Re: linux on the IIgs

[nathan@visi.com (Nathan Mates)]

In article <324043C8.2DA9@pogo.wv.tek.com>,
David A Johnston  <davejohn@pogo.wv.tek.com> wrote:
>I was just curious as to whether anyone had thought about the idea of
>trying to port linux to the Apple IIgs?  Work is currently being done on
>a port to the 8086, and one could presumably start from that as a base.
>From what I've read, linux/8086 is to the point where it can boot and
>run "a small program".  It's not nearly done, but... well, it seems like
>it would be possible.  Personally, I'd love there to be a non-commercial
>unix for the GS.

   In my (and Linus's, and a bunch other people with a clue), the guys
porting Linux to the 8086 are stark raving loonies to try and do so,
but we'll sit back and admire their skills in pulling it off. :)
[Such a task is done for the ability to say "I did this;" there's no
chance of getting a full version running.]

   Neither the 8086 or 65816 can do protected memory or virtual
memory, so "small programs" are as about as good as you could run
anyhow. Also, x86 C compiler exist that do a pretty good job; Orca/C
2.1 is the first version that's pretty good about not crashing or
miscompiling (never used 1.3; by the time I had the $ to pick up
Orca/C, 2.x was out). Also, gcc likely wouldn't run on either the
8086 or 65816; that thing wants a meg of stack space for starters.

   8086 Linux also has the advantage of the regular (386 and up) Linux
code for dealing with interrupts, cards, etc. Rewriting everything
from scratch would require LOTS of free time. In short: GNO/ME does
about the best job possible; support the GS developers who've taken
the time to do things.

Nathan Mates

--
<*> Nathan Mates http://www.visi.com/~nathan/      <*>
# What are the facts? Again and again and again-- what are the _facts_?
# Shun wishful thinking, avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors
# think-- what are the facts, and to how many decimal places?  -R.A. Heinlein