On 22 February 2016 at 16:54, Toby Thain <t...@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: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven MSN: lpro...@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) • +420 702 829 053 (ČR)