3 ms·
There was a time when NetBSD's portability was impressive. A handful of open source operating systems supported a handful of architectures, then there was NetB
by II2II 5y ago
There was a time when NetBSD's portability was impressive. A handful of open source operating systems supported a handful of architectures, then there was NetBSD (and OpenBSD). Then Linux started to look beyond the x86 and started gathering steam on other architectures. NetBSD couldn't really compete for developers and it began stagnating. It probably didn't help that a lot of the "Unix" userspace also became more tightly coupled to Linux.
Don't get me wrong: I was enormously enthusiastic about NetBSD in the mid-1990's and I still prefer the idea of a unified core OS. The thing is, it's a lot easier to deal with one operating system than multiple. If you're developing under Linux, it's going to be easier to develop code for an Arm based system under Linux because it defines your expectations.
- danieldk 5y agoLinux probably supports more platforms these days. But it often requires vendor-specific kernel forks, specific distributions, etc. NetBSD is impressive because it can be (cross-)compiled for many systems using the stock distribution without much effort (build.sh script). Disclaimer: I haven't used or looked at NetBSD since 2006-2007 or so, but I think this is still accurate.
- anthk 5y agoThis. Linux under ARM is a nightmare, NetBSD for ARM it's just a single distribution per subarch.
- nix23 5y agoLinux is just a Kernel NetBSD is a System.
- anthk 5y agoLinux doesn't even properly work on legacy non-x86 devices. NetBSD for m68k runs much better than GNU/Linux. EDIT: Downvote me if you want, but the reality is that hard. You have to use specific distros and hard patches to get things running well. For example under PPC32 there's no support for common distros. Don't let me start on Mips, Sparc or Alpha, where NetBSD runs on it just fine.