| |||||||||||
Apples, oranges and BSDsApples, oranges and BSDsPosted Jan 2, 2006 15:30 UTC (Mon) by eru (subscriber, #2753)In reply to: Widely ported, sure. by ncm Parent article: NetBSD 3.0 Muddying the comparison about porting is additionally at least one more thing: When NetBSD (or any of the other BSDs) is considered ported, you don't get just a kernel. You also get the basic userland sufficient to run at least traditional text mode unix sessions. In other words you get what in Linux terms would be a minimalistic but usable distro. In Linux you still have to work on the userland after getting the kernel running. What would the comparison look like if this is taken into account, and we looked at comparable ported configurations? (I have no idea, just asking)
(Log in to post comments)
Apples, oranges and BSDs Posted Jan 6, 2006 5:16 UTC (Fri) by roelofs (subscriber, #2599) [Link] In Linux you still have to work on the userland after getting the kernel running.Actually, once the kernel is there--which implicitly means GCC is--userspace stuff is relatively trivial. X is about the only "standard" thing that comes to mind as potentially difficult, and that only because it has its own drivers. If your kernel port includes a framebuffer and USB (at least USB keyboard/mouse), even X is pretty straightforward. The biggest hiccups actually come when you try to cross-compile things, but that has nothing to do with any given kernel, and it can be mitigated by getting a native filesystem and toolchain set up early. Greg
|
|||||||||||