Talk:NetBSD

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citation?[edit]

Is there some citation for this:

"In comparison, Linux device driver code often needs to be reworked for every new architecture. As a consequence, in recent porting efforts by NetBSD and Linux developers, NetBSD has taken much less time to port to new hardware."

?

According to my knowledge well-written Linux driver will work on most relevant architectures without any architecure dependent code.

--- Ondrej Zajicek

This comes from the Wasabi Systems white paper cited in the next paragraph. Admittedly, not a strictly NPOV reference. Letdorf 10:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I've updated the article to tie the white paper to this statement as well as the original. RossPatterson 22:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion appears to have started in 2007, nowadays looking through Linux drivers I've found no evidence any adjustments are made to make them run on different architectures and platforms. 46.228.91.90 (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Toaster[edit]

I'm tempted to add a link to the article about running NetBSD on a toaster, but that'd probably just be too silly. --Maru 05:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

Since I am one of the people overhauling the OpenBSD article, I feel slightly obligated to update the history of NetBSD, at least up to the schism between Theo and the NetBSD core. If noone does it before OpenBSD becomes worthy of featuredom then I suppose I will add that history-bit in myself. I won't be doing anything from that point on however, so if anyone reading this knows NetBSD's history after that and they can start adding that information in now and that'd be just peachy. Janizary 05:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

I'm quite keen to expand the History section, including descriptions of various milestones in the development of NetBSD, using contemporary USENET postings, the NetBSD CVS repository etc. as sources. If anybody else was planning to do something similar imminently, please let me know.

PS. Yeah, I'd mention the toaster :-)

Letdorf 23:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When'd NetBSD start?[edit]

Can someone add a starting date to the first paragraph? I would do it myself, but the article isn't clear on what the starting date is. The only clue I found in the article was that it says the first release (0.8) was in April, 1993. It doesn't have to be specific, but noting even the year would be great. Gronky 19:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • That may be sensitive under the UC Berkeley / USL lawsuit settlement. I will ask original core members. Georgewilliamherbert 00:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The introduction is misleading. As mentioned in the references, NetBSD came first, not second. FreeBSD started a few months later.

"The FreeBSD group was formed a few months after the NetBSD group". I will correct the intro. http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/opensources/book/kirkmck.html --Damien.b (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about Citrus?[edit]

What about Citrus added to NetBSD? It's not mentioned in the article and is very interesting stuff to be mentioned and explained into the article and the relation with NetBSD.

"Oldest open source OS"?[edit]

I don't think this claim can be justified: GNU predates NetBSD and is arguably still active (albeit with Hurd development at a very low level). Linux also predates NetBSD (although, strictly speaking, only a kernel) and if MINIX is considered an older open-source OS (even through it's only been open-source since 2000) then so is Solaris, which dates back to 1992. Letdorf 12:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see a GNU operating system, there are plenty of GNU userland tools, but no functioning operating system, let alone anything based on the original attempts by the GNU to make one. There are plenty of Linux and GNU operating systems, but that's a different thing. I'll agree the claim was POV bubcus, but it is probably the longest running one that has been developed open source, from 93 to now is more than 12 years. Janizary 06:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Minix was always open source, just not for commercial use. The terminology shifted around more than a bit since it debuted. Georgewilliamherbert 07:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmmm.....here's what Andy Tanenbaum said in the "MINIX Info Sheet" (regarding MINIX 1.5) circa 1995:
11. LEGAL STATUS OF MINIX
Although MINIX is supplied with the complete source code, it is copyrighted software. It is not public domain. It is also not like GNU. However, the copyright owner, Prentice-Hall has granted permission to bona fide universities to copy the software for use in courses and in university research projects. It is also permitted for MINIX owners to change the software to suit their needs and to distribute diff listings containing their changes freely. The shrink-wrap license that comes with MINIX states that you may legally make two backup copies of the software. Prentice-Hall is being much less strict than other software vendors. Please do not abuse this. Companies that wish to embed MINIX in commercial systems or sell MINIX-based products should call (212) 753-7753 to discuss licensing terms.
That's not really "open source" in the usual sense. Anyway, I have no objection to some kind of mention of the longevity of NetBSD, as long as it's accurate. Letdorf 11:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, the source was open - it's not OSI "Open Source", but the OSI is no more capable of redefining words than the FSF is. Janizary 15:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add the toaster.[edit]

Add the damn toaster.

