Good. Anyways, the point is that there are sources available *now*
for people to look at if they are interested in an HP-PA port. No
need to wait for the OSF guys to release their code.
Probably, the reason we don't have an HP-PA port is because there are
not many people interested in it: the source code for mach4/hppa has
been there since at least 2 years. Compare this to the Linux/SPARC
effort: there is little or no information for most SPARC hardware, and
still the SPARC port is now even shipped by Red Hat.
> As for native ports, Theo de Raadt apparently plans a port of OpenBSD
> to PA (see http://www.openbsd.org/hppa.html). AFAIK, this is the only
> effort in this direction.
Well, he has been planning that port for at least one year now :-).
But nobody has even attempted to do the port. And OpenBSD is probably
the most easy to port OS nowadays (and before someone tells me ``Linux
is easier to port'': OpenBSD, is ported to more architectures in a
single tree than any single other OS -including the userland- and to
do a port to an old machine, they usually can grab most of the code
from an old BSD port that is out there on the net waiting to be
merged, like the case of the IBM/RT port).
> Mach 6 supports HP-UX 9, Mach 7.2 does HP-UX 10 as well. They claim
> to be actually *faster* than HP-UX, at least compared to
> 9.0x.
Oops. That does not speak of Mach being good, but rather than hp-ux
is rather poor. Hope Stephen is not reading me. I like the idea of
having the microkernel version of Linux around, since it may prove to
be a useful thing for debugging kernels, but hopefully a monolithic
version will be available as well.
Cheers,
Miguel.