22 Feb
2016
22 Feb
'16
5:19 p.m.
On 2016-02-22 11:58 AM, Mouse wrote:
Yes, a typo. :)
Portability
was a fundamental free software tenet.
Is. Was, perhaps, even, in the non-OS space. But in the
OS space, I
think every open-source OS was originally done on some very small
number of architectures. Unix was done on the PDP-11 (something else
before that, I think, but I forget what, and I think it was with the
move to the -11 that it became portable enough to be ported instead of
rewritten). BSD was done on the VAX and Tahoe. The Jolitzs' work,
Linus's work, i386. All of them moved beyond those initial machines,
yes, and that was essential to their success. But they had to start
somewhere.
Unix's portability (gained when it was rewritten in C) was as much as
anything else key to its "success," but Liam's point is well taken that
"avoiding success at all costs" can be quite fruitful too, from the pov
of research freedom. (Naturally I am referencing Haskell here :)
Seeing Minix 3 on x86 and ARM is good. Unless it wants to wither when
the world moves beyond x86 and ARM, it will need to be done with enough
portability in mind to make porting it easy, yes, but it is hardly a
failing that it isn't ported yet.
Arguably, _only_ porting can fully reveal design issues that might
impede porting. But if as Liam says their goals are met fully on x86 and
ARM then I won't argue :)
--Toby
(Unless it's been around a lot
longer than this thread makes it sound.)
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B