  • ...but don't forget to mention the ridiculous over-engineering of the device. It used a TS-7200 200MHz ARM9 PC/104 controller w/ 32MB of RAM. There's been Unix-based PC/104 (and cheaper!) toasters before. 203.14.156.194 17:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Toaster added (as it happens, it uses a TS-7200 board because it was built as a demo system by the company that sells them). Letdorf 11:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Compatibility with other operating systems[edit]

The section here should refer to Linux (and link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel), not GNU/Linux. System call compatibility is entirely a kernel-level thing, and does not involve the userspace components at all. The change from Linux to GNU/Linux was made 'for consistency,' but introduced a factual inaccuracy. NetBSD's Linux compatibility allows any Linux code to be run; it is not limited to GNU/Linux. - David Chisnall --137.44.2.39 14:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The future of NetBSD[edit]

I hope what Charles Hannum said will not happen, its ashame after all the work that been put into the project. Allix Davis Fri Sep 1 00:32:23 BST 2006

NetBSD is used currently to develop games for PlayStation platform. Their kernel is used on Playstation Portable and PS3.
After 3 years, it can be said that it did not happen. Massive development and most of those issues were addressed with 5.0 release: 5.0 Release, Introducing NetBSD 5.0 14:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.19.124 (talk)


NetBSD 0.9 PC only ???[edit]

Funny, since I definitely remember running NetBSD 0.9 on a VAX-11/750... According to this article, VAX wasn't even supported in the 1.0 release. 213.65.173.249 (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this page, the first formal release of NetBSD/vax was 1.2, although the first development snapshot release was between 0.9 and 1.0. I guess this is what you remember running on your 11/750. Letdorf (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

New screenshot needed?[edit]

The screenshot now is an interesting mix of things that are and aren't in a base system. XFree86 is in base but it isn't enabled by default (well, it isn't even installed if you don't want it) and Enlightenment would have to have come from an external source. FreeBSD until rather recently had a nice shot of a just-booted system sitting at a prompt which I think is the most fair depiction of their OS, and I feel something similar for NetBSD would be in order. A picture from a non-x86 system would also be a real plus, I think. 66.93.12.46 (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NetBSD False Port Distributions[edit]

I believe you have been bias instead of thorough in your research. The very proof is that not a single distribution will boot on a Dreamcast. We have had the best coders review and burn these various distributions - none have worked. I provided proof of different factions in the world of Dreamcast, apparently you did not check this out either. The new 5.0 distribution has been posted in various Dreamcast sites in which some have asked the question "did anyone have luck getting this to work?". NetBSD needs to prove that it does work by having a distribution that can be downloaded, burned and then bootable from a Dreamcast. It seems that the NetBSD Organization is lacking in R&D like Ford and GM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeeman3 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The Wikipedia article made no claim that NetBSD runs on Dreamcast, and you have no reliable sources for what you state. That's why the material was removed. Random blogs and fora are not adequate sources for citations and references on WP. In fact, you don't provide supporting links, just a list of "various factions of international Dreamcast clubs" which have supposedly found a problem, linking to their homepage. Moreover, did any of these people try asking on the NetBSD Dreamcast mailing list, because it doesn't seem to be the case (yes, I checked). I've found a few very old messages in the os.netbsd.ports.dreamcast newsgroup, which hardly qualify for the criteria I've mentioned above. I'm reverting the material again. If you want to include it, find reliable sources to support the claims made. Mindmatrix 22:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely NetBSD is lacking in users wanting to try it out on all supported platforms. Some are used by many, some have just a few enthusiasts, and others have not been booted in years. It is entirely possible that more recent versions have had changes that have somehow broken the Dreamcast port and that nobody has noticed. It has happened before. (Note: I do not know what the status of the Dreamcast port is at the moment and I do not have an opinion on what should be in the article or not.) magetoo 19:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled upon this talk section through a search and would like to state for anyone else who finds it that NetBSD does run on the SEGA dreamcast. Including the most recent (at this time of writing) 7.1 release. You simply need a host system with a CD burner running NetBSD and the dc-tools package which includes a dc-burn-netbsd script. Here are some videos of it booting. Last year I gave a presentation at a BSD Meetup, using a dreamcast running NetBSD for presenting my slides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travis.paul (talk • contribs) 13:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improving article[edit]

