would be spent porting NetBSD/Sparc or NetBSD/Alpha to FreeBSD would be better spent making *BSD userland code build and run on NetBSD/* _and_ FreeBSD/i386. Let FreeBSD kernel hackers hack FreeBSD/i386 and let FreeBSD userland hackers hack *BSD. Remove the "wall" and agree that there are lots of things that will continue to differ between FreeBSD and NetBSD, but accept the fact that there are a *lot* of things that can remain the same -- build on that. > > I just happen to disagree with the hidden assumptions that led to > his smiley. Me 2. > terry@lambert.org -- John Birrell - jb@cimlogic.com.au; jb@netbsd.org CIMlogic Pty Ltd, 119 Cecil Street, South Melbourne Vic 3205, Australia Tel +61 3 9690 6900 Fax +61 3 9690 6650 Mob +61 418 353 137 From owner-freebsd-platforms Mon Mar 17 07:45:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id HAA15984 for platforms-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 07:45:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from usc.usc.unal.edu.co ([200.21.26.65]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA15907 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 07:45:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from unalmodem13.usc.unal.edu.co by usc.usc.unal.edu.co (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA87372; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 10:42:58 -0500 Message-Id: <332D8F8C.3FA1@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 10:38:04 -0800 From: Pedro Giffuni X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: Terry Lambert Cc: jb@cimlogic.com.au, srn@flibble.psrg.cs.usyd.edu.au, freebsd-platforms@freeBSD.org Subject: Re: Some one working on a SPARC version? References: <199703162018.NAA06106@phaeton.artisoft.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-platforms@freeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Terry Lambert wrote: > > > Porting FreeBSD to other architectures is more than just using a ports > > tree and adapting the VM. > > It is? > The different kernel interfaces, the devices driver structure...I find it difficult to understand how people actually ignore the great userland changes made in FreeBSD. Diffs between FreeBSD versions are not followed instantly by NetBSD or viceversa, and it's not a secret that FreeBSD is a bit more aggresive when bringing changes in. In fact when I said we should get some code from NetBSD I was thinking of their emulation support, more than anything else. > > We must keep our stuff to retain our identity > > Why? What's so nifty about our identity? > (Yes there was a smiley there, but I don't recall a wink). No "Aristotilian mean" involved, perhaps you could call it a Zen mean; both Net and FreeBSD will always have a "BSD spirit" (I don't really know how to express it, but I guess it is in part represented by the FreeBSD icon) and you could say this brings us very near indeed. The wink was there to remember there are slight but significant differences between these systems. John Birrell seems to suggest one day all BSD currents will join and live happily together crushing Windows NT and Linux altogether. Well, we'd all like that, but it is far from happening: NetBSD doesn't want our ports tree (one more reason for OpenBSD's existance?), and they probably don't want our VM either. Add to this that we don't even unify our criteria as to where each program should go, or how the tree is distributed and it will be evident we are diverging each day. Pedro. > Regards, > Terry Lambert > terry@lambert.org > --- > Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present > or previous employers. From owner-freebsd-platforms Mon Mar 17 10:05:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA23821 for platforms-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 10:05:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.50]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA23804 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 10:05:23 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id KAA08087; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 10:50:41 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199703171750.KAA08087@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: Some one working on a SPARC version? To: pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co (Pedro Giffuni) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 10:50:41 -0700 (MST) Cc: terry@lambert.org, jb@cimlogic.com.au, srn@flibble.psrg.cs.usyd.edu.au, freebsd-platforms@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <332D8F8C.3FA1@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> from "Pedro Giffuni" at Mar 17, 97 10:38:04 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-platforms@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > > Porting FreeBSD to other architectures is more than just using a ports > > > tree and adapting the VM. > > > > It is? > > The different kernel interfaces, the devices driver structure... OK, I buy this one, though much of the difference, other than the VM, are gratuitous, IMO. > I find > it difficult to understand how people actually ignore the great userland > changes made in FreeBSD. Diffs between FreeBSD versions are not followed > instantly by NetBSD or viceversa, and it's not a secret that FreeBSD is > a bit more aggresive when bringing changes in. In fact when I said we > should get some code from NetBSD I was thinking of their emulation > support, more than anything else. I think we have differnet definitions here. As far as I'm concerned, all of user space is "just a ports tree". > > > We must keep our stuff to retain our identity > > > > Why? What's so nifty about our identity? > > (Yes there was a smiley there, but I don't recall a wink). No > "Aristotilian mean" involved, perhaps you could call it a Zen mean; both > Net and FreeBSD will always have a "BSD spirit" (I don't