NetBSD on StrongARM Handhelds 61
sparcv9 writes "The
NetBSD Team announced today the offical start of the
NetBSD/hpcarm
port of their multi-platform OS. This port runs on
StrongARM-based handheld PCs. So far, the HP
Jornada 720 and the Compaq
iPAQ H3600 are supported. With this port hot on the heels of the
SH3/4-based hpcsh
port and last year's
MIPS-based hpcmips
port, it looks like NetBSD could give Linux a run for its money in the
handheld arena."
Re:Hi (Score:3)
http://www.netbsd.org/Goals/portability.html [netbsd.org]
http://www.netbsd.org/Goals/system.html [netbsd.org]
To conclude, it's not as much work to add a port as one might think, and except in the (less common) cases of working with MD code, you improve one port and you improve them all.
yopy (Score:1)
Re:So, it's a good thing? (Score:1)
YES, it's a good thing!.. Now back under the F#$%ing bridge where you belong..
I know you're a narrow minded TROLL, and I'm sure after reading this note, that everyone else will see that as well.. However, I'm not sure how many people realize that this particular TROLL is an Open Source Initiative Board Member...
I don't really see the point... (Score:1)
Instead, why not build an open source OS for these devices specifically designed for them using GNU tools for example so that these things can live up to their name: be a digital assistant.
Re:Embedded market prefers GPL (Score:1)
BSD License is good for Companies that want to subsidize the writing of their proprietary products (but building on BSD code). This is a 'TAKE' relationship with 'Community Coders'.
GPL License is good for Everyone that wants better code. This is a GIVE *AND* TAKE relationship between 'Community Coders' and Capitalists.
Very fundamental differences. I for one have no desire to do grunt coding (daemons and reference implementations) for For Profit Agencies who are unwilling to operate in a relationship where I am a peer. What is the value to me where I slave on the backend - they market a front end and get rich? *AHEM*MACOSX*AHEM*
The BSD license is like shooting yourself in the foot. There is nothing wrong with the code - credit to the BSD camp and all - but I cant understand why they would be motivated to work to subsidize Proprietary (/Closed) Software Products.
Re:Wrong (Score:1)
Re:Your bases? (Score:1)
Re:So, it's a good thing? (Score:2)
BSD predates Linux. Why do Linux in the first place? Why didn't people get behind BSD back in its early days? Why dilute the effort? Why let big companies scare people off?
Come on Russ. That's a rather narrow and myopic view of things. Competition between *BSD and Linux has been one of the driving forces that has made both of them better over the years. Linux would be better at Y for a while, then BSD would leap from them and then Linux would leap frog BSD. Back and forth because of competition. I don't think that it would have made as much progress as it has (either of them) if it wasn't for the other's presence.
Not to mention the fact that *BSD predates the well heeled enemies of free software. There's a lot of momentum in the *BSD community and just because MS or other folks want to shut Linux down is not a good reason for *BSD to abandon their systems to rally behind Linux.
Re:So, it's a good thing? (Score:2)
You know Windoze isn't free. Why troll?
-russ
Re:So, it's a good thing? (Score:1)
And gee, we already have windows on the desktop, why even bothering trying to create another desktop OS? After all, that'd just split the developer community as well?
Free software isn't about competing with proprietary software (in my eyes). It's about people volunteering to work on projects which trully interest them. Whether or not those projects compete with proprietary software is another story...
Re:So, it's a good thing? (Score:2)
Linux has too many schisms to be throwing stones at anybody about schisms. Oh, wait, they use newspeak "distributions" to mask that fact. And arguments that there is only one kernel, like the kernel is the only part of the system that matters.
Re:So, it's a good thing? (Score:2)
-russ
Application Protection, License Costs, Networking (Score:2)
But the real benefit of using a Real Operating System instead of Yet Another Broken Program Loader With No Memory Protection is that providing decent memory protection lets applications trust that they'll be safe from other applications, instead of getting their memory scribbled. This means that you don't have to worry about your calendar getting scribbled when you install Clone Wars, and if Foobie App crashes and dies horribly, you don't need to worry about your machine rebooting - you just garbage-collect the dead app and everything else is fine.
It's not like a Real Operating System requires huge amounts of resources - Unix ran just fine on a PDP-11, and a Palm Pilot looks suspiciously like a Sun-1 with a smaller screen and no disk, or like an early Macintosh. The real issue is whether you want something like a file system, in which case Unix is a fine choice, or whether you want an OS that's built out of persistent objects like some of the Psion or Newton OSs.
