On the freebsd-ppc mailing list Peter Graham has announced the availability of the first minimal install ISO of FreeBSD CURRENT for PPC (Make sure you’re a power user with nerves of steel and read the blurb.
On the freebsd-ppc mailing list Peter Graham has announced the availability of the first minimal install ISO of FreeBSD CURRENT for PPC (Make sure you’re a power user with nerves of steel and read the blurb.
I thought they’d given up on PPC a long time ago – GOOD WORK!
I’ve been looking forward to this.
Now if someone would update the FreeBSD/ppc Project Homepage
http://www.freebsd.org/platforms/ppc.html
…
PS: posting this from a NetBSD/ppc box 🙂
This was the only platform missing. FreeBSD runs on most hardware now.
Err, yeah apart from the most powerful general purpose CPU in existance today – the POWER5.
IMO, the PPC64 architecture is only becoming more important. PPC is getting less interesting outside embedded circles.
Oh, and of course “most hardware”, you mean “most pc/workstation class hardware” right?
I mean, ARM, MIPS, M68K, etc. embedded processors outweigh the number of pc/server processors in the world.
So you could say NetBSD runs on most hardware, but it is a bit of a stretch to say the same about FreeBSD.
I’ll try this on my old lombard
On your marks, get set, go!
Yeah~ It didn’t appeared in the radar but show up just when it is already compiled into a CD not a CVS!
If someone were to put on another OS on the machine why would they look at FreeBSD? did you look at the readme file?, FreeBSD on the PPC platform is quite limited in terms of functionality and compatibility, and undoubtedly lead people back to something that works well with there hardware, in this case GNU/Linux.
I don’t think it’s about using one OS over another.
FreeBSD runs on most hardware now.
This isn’t really a release, considering the sparse hardware support. And it’s not like a B+W G3 is exactly a moving target.
The fact of the matter is that FreeBSD’s portability isn’t very good at all. The slow progress of the PPC port (it’s been coming real soon now for a long time), and the abandonment of Alpha shows that. The hackish, x86-only nature of FreeBSD is catching up to it. From the performance benchmarks that show NetBSD 2.0 outdoing FreeBSD 5, to the scheduler and SMP-NG problems….
FreeBSD has big problems right now, and its supporters aren’t admitting it.
NetBSD, OpenBSD, and Linux all run very well on PPC with much better hardware support. I’d imagine their performance is better too.
This also might shut up the trolls who say that OSX is running a FreeBSD kernel — Darwin looks nothing like FreeBSD under-the-hood. The userland is pretty much identical, yes, but that’s more a tribute to the portibility of the userland applications than the system as a whole.
FreeBSD runs on most hardware now.
FreeBSD rules, but this statement could be misleading.
FreeBSD chose to focalize on a few architectures, and provide a feature-rich OS on them – and they’re doing it quite successfully:
Nearly 2.5 Million Active Sites running FreeBSD (July 2004)
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/06/07/nearly_25_million_acti…
“[FreeBSD] has secured a strong foothold with the hosting community and continues to grow, gaining over a million hostnames and half a million active sites since July 2003.”
Please be accurate. Making inaccurate statements is an invitation to FUD-spreading trolls, or GNU/Linux advocates (you often can use the two expressions interchangeably).
why did it take so long if darwin is based on freebsd? Doesn’t that mean apple already had it working? Not sure if i’m right though someone please explain it to me.
I clicked, thinking PPC as in Pocket PC. That would have been more interesting.
Darwin is not on a FreeBSD kernel.