On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Boatman on the River of Suck wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Matthew Sell wrote:
>
> > >be possible to do one of the following options:
> > >
> > >1) Stick an 'emulation' user-mode shell on top of some free *nix
> > >
> > >2) Take a stock free *nix kernel, and modify it to work more like VMS.
> >
> > That was the idea. I thought of taking FreeBSD, and add device drivers for
> > peripherals and filesystems, as well as implementing the "shell".
> >
> > I do have various VAXen to test this on.
>
> You might be able to get the feel of VMS, but getting all the neat
> features of VMS (decnet, clustering, binary compatibility) would be highly
> problematic. Plus administration would be a completely different animal.
Binary compatibility between a peecee running 'FreeVMS' (one
possibility for hardware and OpenVMS on a VAX/Alpha??? I know I didn't
mean that, and I don't think that the author did either. I was thinking
of this as being something to let you run pseudo-VMS on something cheap
but relatively fast (peecee or whatever).
>
> > >Of course, the problem is deciding what ONE kernel to use (prolly BSD or
> > >Linux 2.??), and how to trim down the kernel to a small set of drivers for
> > >testing it.
> >
> > I was thinking about using FreeBSD, simply for the availability of many
> > platform ports, including VAX.
>
> If you want BSD that works the same on all sorts of hardware, FreeBSD is
> not it. It's too x86-centric. Look at NetBSD http://www.netbsd.org/
<flame>
If you had read more of his posts yesterday, you would see he said he
meant 'NetBSD'.
</flame>
> Peace... Sridhar
>
that is all.
-- Pat
Received on Sat Jan 05 2002 - 08:37:40 GMT