really know how > to express it, but I guess it is in part represented by the FreeBSD > icon) and you could say this brings us very near indeed. The wink was > there to remember there are slight but significant differences between > these systems. An Aristotilain mean is a split of a set into two sets; it assumes that the universe is binary in nature. When ou use an Aristotilian mean, you must be careful to voice all of your assumptions. For instance, the mean "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" assumes you beat your wife. No matter what binary answer you give, you will be accepting the assumptions implicit in the statement. The assumption implicit in your statement (and reiterated here) is that "there are significant differences between these systems". I disagree. The differences are of level of integration, not ones of technology incompatability, and therefore they are significant only in the political sense. Politics is a bad perspective from which to make technical decisions; anyone you believes otherwise might as well go claim their "pointy Dilbert Manager hair" from supply. > NetBSD doesn't want our ports tree Unlikely... what benefit could they perceive in this? > and they probably don't want our VM either. Maybe. But they can't argue that VM/buffer cache unification does not have technical merit above and beyond an non-unified system, so if your claim is true (I doubt it), then it is one of implementation detail, not philosophy. > Add to this that we don't even unify our criteria as to where each > program should go, or how the tree is distributed and it will be > evident we are diverging each day. This is an issue of kingdom building breeding kindom building; I defy you to demonstrate the merit of encouraging duplication of effort this way. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. From owner-freebsd-platforms Mon Mar 17 11:12:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA28197 for platforms-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:12:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from usc.usc.unal.edu.co ([200.21.26.65]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA28191 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:12:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from unalmodem00.usc.unal.edu.co by usc.usc.unal.edu.co (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA171878; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 14:10:54 -0500 Message-Id: <332D9360.4C6D@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 10:54:24 -0800 From: Pedro Giffuni X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: John Birrell Cc: Warner Losh , phk@critter.dk.tfs.com, terry@lambert.org, srn@flibble.psrg.cs.usyd.edu.au, freebsd-platforms@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Some one working on a SPARC version? References: <199703162227.JAA02101@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-platforms@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk John Birrell wrote: > > Warner Losh wrote: > > In message <199703162018.NAA06106@phaeton.artisoft.com>, Terry Lambert writes: > > >Why? What's so nifty about our identity? > > > > That cool looking FreeBSD icon :-) > > Hmmm, I have clients who think the icon looks childish....(goes on) Aren't we all "grown-up" kids, making our dreams come true? Pedro. > > > > > Warner > > > > -- > John Birrell - jb@cimlogic.com.au; jb@netbsd.org > CIMlogic Pty Ltd, 119 Cecil Street, South Melbourne Vic 3205, Australia > Tel +61 3 9690 6900 Fax +61 3 9690 6650 Mob +61 418 353 137 From owner-freebsd-platforms Mon Mar 17 11:13:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA28231 for platforms-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:13:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from usc.usc.unal.edu.co ([200.21.26.65]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA28216 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 11:13:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from unalmodem00.usc.unal.edu.co by usc.usc.unal.edu.co (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA161170; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 14:13:00 -0500 Message-Id: <332DC006.6D3C@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 14:04:54 -0800 From: Pedro Giffuni X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: Terry Lambert Cc: jb@cimlogic.com.au, srn@flibble.psrg.cs.usyd.edu.au, freebsd-platforms@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Some one working on a SPARC version? References: <199703171750.KAA08087@phaeton.artisoft.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-platforms@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Terry Lambert wrote: > > An Aristotilain mean is a split of a set into two sets; it assumes > that the universe is binary in nature. > I thought Aristoteles was displaced from the common world after Galileo :-). I'm a Zen reasoner, anyway (I have a long history in martial arts, I guess that's why I see things so different), there is no absolute truth. We both perceive things different and we can both be right. When a contradiction is given, humans tend to interpret it and usually produce some pretty cool ideas, animals will run away or hide in their previous knowledge. > > The assumption implicit in your statement (and reiterated here) is > that "there are significant differences between these systems". I > disagree. The differences are of level of integration, not ones of > technology incompatability, and therefore they are significant only > in the political sense. Politics is a bad perspective from which... > I agree the technological differences are not imposible to overcome, but if they are not significant why aren't we using their features and viceversa? We want to become multiplatform so is not a just a political issue. > > > NetBSD doesn't want our ports