[GEM Development] GEM on Atari

[Alan Hourihane]

On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 15:21 +0000, Liam Proven wrote:
> 2009/1/6 Alan Hourihane <alanh at fairlite.co.uk>:
> > On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 14:47 +0000, Liam Proven wrote:
> >> 2009/1/5 Shane Gough <goughsw at gmail.com>:
> >> > Hi Alan,
> >> >
> >> > When you say 'Gentoo running on FreeMINT' what do you mean? I would
> >> > have thought that Gentoo (being a Linux based OS) would run directly
> >>
> >> I think Alan is getting confused, and thus confusing the rest of us.
> >
> > No, I'm not getting confused, and certainly not trying to confuse the
> > rest of you.
> >
> >> Gentoo, as you say, is a Linux distribution: a complete OS based on
> >> the Linux kernel.
> >
> > Gentoo/Alt
> >
> > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/index.xml
> 
> But you didn't say Gentoo/Alt or Gentoo-Alt. You said just Gentoo!

Maybe you didn't read the full thread before replying as I did mention
it in a follow up email.

> >> You can't run that on MiNT. It's not possible in any useful way.
> >>
> >> However, one of Gentoo's distinctive features is Portage, a
> >> source-based packaging system, derived in inspiration at least from
> >> the FreeBSD Ports system.
> >
> > Right, which is what Gentoo/Alt is all about.
> >
> >> (The other BSDs - NetBSD and OpenBSD - use something similar. I don't
> >> know about DragonflyBSD and PC-BSD has its own, different binary
> >> packing system, as well as Ports.)
> >>
> >> It may be that someone is trying to implement Portage on Mint. That
> >> would be doable, although when I imagine the MiNT-based world is much
> >> slower-moving than that of x86 Free software, I don't see a lot of
> >> point.
> >
> > I've ported Portage to FreeMiNT and it's working very well here.
> 
> Good for you!
> 
> >> Secondarily, the point of Portage and of Gentoo in general is to
> >> compile from source on every machine. There are 2 reasons for this,
> >> neither of which apply on Atari & compatible hardware:
> >>
> >> [1] x86 PC hardware is fast enough that recompilation is quick
> >> [2] There is such a diversity of PC hardware - CPUs alone in a dozen
> >> families or more - that significant performance improvements can be
> >> got from compiling with specific optimisations for each individual
> >> machine. E.g., on Intel alone, processors include
> >> 386dx/386sx/486slc/486dx/486dx2/486dx4/Pentium 1/MMX/Pro/2/3/4/4HT/4
> >> 64-bit/4 64-bit HT/Core/Core2/Core2Quad/Atom/Core i7. That's 20
> >> variants and I've not included 64-bit variants of everything since
> >> Core2. Add in buses, caches, chipsets, graphics chips, choice of Linux
> >> desktops, choice of version of GCC, choice of kernel, etc., and there
> >> are millions of permutations of PC.
> >>
> >> How many 68030-based ST-family machines are there? Half a dozen?
> >
> > There is a 68060, 68040, 68030, 68020, 68000 for Atari architectures,
> > and that alone is reason enough for me to deal with.
> 
> Doesn't MiNT require an MMU?

No.

> And if not - go on, how long to compile a full system on a 68000? 8¬)

I don't do that, as I build on a 68060 for use on a 68000.

> > Secondly, the advent of cross-compilers makes it much more viable too.
> 
> Does Portage help with that?

Yes, it does, considerably via the use of distcc.

> >> So, with a small library of software, relatively slowly changing, on a
> >> small number of fairly fairly homogenous machines, where available
> >> processing power is so low that compilation will take hours, there
> >> really is no point in Portage that I can see.
> >
> > Maybe from your point of view.
> 
> Well, go on then... How much active development is happening in the
> MiNT world? Is any ST-family machine powerful enough to run GNOME or
> KDE, say?

Does it really matter, heck this is the GEM mailing list remember. And
GEM already runs happily on Atari ST's. I think getting OpenGEM running
on them is a sane plan, so I fail to see what GNOME or KDE has to do
with anything here.

> >> A free, open, GPL, binary-based packing system with automatic
> >> dependency resolution built in from day 1 at a deep level, though,
> >> would be a boon. That means APT, which is all that, and runs on both
> >> .deb packages with DPKG and .rpm packages with RPM.
> >
> > Another, from your point of view.
> 
> Well, yes, but then, I evaluate and review operating systems and
> tools, both for publication in about 20 different professional
> magazines, journals and websites, from the Inquirer to Personal
> Computer World and PC Magazine, and I recommend, build, install,
> support and train users on systems for hundreds of companies from
> 5-man small businesses to multinational banks and financial
> institutions; the biggest system I've supported so far has 38,000
> users.
> 
> So, you know, I'm not just an amateur fiddler. :¬)
>
> And I've tried Gentoo and my conclusion was, basically, that it was a
> toy for "ricers". (Kids who customise their kit for no real purpose
> except benchmarking competitions.)
>
> Sorry. No offence meant, and I am not making any kind of personal
> comment, judgement, accusation, or anything of the kind against you.
>
> On the other hand, my considered professional opinion of Gentoo is
> that it wasn't worth the time or effort and that Portage was clever
> but really didn't offer anything genuinely useful for a home or
> professional Linux user on x86 hardware.
>
> For home users, in my opinion, Ubuntu is about the best there is.
> Fedora is a waste of time, unless you like playing with alpha-grade
> testing systems, and there's really no argument for Mandriva any more.
> Ulteo is starting to look promising, maybe.
> 
> For enterprises, there's a case to be made for RHEL (possibly
> supplemented with CentOS) or SLES. Debian for the pros, Xandros is a
> viable corporate desktop, and frankly, that's about it.
> 
> But if you're compiling FOSS apps for different models of ST, yes, I
> can see that Portage would be useful. The rest of the Gentoo userland,
> though, I would think would be *way* too heavyweight for an ST, even a
> maxed-out TT or Falcon, or even a Medusa or Milan - no?

I read your furthur comments with a pinch of salt :-)

Alan.