Re:So, it's a good thing? (Score:2)
-russ
Re:So, it's a good thing? (Score:1)
No explanation why anyone should believe you are correct. Who's the troll here?
Correct on which account? That the continuing work on BSD is beneficial, that you're spouting a very narrow minded, "Linux is the answer to everything!", view of the world, or that your an OSI board member?
The OSI board member is on your page: http://www.russnelson.com/ in the post header. The narrow minded comment is an opinion. As far as I know, there is currently no way to quantitative means to measure the extent of one's open or close mindedness. So I guess you must be referring to the issue of whether this is a good thing or not..
The way I see it, NetBSD (or any OS), has just a much right to the developer, and user, pool as Linux. If a couple NetBSD developers decided to port an OS that they use, and feel comfortable / productive with, then how can this be a bad thing? I wonder how useful linux, or *BSD, will be on a PDA, but that's not really the issue here is it? Nope, I'm assuming you're upset about the liscensing issues of BSD, or maybe you're just too blind to realize that linux is not always the best choice... I know that's akin to heresy around these parts, so I'll wrap this up, but before I go, do us all a big favor and grow up!
By the way.. I doubt there'd be a whole lot of disagreement among the readers if I reiterated my earlier assertion that YOU are the TROLL!
Re:So, it's a good thing? (Score:2)
There was a time when Linus was billing Linux as "probably only ever going to run on x86". With this in mind, why would the BSD developers want to abandon their cross-platform base for something intended to be x86-only? Why would we want them to?
Further, a big advantage of NetBSD (_especially_ on non-x86) is that it's maintained such that commonly shareable parts (eg, device drivers) are coded in a cross-platform manner. Each port has an individual responsible for it, who makes sure that the platform-specific stuff gets into CVS for that port. Once that occurs, future releases of NetBSD have the code already integrated. The alternative with Linux? Maintain a seperate source tree, and get the joy of needing to fold in updates upon each new kernel release. Maybe if your political skills are good enough and you jump through the right hoops, you can get your changes and additions integrated into the upstream release. Maybe not.
The point is - duplication of effort of maintaining a seperate tree of Linux is undertaken for many non-x86 platforms. From what I can tell, there is much less duplication of effort resulting from applying these efforts to a single, unified tree in NetBSD.
In my personal experience (on Alpha), the Linux distribution support was dodgy. NetBSD, on the other hand, is solid. It really shows that the Alpha port is a first-class citizen. Needless to say, I am very pleased with NetBSD's handling of cross-platform releases.
The reaon we need more than one free Unix is that we have different ideas of what's important. Linux wants to focus on x86 (and possibly on transmeta), and being able support every filesystem and PCI card known to man on that platform. FreeBSD aims to be a hardcore x86 server OS (and has succeeded, IMHO). NetBSD wants to run (and run well) on every platform under the sun. OpenBSD wants security w/o compromise. Who gets to decide which group is wrong, and who decides what the One True Way is?
Btw, I'm not knocking Linux - I use Linux Mandrake on my workstation and love it. I use NetBSD, OpenBSD and FreeBSD on servers and love them too. Each has its own strengths, and I am quite happy to have luxury of applying them accordingly.
Re:Work with Newton? (Score:2)
but then, IANAD (i'm not a developer) so i could be completely wrong, in which case, i'd love to see a full-on BSD running in my hand with a half-VGA-sized 4-bit grey screen with two PCMCIA card slots, built-in serial, and sound-in and -out support...
Re:So, it's a good thing? (Score:2)
So why is {Free,Net,Open,Foobar}BSD able to use the same code for free? Is it somehow not free software? Obviously not. If BSDi paid for a license, then they did so for business reasons, not because the code wasn't free.
-russ
Re:Wrong (Score:1)
The "you can keep the changes private" matra is tired and shown to be bullshit. The GPL forces companies to cooperate,
Wrong. The GPL did not force the Virgin Webplayer to release its code under the GPL.
10,000 embedded linux boxes shipped...no source. In fact, the license PROHIBITED disassembly of the machine or code.
Re:Schisims? (Score:1)
I've been looking for that link for a long time. The last time I haerd about the total number of linux distros, it was 185. But with all the linux companies going titsup.com, I thought it would go down.
again, thanks for the link!
Re:Application Protection, License Costs, Networki (Score:1)
Now HERE is a good reason for an open OS.
If I developed code for a Newton, and then the project gets Steved, I can smile and say:
-10061 error? Got that fixed.
