This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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.
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)
Add the damn toaster.
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
. 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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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.
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)
Add the damn toaster.
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
. 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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)