tree > > Unlikely... what benefit could they perceive in this? > I don't know why, perhaps they like building their things the old way (that is not too different), anyway if they'd wanted it, they could have adopted it long ago, like OpenBSD did. > > and they probably don't want our VM either. > I also doubt this is true, but it's an interesting doubt that I wanted to leave in the air. They haven't adapted our VM because of a technical issue, but this issue was caused by a philosophical issue: they have always been multiplatform because it was *their* objective. FreeBSD's objective was not having a multiplatform OS from the start, but rather having a sophisticated (386) port. > > > Add to this that we don't even unify our criteria as to where each > > program should go, or how the tree is distributed and it will be > > evident we are diverging each day. > > This is an issue of kingdom building breeding kindom building; I defy > you to demonstrate the merit of encouraging duplication of effort this > way. > I don't understand the (proposed) challenge, maybe I wasn't clear. Every effort in standarizing our systems will bring nearer the final objective of having advances benefit both parties. You were around somewhere in the discussion about defining _BSD44_ (or was it _4_4BSD ?): how can we work together if we don't even agree on what makes us different or what makes us alike? Pedro. > Regards, > Terry Lambert > terry@lambert.org > --- > Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present > or previous employers. From owner-freebsd-platforms Mon Mar 17 17:22:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA20828 for platforms-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 17:22:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.50]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA20822 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 17:22:04 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id SAA08717; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 18:08:59 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199703180108.SAA08717@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: Some one working on a SPARC version? To: pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co (Pedro Giffuni) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 18:08:59 -0700 (MST) Cc: terry@lambert.org, jb@cimlogic.com.au, srn@flibble.psrg.cs.usyd.edu.au, freebsd-platforms@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <332DC006.6D3C@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> from "Pedro Giffuni" at Mar 17, 97 02:04:54 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-platforms@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > The assumption implicit in your statement (and reiterated here) is > > that "there are significant differences between these systems". I > > disagree. The differences are of level of integration, not ones of > > technology incompatability, and therefore they are significant only > > in the political sense. Politics is a bad perspective from which... > > I agree the technological differences are not imposible to overcome, but > if they are not significant why aren't we using their features and > viceversa? We want to become multiplatform so is not a just a political > issue. My opinion is that it is an artifact of: 1) Not Invented Here 2) Not enough duplicate warm bodies to do the work 3) Lack of incentives for new warm bodies relative to similar (eg: Linux) projects 4) Loss of creative/editorial control #2 is a pseudo-argument without merit: it stems from #3, which is a purely organizational issue, not a techinical one. > > > NetBSD doesn't want our ports tree > > > > Unlikely... what benefit could they perceive in this? > > I don't know why, perhaps they like building their things the old way > (that is not too different), anyway if they'd wanted it, they could have > adopted it long ago, like OpenBSD did. Ports tree; not build tree. Arguably, their build tree is superior to FreeBSD's, since it handles multiplatform... they would be insane to take FreeBSD's and lose that. > > > and they probably don't want our VM either. > > I also doubt this is true, but it's an interesting doubt that I wanted > to leave in the air. They haven't adapted our VM because of a technical > issue, but this issue was caused by a philosophical issue: they have > always been multiplatform because it was *their* objective. FreeBSD's > objective was not having a multiplatform OS from the start, but rather > having a sophisticated (386) port. The VM, as John Dyson has pointed out in the past, is not irretrievably architecture specific. I don't believe there is a technical issue at all... I have had FreeBSD's VM code working on Alpha and, more recently, PPC hardware, with only minor changes. > > > evident we are diverging each day. > > > > This is an issue of kingdom building breeding kindom building; I defy > > you to demonstrate the merit of encouraging duplication of effort this > > way. > > I don't understand the (proposed) challenge, maybe I wasn't clear. Every > effort in standarizing our systems will bring nearer the final objective > of having advances benefit both parties. My challenge can be restated as: "provide conclusive technical arguments pro divergence" I maintain that there are no good technical reasons for divergence, only political ones. > You were around somewhere in > the discussion about defining _BSD44_ (or was it _4_4BSD ?): how can we > work together if we don't even agree on what makes us different or what > makes us alike? I wasn't involved in the discussion because I believe the "date method" is sufficient for all but kernel interface dependent code. For that code, I would version based on the kernel interface, not based on a globally effective preprocessor symbol. Either way, there is no need to draw a distinction between the BSD platforms