No more hardware from Apple? Look. Ported over to the Psion hardware. Or the Cassiopia.
Open Sourced OSes protect us from vendors tanking our development platform.
Schisims? (Score:2)
Linux has 'the embedded people' the 'ppc people' the 'alpha people' and IBM's 'big iron people' all with seperate kernals, because they can't get their changes blessed by one man, Linus.
Linux has developers wanting to stop Linus being the controller of the changes to the kernel to prevent long delays and so they can introduce CVS control of the kernel.
Thoes are the few that pop to the TOP of my head. Now, care to provide more than a one line claim that "BSD has too many of its own schisims"? Care to document what *YOU* see as a schism?
Re:All your platform... (Score:1)
NetBSD: All your platform are belong to us.
(or NetBSD: All your architecture are belong to us.)
Re:Unix on PDA's is a joke surely? (Score:1)
Ultimate game handheld? (Score:1)
So, it's a good thing? (Score:1)
I just don't understand *BSD*. No part of it. Well, okay, I understand BSDi. Everybody wants to make money off free software. But I don't understand why we need more than one Unix. It's not like free software doesn't have enemies. Well-heeled enemies. Who have discovered the power of government the hard way. Fortunately, we have dodged a bullet in Maryland thanks to Redhat's lobbying efforts. But there will be many more legislative efforts thrown our way.
-russ
Re:Your bases? (Score:1)
Why? (Score:2)
So, if you have a palmtop running a Unix variant, what do you use it for?
Re:Hello Gentlemen! (Score:1)
Maybe so (it doesn't violate the license). But try it with Linux and you're GPLed ;-)
--
What's the point? (Score:1)
If you think Micro$loth has made the PDA a "toy" then you haven't seen a Unix (ie clone) powered pda have you? No PDA has an adaquate interface to make frequently using one feasable - and that's withOUT a Unixclone running on it. Put Unix on there (even worse interface even w/ X) and you've got yourself an expensive paper-weight.
(Take none of this for fact - it's just my opinion)
Which good technical reason to make a choice? (Score:1)
Re:Wrong (Score:4)
You couldn't be more wrong. Nobody wants to reset their palm PC and lose all their data. Typically the software on this type of machines is running continually. The machine is suspended rather than turned off. Because of this, stability is a very strong requirement.
Another important requirement that is also associated with BSD is security. Consider the following scenario: I walk into the office of my companies largest competitor. I'm carrying a PDA containing very sensitive data. The PDA is equiped with a bluetooth chip (high bandwidth) and I turn the thing on to make notes in my agenda. Tell me security is not important here
All I'm trying to say here is that some of the qualities that make BSD so suitable for servers are also required in a PDA.
Of course there are some limitations as well (memory, speed), but then pda's are generally equiped with faster processors and more memory than some PC's still running BSD in many offices.
As for world domination of the OS. That is an old centralistic view of world. In the modern view a hetrogenous network of all sorts of devices and services replaces it. The OS kernel is pretty much irrelevant as long as the programs running on top of it behave well and follow industry standards. I don't care whether slashdot runs on IIS or Apache, as long as I get the content in a reasonable time I'm happy.
Re:So, it's a good thing? (Score:1)
*>>>But I don't understand why we need more than one Unix.
Fine, then drop linux... BSD is descended directly from the Dennis Ritchie/Ken Thompson ATT Unix.
And as other users already pointed out, BSD and Linux can occupy similar but different niches, and they get along pretty good too. Plus, how many people are really going to WANT to run BSD on their PDA? Most people looking for CE alternatives isn't likely to jump on the hardcore techie train, and that's what BSD really is from the userland pov.
Maybe someone will choose BSD over linux for the right reasons in the future, and the people who benefit from that choice wil be glad the tool existed. Thats what this is about. Choice. Don't knock it when you've got it. Ditto on the best code winning.
Re:Embedded market prefers GPL (Score:1)
Many (I hesitate to say most) companies contribute fixes they don't consider IP back to the BSD community.
It's just too expensive to continue to maintain your own version of a particular utility.
"GPL License is good for Everyone that wants better code. This is a GIVE *AND* TAKE relationship between 'Community Coders' and Capitalists."
Hmmm. If this is the case, Linux must have better code than any of the BSDs. I've read good portions of the Linux and BSD (all common flavors) source. It's my opinion the opposite is true. Why do you think this is??
