Hopefully, with some time this gets better as it's not like they have to start from scratch with each generation. But it does leave a sour taste in my mouth that they quit so early before finishing.
Pretty darn quick.
Apparently we might be able to run OpenBSD on it [0]
FreeBSD is unclear [1]
- [0] https://www.openbsd.org/arm64.html
- [1] https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=267292
Patches welcome. The community is very small and most everyone involved has jobs. There is also a tendency to only support the most common *useful* hardware instead of Raspberry Pi clone du jor.
As for a haiju skin job, see lola, a new window manager: https://shithub.us/aap/lola/HEAD/info.html I think it has a BeOS theme, if not, likely an easy patch because the dev designed it to be very hackable vs rio.
> ... to hit milestones at 9, 18, 27 month intervals? the incubation period for Macintosh, NeXTSTEP, BeOS, HarmonyOS Next would have estimates.
Not sure what any of this means. 9front is a rolling fork. People submit patches and if useful, are applied. sysupdate(8) is a small script that binds the 9front git repo over root and then runs git/pull. Then you run 'mk install' in /sys/src.
But I will get 9front going, it’s already loading the kernel.
(Ironically, I came here to comment that the review is completely unreadable with the amount of ad inserts - almost one per paragraph!)
I wonder if 802.3ad bonding can bring 5gbit/s
It is unknown whether the ports are independent, or some of them or all of them are connected to an internal hub.
Even if they were connected to a single CPU port through an internal hub, if you used two 5 Gb/s USB Ethernet interfaces you would get close to full speed for them.
Having 10 Gb/s USB instead of the so-called "5 Gb/s" USB (in reality 4 Gb/s), provides much more additional I/O throughput than having 5 Gb/s RJ45 instead of 2.5 Gb/s. I agree that having 5 Gb/s Ethernet would have been nice, but it is much more valuable that it has 10 Gb/s USB, which is very rarely encountered on Arm-based computers.
But I really apprecate your reply!
I'll definitely buy one for testing when they become available for reasonable prices <500EUR for 16gig memory
I want to run a distributed network storage (ceph)
Both interfaces have almost the same raw bit rate (in both cases "10 Gb/s" is only an approximation, but the differences between the true bit rates and 10 Gb/s are negligible, unlike for "5 Gb/s" USB, where the data bit rate is only 4 Gb/s).
The USB protocol has a slightly higher overhead than the Ethernet protocol, so the throughput of an Ethernet 10 Gb/s interface attached on 10 Gb/s USB will be a little lower than that of a PCIe NIC, but the difference is negligible, of only a few percent.
USB 4, i.e. Thunderbolt, allows the emulation of network interfaces if you interconnect the USB Type C ports with a cable, but here you have USB 3, so this does not work.
On USB 3 you could interconnect 2 ports only if one of them implemented the On-the-Go specification, so it could work as either a peripheral port or a host port. Here this also does not work. On a system where this had been allowed by the hardware, it is likely that you would have needed to write yourself a device driver that emulates a network interface, because I am not aware of an already existing one, unlike for USB 4.
All features of Thunderbolt 3 have been inherited by USB 4, like also all those of USB 3, including the ability of Thunderbolt to emulate Ethernet interfaces when you interconnect 2 computers with a cable through their USB 4 ports, like it was already possible with Thunderbolt ports.