unless you are writing kernel interface dependent code: by definition, a bad practice that should be proscribed for all but debug tools, and many times there as well. The kernel interface dependent code itself is subject to interpretation: I believe the externalization of kernel dependent interfaces is inherently bad. There are two soloutions to this problem: 1) Genercize the interface by moving the dependence into a defined interface distinct from externalization of kernel data structures; in three words: delete libkvm now. OR 2) Genericize the interface by moving the depndence into code which is inherently associated with the active kernel, but which is not *of* the active kernel. The code for a given kernel would be in the given kernel's object file, but not part of the kernel proper. This will ensure dynamic versioning, and unlike the first soloution, not require that ps and friends potentially break when used on system dumps; in three words: ELF segment coloring. Both of these soloutions make the 'ps', 'w', 'netstat', 'ifconfig', 'route', and all other code that depends on externalization of kernel data, and make them independent of the format of that data. In the second case, the kernel debugger could use the same code, as necessary. Either soloution totally invalidates the "_BSD44_/_4_4BSD" arguments. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. From owner-freebsd-platforms Mon Mar 17 21:32:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA03814 for platforms-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:32:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from usc.usc.unal.edu.co ([200.21.26.65]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA03764 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:31:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from unalmodem14.usc.unal.edu.co by usc.usc.unal.edu.co (AIX 4.1/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA809652; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 00:13:51 -0500 Message-Id: <332E4DC0.6455@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 00:09:36 -0800 From: Pedro Giffuni X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: Terry Lambert Cc: jb@cimlogic.com.au, srn@flibble.psrg.cs.usyd.edu.au, freebsd-platforms@freebsd.org Subject: To share or not share ? (was: Someone working on a SPARC version?) References: <199703180108.SAA08717@phaeton.artisoft.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-platforms@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Terry Lambert wrote: > > > > > NetBSD doesn't want our ports tree > > > > > > Unlikely... what benefit could they perceive in this? > > > > I don't know why, perhaps they like building their things the old way > > (that is not too different), anyway if they'd wanted it, they could have > > adopted it long ago, like OpenBSD did. > > Ports tree; not build tree... > Is this the typical "if I can't beat him confuse him" strategy? I've been saying ports tree from the start. > > The VM, as John Dyson has pointed out in the past, is not irretrievably > architecture specific. I don't believe there is a technical issue at > all... I have had FreeBSD's VM code working on Alpha and, more recently, > PPC hardware, with only minor changes. > I have also heard that, it is not 386 specific, but rather "FreeBSD specific", you're right, but I haven't heard of anyone using FreeBSD's VM under NetBSD (did you?). > My challenge can be restated as: > > "provide conclusive technical arguments pro divergence" > > I maintain that there are no good technical reasons for divergence, > only political ones. > I agree with you, please don't asume things I haven't said, specially if you can't see me while we are communicating. I say it's just the way the world works (I don't like it either): it's faster for both parties to implement what they lack, than to convince the two teams to unify, in fact we now have three teams! Of course, it would be very stupid from myself not to admit that we need to modify our tree following the NetBSD example (BTW, IMO, the best time to do it is ASAP, can someone illustrate me on what are the clear objectives behing 3.0-current ?). But we should protect our evolved code (LKMs and devices) from being swapped because another OS has a prettier structure than ours. > > Regards, > Terry Lambert > terry@lambert.org > --- > Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present > or previous employers. From owner-freebsd-platforms Mon Mar 17 22:03:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA05687 for platforms-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 22:03:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from dyson.iquest.net (dyson.iquest.net [198.70.144.127]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA05663 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 22:03:28 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by dyson.iquest.net (8.8.4/8.6.9) id BAA02319; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 01:00:34 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" Message-Id: <199703180600.BAA02319@dyson.iquest.net> Subject: Re: To share or not share ? (was: Someone working on a SPARC version?) To: pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co (Pedro Giffuni) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 01:00:33 -0500 (EST) Cc: terry@lambert.org, jb@cimlogic.com.au, srn@flibble.psrg.cs.usyd.edu.au, freebsd-platforms@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <332E4DC0.6455@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> from "Pedro Giffuni" at Mar 18, 97 00:09:36 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-platforms@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > > > > The VM, as John Dyson has pointed out in the past, is not irretrievably > > architecture specific. I don't believe there is a technical issue at > > all... I