Various recent changes significantly improved this article. Currently, it is still rated as "Start-Class" and importance in "WikiProject Computing" is not rated at all. Since this is an article about operating system, I think importance should be "Top". In my opinion, quality of this article is high enough to be ranked as "B-Class". Additional clean up to Portability and Uses sections could make it a candidate for "Good Articles". Any thoughts? --80.0.19.124 (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've bumped it to C-class for now - there are still too many gaps to rate it as B-class. I've also added the top importance marker for now, though I think all the BSDs warrant no more than a "high" (they simply aren't of equal prominence to Windows, Mac or even Linux). Mindmatrix 15:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is far from B standard i will review and post suggestions for improvements. I will also review it according to B standard so you know what it is failing on.--Andy Chat c 22:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
b1=y(just);b2=n;b3=n;b4=y;b5=n;b6=n critia here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment/B-Class_criteria

. as you can tell from that review of b standard it is far from up to standard.--Andy Chat c 12:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

to bring it up to b standard i am goign ot tag the article so oyu are aware what areas needs done--Andy Chat c 12:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the markup "fansite" with "peacock term": the article was, at the June time of markup, attempting to be pretty neutral, while it contains a few irritating peacock terms such as "mantra" and CompSci irrelevant words that doesn't correctly add info to the article. "Fansite" is an overstatement. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 11:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"It is in need of attention from an expert on the subject" - I'm a NetBSD developer and the technical content in the article seems correct. Is there anything that should be carefully reviewed? --Replaced (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not convinced the "in need of attention from an expert" is justified at the moment. Letdorf (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I'm going to rate it C-class/High importance for Computing and C class for free software as well. Its not as prominent as Windows or Mac so isn't top importance. I also agree that it doesn't meet the B criteria. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multics family[edit]

Moved to Talk:Mac OS X
 – Subsection is Talk:Mac OS X#Multics Family --Tothwolf (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we re-classify this article under 'OS family: Multics' in the info box, for the reason that Unix is based on Multics. MFNickster (talk) 03:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the discussion in the one place. It started in Talk:Mac OS X. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

386 support?[edit]

there are a lot of old and slow CPU architectures supported by NetBSD. But it seems that the "i386" port needs at least a 486 CPU. So I ask: When was the support for the original 386 dropped and why? I cannot find anything about that on the web page nor in the mailing list archive. --RokerHRO (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support for 386 was dropped in 5.0, http://www.netbsd.org/changes/changes-5.0.html - Remove support for 80386 level CPUs. PR port-i386/36163. [ad 20071115]. The referenced bug report describes in more detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.55.186.255 (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

zfs state[edit]

Currently the code based on zfs 22 and is not working.^ http://nxr.netbsd.org/xref/src/external/cddl/osnet/TODO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.24.109.3 (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on NetBSD. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some fixed (page moved, Wasabi mentions "Certified BSD" on their home page), others checked. Guy Harris (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NetBSD&oldid=1199456724"