"Very fundamental differences. I for one have no desire to do grunt coding (daemons and reference implementations) for For Profit Agencies who are unwilling to operate in a relationship where I am a peer. What is the value to me where I slave on the backend - they market a front end and get rich? *AHEM*MACOSX*AHEM*"
First off, MACOSX hasn't made Apple a dime. Second off, Apple has made contributions back to the community. Third, many of the companies developing these "front ends" do significant work on the backends as well. Finally, I've always felt this objection is ridiculously arrogant and stupid--most of us have shit that stinks. The *overwhelming* majority of stuff isn't worth stealing.
"The BSD license is like shooting yourself in the foot. There is nothing wrong with the code - credit to the BSD camp and all - but I cant understand why they would be motivated to work to subsidize Proprietary (/Closed) Software Products."
Because this subsidization helps them in their day jobs. Or, in many cases, it *is* their day job.
Re:So, it's a good thing? (Score:2)
How about making OPEN SOURCE OSes a better choice? That way BSD, GNU/Linux and others *ALL* benefit?
So, it's a good thing to split the developer community? To divide already thin resources?
If you develop under a BSD license *EVERYONE*, be they GPL or BSDed OSes can benefit. Picking the GPL is exclusionary of BSD. The GPL is the divider, the BSD license is the unifier.
As Bruce Perens said at TheBazzar "The great thing with the new 2 clause BSD license is you can put the GPL on it and protect the code"
I just don't understand *BSD*. No part of it. Well, okay, I understand BSDi. Everybody wants to make money off free software.
No, you do *NOT* understand BSDi.
BSDi's unmerged older self paid for an AT&T source license so they could market BSD/OS.
If the goal of selling a closed-source version for BSD-BSD/OS using Open Source code, then why did they buy the AT&T license? I look forward to your answer to this question Mr. Nelson.
Re:Applications (Score:2)
Are you kidding? You're talking about open source software here. Microsoft syas it wil stifle innovation and it's bad for the software industry, and I believe them.
Re:So, it's a good thing? (Score:1)
Re:What's the point? (Score:1)
From the users perspective, yes. However, by porting unix to the PDA, they have opened a door for other developers. I bet someone is already working to get a better user interface to run on this. Thus the product improves and eventually the new architecture becomes useable. Much as unix on the PC. The introduction of better interfaces has expanded the popularity of unix to the desktop. I'm sure the same will happen for palm and handheld computers. This is just the beginning of a project, not the end.
Work with Newton? (Score:1)
Will this port work on this puppy?
James
Re:*BSD is dying (Score:1)
Hopefully Jornada 820's are coming next (Score:2)
Re:Wrong (Score:1)
Like Newtonian physics? I mean, driving a car around behaves the laws of Newtonian physics, but the fact of the matter is, Newton didn't have it right.
Linux rules, not BSD
There are more systems currently running BSD and BSD-derived code today than there are Linux. Something to think about, no? (Remember, there is BSD code in Linux, so proof of only one BSD system shows this is true.)
I want one. (Score:2)
I'd love a Unix PDA, but I don't want it to be such a struggle. Hopefully someone will come up with a 'chipped' PDA that is 100% unix-friendly.
Re:So, it's a good thing? (Score:2)
Free/Net/Open are now based off the 4.4BSD Lite release. This was the release that Novell agreed to stop the litigation on.
BSD/OS has roots to 4.3BSD Net/2. For BSDI to have sold BSD based Unix, they had to pay for it.
Now you have been educated. (and I'm sure if I have a detail wrong, someone will point out where I'm wrong with a link or 2.)
Your use of the words free software, are you using the definition of RMS, Bruce Perens, or some special 'Russ' version? If you are using the RMS definition, no code is 'free' until a GPL has been slapped on it. In such a 'free == GPL' world, all you are doing is trolling here because BSD based systems do not have a GPL license and are therefore not 'free'. "we" can't discuss this until YOU define your words.
I do note that you did not respond to my point about Open Source and the use of a BSD license does not cause the divide you so bitterly complain about. (As you stated "To divide already thin resources") Why is that? I've offered up a simple solution to 'healing' the 'divide'...a place where code can benefit both the BSD and Linux projects. Are you in agreement then, and you now understand what you did not understand before about BSD? Can the community, newly healed with the revelation about how the BSD license conserves effort you so badly want conserved, look forward to you re-licensing all your code under a BSD-style license?
Re:So, it's a good thing? (Score:3)
But I don't understand why we need more than one Unix.
