On 2016-02-22 11:17 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
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*.
There were more than a few experimental operating systems on SPARC.
Where are they now? :-)
It is not a replacement for NetBSD. If you want lots of platforms,
then NetBSD still exists.
...
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.
*Today's* "modern computer market."
Are they doing _that_ or are they going after QNX? Or both? #confused
--Toby
