On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 ken@net5.co.jp wrote:

> > A NetBSD server doesn't really make much sense either... a 4.4BSD-Lite
> > server has already been done; Lites.
> 
> If Lites can run NetBSD binaries, then I agree.  I don't want to have
> to have two separate binaries for every program I use... :-)

Binary compatibility - probably  x86 only... and certainly not on
the Powermacs (no NetBSD port as of yet to be compatible with).

Chances are Lites and NetBSD would be similar enough for binary
compatibility, but just because they're both BSD's, and run each other's
programs, that doesn't make them the same OS.

Speaking of binaries... what about NetBSD-powerpc binaries?  Any chance of
inherent native binary compatibility without all sorts of hell?  What
sections of the arch-specific code describe binary formats?

Yes lites exists, no, I've never heard of anyone using it.  I think
the NetBSD name and affiliation of a server would actually make it
competitive against Linux, especially if the installation were simple
enough.  With some work, I'd say it would be possible to make Mach3 handle
the NetBSD style ufs (or is it ffs?) file system, and then you could use
the existing mac68k mac-side stuff (mkfs, installer), far more mature than
the stuff with MkLinux for powermac.

Of course support for other Mach systems would be as easy as a recompile,
not counting figuring out installation for 'em, but....  The filesystem
support has its own difficulties.  Still, it could be done.

I'm starting to pull the Lites sources to serve as a base for interfacing
procedures.  Wish me luck.

Later,

 /---------------------------------------------------------------------\
|David A. Gatwood             And Richard Cory, one calm summer night,  |
|davagatw@mars              Went home and put a bullet through his head.|
|dgatwood@nyx.cs.du.edu              --Edwin Arlington Robinson         |
|http://mars.utm.edu/~davagatw -or- http://nox.cs.du.edu:8001/~dgatwood |
 \---------------------------------------------------------------------/