have had FreeBSD's VM code working on Alpha and, more recently, > > PPC hardware, with only minor changes. > > > I have also heard that, it is not 386 specific, but rather "FreeBSD > specific", you're right, but I haven't heard of anyone using FreeBSD's > VM under NetBSD (did you?). > It is true that the interfaces in the VM system have changed (and are therefore FreeBSD specific), but those interfaces are part of the improvements associated with the VM code. Changing the interfaces isn't all that difficult, and the hardest part about a port of the VM code is likely the pmap module changes. One really bad thing about the original VM code is that the pmap code is called lots and lots of times. We have mitigated that significantly. Frankly, it is likely that a VM system that performs as well as the FreeBSD VM code (and I am not making any relative claims here -- the other *BSDs are making some improvements), is going to require interface changes relative to the original Lite/2 code. John From owner-freebsd-platforms Mon Mar 17 23:00:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA08812 for platforms-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 23:00:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from werple.net.au (melb.werple.net.au [203.9.190.18]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA08806 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 23:00:03 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 9377 invoked by uid 5); 18 Mar 1997 06:53:21 -0000 Received: (from jb@localhost) by freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA04682; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 17:38:53 +1100 (EST) From: John Birrell Message-Id: <199703180638.RAA04682@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au> Subject: Re: To share or not share ? (was: Someone working on a SPARC version?) To: pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co (Pedro Giffuni) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 17:38:52 +1100 (EST) Cc: freebsd-platforms@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <332E4DC0.6455@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> from Pedro Giffuni at "Mar 18, 97 00:09:36 am" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL22 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-platforms@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Pedro Giffuni wrote: > Of course, it would be very stupid from myself not to admit that we need > to modify our tree following the NetBSD example (BTW, IMO, the best time > to do it is ASAP, can someone illustrate me on what are the clear > objectives behing 3.0-current ?). But we should protect our evolved code > (LKMs and devices) from being swapped because another OS has a prettier > structure than ours. I think it is unrealistic to hold out hope that the kernel designs will ever be compatible enough to share code "easily" --- without hacking. With the exception of device drivers, I don't care about that 8-). The practical thing to do is to use the system that is already available for the architecture(s) you want to use. I use FreeBSD for i386 and NetBSD for Alpha. For me, though, the big win would be sharing libraries and their header files because this reduces the amount of code my company has to support. From libraries and header files, the ports tree naturally follows. When (if) I get time I'll try building NetBSD's libc on FreeBSD and try building ports against that. That should give me some idea of how incompatible the interfaces between userlands and the kernels are. Regards, -- John Birrell - jb@cimlogic.com.au; jb@netbsd.org CIMlogic Pty Ltd, 119 Cecil Street, South Melbourne Vic 3205, Australia Tel +61 3 9690 6900 Fax +61 3 9690 6650 Mob +61 418 353 137 From owner-freebsd-platforms Tue Mar 18 10:00:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA12518 for platforms-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 10:00:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.50]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA12502 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 10:00:55 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id KAA09797; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 10:46:56 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199703181746.KAA09797@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: To share or not share ? (was: Someone working on a SPARC version?) To: pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co (Pedro Giffuni) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 10:46:56 -0700 (MST) Cc: terry@lambert.org, jb@cimlogic.com.au, srn@flibble.psrg.cs.usyd.edu.au, freebsd-platforms@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <332E4DC0.6455@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> from "Pedro Giffuni" at Mar 18, 97 00:09:36 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-platforms@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > > > > NetBSD doesn't want our ports tree > > > > > > > > Unlikely... what benefit could they perceive in this? > > > > > > I don't know why, perhaps they like building their things the old way > > > (that is not too different), anyway if they'd wanted it, they could have > > > adopted it long ago, like OpenBSD did. > > > > Ports tree; not build tree... > > Is this the typical "if I can't beat him confuse him" strategy? I've > been saying ports tree from the start. No. You are saying "ports tree". You *should* be saying "build tree". That a piece of user space code is part of the "ports tree" or that it is part of the "base distribution" is irrelevant. You keep trying to draw a distinction between the two, and that's an artificial distinction of build process that you just can't reasonably make. We have the build process for user space which *includes* the build process for what we call "ports". > > The VM, as