Mark Martin wrote:
> I thought the topic was picking an interim "reference" platform to
> continue moving forward on the port . Not pick the ultimate target
> platform. Who said the hardware had to be new?
New hardware is generally preferred because it's readily available and
supported, but at the same time current conditions are such that new hardware
would mean either a more or less closed system (PS/3), a rather expensive
system
(IBM) or one of the common SoC-based single board systems that seem to have a
manufacturing lifespan of a year or so. None of which are really good picks.
Then there's the question of used Macs, and that brings up the question of how
to support _them_. Apple's never released documentation as to how the hardware
works, so most everything known about the internals of old Macs comes from
reverse engineering them - and I certainly hope no one gains that knowledge
from
reading the associated Linux source for obvious GPL/CDDL reasons.
The key to a successful port is to pick an available platform and one that's
available to the widest number of people for the lowest cost. If it won't be a
boat anchor anytime soon, that's even better but why, perhaps, old 601-based
systems shouldn't be considered.
For that reason, if at all possible a software emulator - QEMU if at all
possible, perhaps PearPC if it's not - is really the best solution. Yes, we
may
run into issues, I understand that, but you can't beat the cost and
availability.
William Kucharski
