4 ms·

Slap OpenBSD or NetBSD on it.

by nix23 6y ago

asveikau 6y ago
I have some old machines too, and that thought occurs. But that is also slightly boring. What can I do on those that I can't do on amd64 at higher speeds?
- nix23 6y ago
  Well nothing, i see it to preserve a bit of history, turn it on once in a while, maybe help netbsd to support it (patch etc) and port stuff over.
  - asveikau 6y ago
    Porting and hacking on low level stuff is probably the most interesting thing I can think of for it. That is probably why I keep the machines around. In practice though I hardly have the time to use them.
    - rbanffy 6y ago
      But then they'll be nothing more than awkward PCs running software in slow motion.
      - asveikau 6y ago
        Porting software to unexpected environments sometimes exposes legit bugs and validates your design. I always like to get software I write working in unusual configurations. It tests my assumptions and often results in something sturdier.
        rbanffy 6y ago
        Indeed. Also, if it runs well on a 25 year old machine, it'll probably run well on a modern computer a thousand times faster ;-) I always recommend developers to get the cheapest possible laptop for testing.
        nix23 6y ago
        It has nothing todo with speed, but finding bug's. >I always recommend developers to get the cheapest possible laptop for testing. Yeah that is stupid, until you are the developer of that Laptop, or your dev's have too much time, take trusty Hardware and Down-clock it if you need to (you don't want to debug cheap hardware).
        rbanffy 6y ago
        If you want to find bugs in your code that arise from assumptions about machine architecture, you can use emulators. You don't need an ancient MIPS machine for that, unless you want to find bugs on code that supports long obsolete hardware. And you can emulate architectures far weirder than MIPS with that. And you should test on slow and unreliable hardware. You'd be surprised, for instance, how frequently servers fail to boot because the BMC ignored your instructions.
        nix23 6y ago
        >from assumptions about machine architecture, you can use emulators That is exactly NOT true, since there is no 100% correct emulation around, think of x64 emulation with integrated Meltdown, if you don't know about meltdown your emulation has no implementation for it. Look you made a perfect counterargument, using unreliable hardware...with your words you could just test it with unreliable emulation ;) >unreliable hardware... how frequently servers Wait...server's and unreliable do not match together...and then the BMC argument..sound's bit crazy to me.
        rbanffy 6y ago
        It did sound crazy to me too, before I saw it happen a couple times. Or "not happen" would be a better description.
octorian 6y ago
I hate to say it, but that's even more useless than a vanilla IRIX installation. By far. One big problem with running a 3rd party OS on these old machines (specifically SGI, Sun doesn't have this issue) is that they tend to not really support any of the hardware that actually makes these machines interesting.
ddingus 6y ago
Honestly, those won't compare. It is the close marriage between IRIX and the hardware and top engineering that shines.
rbanffy 6y ago
Ecce Homo feelings. You don't slap a generic OS on top of a classic machine that was designed for something different.
- nix23 6y ago
  >that was designed for something different I use that machine for what i want to use it, i also use my C64 as a Webserver and my Leemote-Laptop as my Mainbackup. Better having Hardware you can use for something then not...and you know, you can reinstall Irix later if you want.

Slap OpenBSD or NetBSD on it.

by nix23 6y ago

Slap OpenBSD or NetBSD on it.

I have some old machines too, and that thought occurs. But that is also slightly boring. What can I do on those that I can't do on amd64 at higher speeds?

nix23 6y ago
Well nothing, i see it to preserve a bit of history, turn it on once in a while, maybe help netbsd to support it (patch etc) and port stuff over.
- asveikau 6y ago
  Porting and hacking on low level stuff is probably the most interesting thing I can think of for it. That is probably why I keep the machines around. In practice though I hardly have the time to use them.
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    But then they'll be nothing more than awkward PCs running software in slow motion.
    - asveikau 6y ago
      Porting software to unexpected environments sometimes exposes legit bugs and validates your design. I always like to get software I write working in unusual configurations. It tests my assumptions and often results in something sturdier.
      - rbanffy 6y ago
        Indeed. Also, if it runs well on a 25 year old machine, it'll probably run well on a modern computer a thousand times faster ;-) I always recommend developers to get the cheapest possible laptop for testing.
        nix23 6y ago
        It has nothing todo with speed, but finding bug's. >I always recommend developers to get the cheapest possible laptop for testing. Yeah that is stupid, until you are the developer of that Laptop, or your dev's have too much time, take trusty Hardware and Down-clock it if you need to (you don't want to debug cheap hardware).
        rbanffy 6y ago
        If you want to find bugs in your code that arise from assumptions about machine architecture, you can use emulators. You don't need an ancient MIPS machine for that, unless you want to find bugs on code that supports long obsolete hardware. And you can emulate architectures far weirder than MIPS with that. And you should test on slow and unreliable hardware. You'd be surprised, for instance, how frequently servers fail to boot because the BMC ignored your instructions.
        nix23 6y ago
        >from assumptions about machine architecture, you can use emulators That is exactly NOT true, since there is no 100% correct emulation around, think of x64 emulation with integrated Meltdown, if you don't know about meltdown your emulation has no implementation for it. Look you made a perfect counterargument, using unreliable hardware...with your words you could just test it with unreliable emulation ;) >unreliable hardware... how frequently servers Wait...server's and unreliable do not match together...and then the BMC argument..sound's bit crazy to me.
        rbanffy 6y ago
        It did sound crazy to me too, before I saw it happen a couple times. Or "not happen" would be a better description.

octorian 6y ago

I hate to say it, but that's even more useless than a vanilla IRIX installation. By far. One big problem with running a 3rd party OS on these old machines (specifically SGI, Sun doesn't have this issue) is that they tend to not really support any of the hardware that actually makes these machines interesting.

ddingus 6y ago

Honestly, those won't compare. It is the close marriage between IRIX and the hardware and top engineering that shines.

rbanffy 6y ago

Ecce Homo feelings. You don't slap a generic OS on top of a classic machine that was designed for something different.

nix23 6y ago
>that was designed for something different I use that machine for what i want to use it, i also use my C64 as a Webserver and my Leemote-Laptop as my Mainbackup. Better having Hardware you can use for something then not...and you know, you can reinstall Irix later if you want.