John Dyson has pointed out in the past, is not irretrievably > > architecture specific. I don't believe there is a technical issue at > > all... I have had FreeBSD's VM code working on Alpha and, more recently, > > PPC hardware, with only minor changes. > > I have also heard that, it is not 386 specific, but rather "FreeBSD > specific", you're right, but I haven't heard of anyone using FreeBSD's > VM under NetBSD (did you?). Yes; I have a tape with a DEC Alpha NetBSD with Jeffrey Hsu's patches to make it work on the 21066/21066A based PCI machines, pre the NetBSD release that could do it, including my FS changes and an older version of the FreeBSD console code, PCAudio driver, and John's VM system. It's on tape because the machines Jeffrey Hsu and I were using for the FreeBSD port were loaners, and had to go back. > > My challenge can be restated as: > > > > "provide conclusive technical arguments pro divergence" > > > > I maintain that there are no good technical reasons for divergence, > > only political ones. > > I agree with you, please don't asume things I haven't said, specially if > you can't see me while we are communicating. You wanted clarification; this is just clarification. I'm not trying to jump down your throat. > I say it's just the way the world works (I don't like it either): it's > faster for both parties to implement what they lack, than to convince > the two teams to unify, in fact we now have three teams! Negotiations are not what make a unification unlikely. If you were here fore the last attempt, or if the list archives archived that discussion, it's possible to find out what the sticking points were. Mostly they were control issues, not "failure to implement desired features" issues. > Of course, it would be very stupid from myself not to admit that we need > to modify our tree following the NetBSD example (BTW, IMO, the best time > to do it is ASAP, can someone illustrate me on what are the clear > objectives behing 3.0-current ?). But we should protect our evolved code > (LKMs and devices) from being swapped because another OS has a prettier > structure than ours. You are talking about a large scale code merge and a restructuring of the build tree. I agree totally, 100%. Restructuring the build tree must occur before the code merge, and therein lies a lot of the problems (political ones) with the idea. Many FreeBSD'er's actively oppose a tree restructuring, siting tool incapacity (it's possible to maintain CVS history if you are willing to use "sed") and other bogus arguments. FreeBSD bystanders: notice I said *code* merge, not *group* merge; there may or may not be a loss of distinctive reasons to maintain seperate groups following a code merge; who cares? ...it's irrelevant to what needs to be done. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. From owner-freebsd-platforms Tue Mar 18 10:07:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA13332 for platforms-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 10:07:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.50]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA13324 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 10:07:20 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id KAA09814; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 10:52:09 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199703181752.KAA09814@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: To share or not share ? (was: Someone working on a SPARC version?) To: toor@dyson.iquest.net (John S. Dyson) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 10:52:09 -0700 (MST) Cc: pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co, terry@lambert.org, jb@cimlogic.com.au, srn@flibble.psrg.cs.usyd.edu.au, freebsd-platforms@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199703180600.BAA02319@dyson.iquest.net> from "John S. Dyson" at Mar 18, 97 01:00:33 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-platforms@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > It is true that the interfaces in the VM system have changed (and are > therefore FreeBSD specific), but those interfaces are part of the > improvements associated with the VM code. Changing the interfaces > isn't all that difficult, and the hardest part about a port of the > VM code is likely the pmap module changes. One really bad thing > about the original VM code is that the pmap code is called lots > and lots of times. We have mitigated that significantly. Yes; the pmap code is the major barrier, especially on RISC processors where the full VM capability is not all in hardware, and requires some software to go with it. This (and the publically undocumented PPCBug) are where my PPC code is currently bogged. Without the PPCBug code, though, I don't have a reliable console, so I've only mentioned this to you once or twice. > Frankly, it is likely that a VM system that performs as well as > the FreeBSD VM code (and I am not making any relative claims here -- > the other *BSDs are making some improvements), is going to require > interface changes relative to the original Lite/2 code. Yes. There are also issues to be considered re: soft updates, if that code is ever brought in. In a unified VM, soft updates at the FS level (as in the Ganger/Patt implementation) will degrade to DOW performance (cv: our other discussion). I'd like to see some incentives for rethinking the soft updates strategy (it would also avoid the code duplication necessary in an incremental, per-FS approach). Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. From owner-freebsd-platforms Tue Mar 18 15:45:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA11462 for platforms-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 15:45:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from apolo.biblos.unal.edu.co ([168.176.37.75]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA11449 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 15:45:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from unalmodem.usc.unal.edu.co (unalmodem16.usc.unal.edu.co [168.176.3.46]) by apolo.biblos.unal.edu.co (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA01471; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 18:31:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <332F4EAD.3A87@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 18:25:49 -0800 From: Pedro Giffuni X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Terry Lambert CC: jb@cimlogic.com.au, srn@flibble.psrg.cs.usyd.edu.au, freebsd-platforms@freebsd.org Subject: Re: To share or not share ? (was: Someone working on a SPARC version?) References: <199703181746.KAA09797@phaeton.artisoft.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-platforms@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Terry Lambert wrote: > > We have the build process for user space which *includes* the build > process for what we call "ports". > You must admit we both see external software (AKA ports) in a different way. Our ports tree is one of our strongest points and is an integral part of our nifty identity. Let's not discuss this anymore, I got your point; if they want our porting subsystem or not is irrelevant, what they don't want is our build tree. > > > > I have also heard that, it is not 386 specific, but rather "FreeBSD > > specific", you're right, but I haven't heard of anyone using FreeBSD's > > VM under NetBSD (did you?). > > Yes; I have a tape with a DEC Alpha NetBSD with Jeffrey Hsu's patches... OK, I take my hat off (no it's not Red :-) ), this sounds interesting. > > > Negotiations are not what make a unification unlikely. If you were > here fore the last attempt, or if the list archives archived that > discussion, it's possible to find out what the sticking points were. > I'm probably not subscribed to the correct list (the "hackers" is a mailstorm with devices going one way or another). But I don't need to be a genius to see the so called unification will never occur; both parties will adopt what they need, using the other system as a reference. > > You are talking about a large scale code merge and a restructuring of > the build tree. I agree totally, 100%. I find the word "merge" big for this situation (of course, I'm also finding out you think BIG). To merge you need two parts joining into one. We will "share", "copy", "adopt" some of their things, but they will not adopt our things and if they do, the resulting systems will be different. To be more specific, we want our PC devices like they are right now (or with very slight, trivial changes). It is not clear how this would change if the build tree changes. On NetBSD the devices suffered this effects so would have to face it sooner or later. > ... Restructuring the build tree must occur before the code merge,.. > I agree, if we try both at the same time we would end up replicating and duplicating NetBSD. > FreeBSD bystanders: notice I said *code* merge, not *group* merge; there This is an important distinction: even if we were using the same code (like we once were) I see a group merge very distant. So ..what goes on? Should we leave the reshuffle for 20.0-current? Pedro. > > Regards, > Terry Lambert > terry@lambert.org > --- > Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present > or previous employers. From owner-freebsd-platforms Tue Mar 18 16:55:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA18620 for platforms-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 16:55:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.50]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA18615 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 16:55:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id RAA11003; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 17:41:52 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199703190041.RAA11003@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: To share or not share ? (was: Someone working on a SPARC version?) To: pgiffuni@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co (Pedro Giffuni) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 17:41:52 -0700 (MST) Cc: terry@lambert.org, jb@cimlogic.com.au, srn@flibble.psrg.cs.usyd.edu.au, freebsd-platforms@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <332F4EAD.3A87@fps.biblos.unal.edu.co> from "Pedro Giffuni" at Mar 18, 97 06:25:49 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-platforms@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > You are talking about a large scale code merge and a restructuring of > > the build tree. I agree totally, 100%. > > I find the word "merge" big for this situation (of course, I'm also > finding out you think BIG). To merge you need two parts joining into > one. We will "share", "copy", "adopt" some of their things, but they > will not adopt our things and if they do, the resulting systems will be > different. > > To be more specific, we want our PC devices like they are right now (or > with very slight, trivial changes). It is not clear how this would > change if the build tree changes. On NetBSD the devices suffered this > effects so would have to face it sooner or later. I think it would benefit Alpha and PPC based bxes with PCI and other "PC-like" busses. This is what Gassee meant when he said "the PC clone organ bank" with reference to the design of the BeBox. > So ..what goes on? Should we leave the reshuffle for 20.0-current? A CVS guru needs to move the CVS tree contents around without losing the history. The next step ought to be giving such a guru carte blanche, after deciding how the multiplatform FreeBSD tree should look (I have no problem with using the NetBSD or OpenBSD model, which is why I phrased it as an afterthought). Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.