On Sat, 12 Feb 2000, Colin Wood wrote:

> while i've got to agree that writing anything on mac68k is a bit
> difficult, i've got to disagree about the floppy [and EASC
> sound] drivers.

You're totally right that I understated the quality of our port in an
effort to make a point, and shouldn't have done that.  It's really kind of
frightening (if you are a fascist hardware manufacturer like Apple or
Sony) what NetBSD developers _have_ figured out.  And my MacII does indeed
beep already, even without the bleeding-edge sound drivers you've got in
progress.

The main point is that when Apple says in their user's groups,
commercials, presentations, whatever, that they are an ``open
architecture,'' what they mean is that you can use cheap PeeCee
peripherals with Mac's because they've arranged to provide the right plugs
on the machine and the right closed-source drivers.

There is nothing at all ``open'' about their architecture.  Everything
besides MacOS that runs on their stuff still happens only after months of
blood/sweat/tears.  Their position is very clearly that they don't want
anything but MacOS running on their computers. The BeOS does not run on
any Macintosh that shipped with a G3, nor on any powerbook, because Apple
won't release specs.  Be proves that it's not a matter of NDA or
insufficient developer resources--it's Apple. Now that they have so much
freedom to create hardware-churn with UniNorth, we can expect this
strategy to become a blazing success, unless something changes quick.

In the mean time, projects like Linux with hoards of developers banging
their heads against the wall are going to be more successful at
reverse-engineering Apple's tricks and trap-doors than we are. And people
will blame the lack of drivers on NetBSD, when it's really Apple's fault
for not giving us fair access to the specs.  This probably applies more to
macppc than mac68k, though.

-- 
Miles Nordin / v:+1 720 841-8308 fax:+1 530 579-8680
555 Bryant Street PMB 182 / Palo Alto, CA 94301-1700 / US