Re: Mac68K BSD options

[Mike Comb <mcomb_(_at_)_uop_(_dot_)_cs_(_dot_)_uop_(_dot_)_edu>]

>> The major problem with both is that no one seems particularly interested in
>> getting them to work on most 68040 chips (not that this affects you).
>> Sorry for the sarcasm, I am just getting sick of waiting for someone to get
>> some sort of un*x working for my processor (68LC040 actually).  Anybody
>> know if anybody is working on it and when they might get something working?
>
>Well, instead waiting, why don't you take a lot a what's involved in getting
>the mac68k port to work with that particular implementation?
>
>It is OpenBSD - contribute good stuff and it tends to be accepted, with
>requests for more of the same.

If I knew more than a little C and/or anything usefull about Mac hardware I
would, as it stands I wouldn't know where to begin.

>The fundmental problem is that there are more architectures to work on
>than there are core developers with time for them, and unless you happen
>to have a commitment to Mac hardware, the higher performance and 64-bit
>risc architecures are going to captivate the prime interests and resources
>of those folks.

I know.

>It is close to unreasonable to expect people to devote large amounts of
>effort to maintaining architecutures that they don't have any personal
>commitment to - the user community for that archtecture has to sprout
>some people willing/able to make the effort...
>
I know, sorry for sounding demanding, but I have been watching this mailing
list (and others on the topic) for about 6 months know and have seen a
grand total of 4 or 5 messages pertaining to MacBSD (none on the '040) and
I am begining to wonder if any progress is being made.  Unfortunately, I
fall into the willing but not particularly able catagory.

Mike


"DOS Computers manufactured by companies such as IBM, Compaq, Tandy, and
millions of others are by far the most popular, with about 70 million
machines in use wordwide. Macintosh fans, on the other hand, may note that
cockroaches are far more numerous than humans, and that numbers alone do
not denote a higher life form."
      (New York Times, November 26, 1991)