Choice of development machines

Choice of development machines

Post by William Won » Thu, 06 Jul 2000 04:00:00



Hi,
It seems that most *BSD OS's are being developed primarily on the HP300
machine.
Please forgive my ignorance, what is it? Why is it the choice of
developers?

Thanks in advance.

--
William
p_(^o^)_q

 
 
 

Choice of development machines

Post by Nick Hilliar » Fri, 07 Jul 2000 04:00:00


Quote:> It seems that most *BSD OS's are being developed primarily on the HP300
> machine.

Not really.  NetBSD and OpenBSD will still run on them, but they are certainly
not the primary *BSD development platform.  Neither FreeBSD nor BSD/OS will run
on them at all.

Nick

 
 
 

Choice of development machines

Post by jessemon.. » Sat, 08 Jul 2000 04:00:00



> Hi,
> It seems that most *BSD OS's are being developed primarily on the HP300
> machine.
> Please forgive my ignorance, what is it? Why is it the choice of
> developers?

        I think you are information is in error. *BSD does run on
        HP, namely the Tahoe version (not supported by FreeBSD)
        was developed and released this way.

        The development platform was not by choice. It was part
        of the UCB/CSRG (University of California Berkeley/
        Computer Science Research Group) project. The machines
        may have been donated by HP for the project. But this
        is my speculation.

        Please check the historial references at ucb.edu for
        the correct information.

                                        Best Regards.
                                        Jessem.

 
 
 

1. Sun's choice: Linux or Microsoft (was Re: Linux-Any Java development kits or books?

For safety and security, the only kernel support needed is enough to
provide a reasonably virtualised machine. Linux ptrace(2) already
allows you to trap at each syscall entry and exit and the tracer can
then disallow unsafe syscalls. Opening files, network connections and
so on can be redirected by libc (or a library further up the preload
path than libc) and communicate with a manager process down an
already-open file descriptor. If it decides to let you open the file,
it sends the new file descriptor down the socket to you. So even
without additional kernel support, you can get a system in which you
can run any potentially-naughty binary that you like (whether that's
Java or not) and trap attempts to break out (and even go a long way
to avoiding some denial of service attacks). With the additional
kernel support of a per-process syscall mask you can do even better
(since ptrace mucks around with the process hierarchy a bit).

--Malcolm

--

Oxford University Computing Services
"Widget. It's got a widget. A lovely widget. A widget it has got." --Jack Dee

2. AIXTERM error

3. Development Environment and Libraries Choices

4. isdn, ippp and multiple ISP

5. Web server machine choice - happenstance?

6. root login from telnet session (RH6.0)

7. Logging incoming, outgoing packet on firewall, good choice or bad choice ?

8. Apache+mysql on linux cluster!

9. -=[Question: PC UNIX OS choices: What are the best choices and why?]=-

10. CPU Choice and RAM Size for Linux Machine

11. The "safe" choice (w2K) the wrong choice...

12. Choices, choices...

13. Use of virtual machines in kernel development