22 Feb
2016
22 Feb
'16
4:17 p.m.
On 22 February 2016 at 16:54, Toby Thain <toby at telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
Portability was a fundamental free software tenet. It
has technical benefits
and it would make the project more relevant. The original Minix was far more
portable.
If it can't adapt to what comes after x86 and ARM in whatever markets(?) it
is pursuing then it will be in danger of extinction. Surely if it is chasing
things like QNX then that would be vital - it's a different market with more
diversity of architectures.
I don't think the current perceived size of x86/ARM markets will protect it
as effectively as a diversity of targets would. Remember how ubiquitous
SPARC, VAX, 68K were at one time; if you were stranded there, you don't
exist now.
Again: *it's an experimental research and educational project*.
It is not a replacement for NetBSD. If you want lots of platforms,
then NetBSD still exists.
And it *is* portable and it runs on 2 totally dissimilar CPU
architectures, one CISC, one RISC.
It is an attempt to demonstrate that it is possible to build a true
microkernel Unix.
There are or have been compromised hybrid microkernel Unices -- DEC
OSF/1, Mac OS X, arguably MkLinux, and various other academic projects
that were never released or deployed publicly.
Minix 3 is different: it's true FOSS and the team are soliciting
community involvement.
But while it's still an incomplete project that is in development,
they're only targeting the 2 main arches which comprise about 99.9% of
the modern computer market.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) ? +420 702 829 053 (?R)