BSD was around before Linux. So using your logic, tell me again why Linux should exist. Why is choice among different operating systems a good thing according to you, yet choice among different Unix operating systems a bad thing? Because it splits development efforts you say. So I guess choices among licenses for developers is bad according to you also? So much for your "...choice is a good thing."
[hypothetical]
I don't understand Ford. No part of it. I don't understand why we need more than one american motor company. Its not like the american motor industry doesn't have enemies. Yes choice is a good thing. People can already choose between Chevrolet and Toyota. We could make Chevrolet a stronger choice, or we could make the two american car companies weaker choices.
[/hypothetical]
Understand now? Probably not. At least understand this: don't dicatate to me which Unix to use or develop for, no matter for whatever noble reason. For you to do so would be no better than Microsoft dictating to me which version of Windows to use. Its the very same mentality, and to see it expressed by open-source advocates saddens me.
Re:Schisims? (Score:1)
Unix on PDA's is a joke surely? (Score:1)
But full Unix on a PDA, no real point.
Did somebody say 'bloated'?
PDA's need a PDA OS
try Inferno http://www.vitanuova.com
coming soon to an IPAQ near you
Re:YOU ARE Wrong (Score:2)
Portable platforms have much wider applications than handhelds. The same hardware is quite often used in ATMs, ticket sellers, etc. And there the stability and portability of an enterprise class Unix OS makes sense.
In other words when was the last time you have seen a bluescreened WinCE ATM terminal. I saw one this morning...
And NetBSD on hardware originally designed for WinCE is already giving linux a run for its money more specifically in industrial applications.
Uh (Score:1)
Applications (Score:3)
- Ports are relatively easy and mechanical to do
- It opens the platform to a variety of applications
- It generates "cross pollination" of ideas.
- It gives consumer choice
Generally, the big benefit to this will be the broadening of the application base. Further, it will allow the Linux / NetBSD ports to compare against each other leading to innovation and performance tuning.A good thing.
Re:Wrong (Score:1)
competition is good (Score:2)
Depending on the current market positioning, it would make sense that you would look at your nearest rivals first, compared to the others in the field.
Even if they happen to be "family"
Of course, there are always other options and other games you could play. But this gets back to the zero-sum game discussions we have had around here over the past few weeks.
Delays (Score:2)
Wrong (Score:2)
That's all very well, but giving Linux a run for its money is not really the right aim. You should be aiming to become number one OS, not number 12, but beating some other OS.
The thing here is that NetBSD has no advantages in the handheld arena - things like server-class stability are largely irrelevant, whereas more important things such as suitability for the purpose (one of the custom-built OS), or a familiar interface (as with Windows CE) are key factors.
It seems bizarre to do this - to boast that one version of a server OS (Unix), might beat another (which it won't incidentally, since Linux has considerable marketing advantages) - it's like saying that Sun OS will beat IRIX or WindowsNT in the handheld arena - potentially true, but largely irrelevant - you are just saying that of the two tiny server OSs, one has more; it's true, but the numbers are so small it doesn't matter.
--
Embedded market prefers GPL (Score:2)
Cheers,
Tomas
===========
Re:"Your base.." is from The Simpsons (Score:1)
Re:Your bases? (Score:1)
Holy Wars (Score:2)
This is great (Score:1)
I cant wait to see what kind of innovations can come of this....The PDA could very well become a device of necessity instead of the toy microsoft has doomed it to be.
*nix/BSD on handheld, no.. but on H/PC? (Score:2)
The utility of these ports on BSD/Linux I can't really see (yet), given that much of the market is dominated by pretty low powered hardware (a la palm), and there isn't much of a need (imho) to duplicate the amazing job that Palm has done on PalmOS and in contributing to the developer community (Free tools rock, and the app base keeps them dominant). Lots of people would see differently, hey, whatever keeps you entertained!
The real use of these guys is on the HPC units like the HP 620 that have keyboards and large, high-res color screens. I'd love to replace my Sony Vaio with a HPC device from HP (long ago, I had a 100LX, and loved it). The keyboard lets me do more stuff - write code, the screen is big enough for X, etc. Windows CE is crap, though, and I can't (ever) see running it.
Good luck to these guys, and I hope I can get a full-fledged 1lb linux machine to code on soon :). Hoping someone releases a ultra-thin metal cased transmeta based unit a 8.5" x 11" form factor. That'd be sweet. CPU isn't as much as an issue as the ability to code for 6 hours on a charge, and not weigh down my backpack with batteries!
Competition is a Good Thing (Score:2)
And may the best code win.