Before you put too much hope on it, ReactOS needs a Memory Managing Unit (basically, virtual memory support), which is present only on ARMv7. Raspberry Pi has an ARM11 CPU, which only implements ARMv6. (yeah, don't be confused with all those numberings...)
Le Thu, 10 Jan 2013 21:41:10 -0600, "J. C. Jones" <[email protected]> a écrit : > Hi All, > > > > Before I reach the point where I am thinking the same way as everyone > else, which will inevitably happen (The Borg - resistance is futile), > I wanted to get some thoughts out: > > > > A question that many have asked is, "Why not port ReactOS to ARM?" > > > > The answer is usually something like, "We cannot afford the resources > to port to ARM." > > > > I think on the contrary, the opposite might be true: > > 1. There is a hoard of developers over on the Raspberry Pi > site right now who would enjoy seeing ReactOS on the RaspPi. > > 2. There are device manufacturers who would like to free > themselves from the Apple/Google/Microsoft triumvirate and > iOS/Android/Windows Phone 8 lock-in. Samsung recently announced its > intent to explore other operating systems. > http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57455054-94/would-samsung-ever-leave-androi > d-new-ceo-drops-hints/ > > 3. The operating systems are not exactly easy to develop for. I > have read credible articles that Android is a mess from a development > perspective. ReactOS would be the operating system of choice for > straightforward development. > > 4. There are embedded systems companies who struggled in vain > to get Windows CE to behave like "Big Windows", but were unsuccessful > because restrictions in the Windows CE kernel. Many of them switch to > Linux, but quite a few still use some form of embedded Windows, and > would welcome an open-source Windows-like OS. > > 5. The United States Military has very large base of software > that they would like to put on lower-power systems (ARM) that is > written for Windows/i386. They are currently trying to port this > software to Linux, with varying degrees of success, not because they > like Linux, but because they need as much of the software to be open > as possible. They would be particularly attracted by the open-source > nature of ReactOS, because the USA national security vetting process > requires that certain classes of software be reviewed, line by line, > by a certain US security agency. The singular, totally exposed nature > of ReactOS makes it attractive in this regard. > > 6. ReactOS.ORG would likely receive real money from device > manufacturers. Even a few dollars per-device would add-up very > quickly. > > 7. There is NO mobile platform right now, among the Big Three, > that allows true, native, C/C++ development. Each of these platform > plays a game where the native code is invoked by some shell, even in > the case of Windows Phone 8, despite Microsoft's claim that Windows > Phone 8 supports native development. [It depends on what your > interpretation of native development is.] > > > > ARM device manufacturers are all stuck in the same boat. Most of these > companies are actually not very good at OS design. Think about it: > Nokia was a multi-billion-$US company that was using an operating > system (Symbian) that was so broken and toxic to innovation that it > almost drowned their company. What did they do to fix this problem? > They adopted a closed OS from Microsoft. Manufacturers, actually, do > not like having closed software. It eliminates their opportunity for > differentiation. If ReactOS were made to run on a single > manufacturer's device, the other manufacturers would become nervous, > and insist on having the same access as does their competitor. There > is nothing wrong with making these manufacturers pay a small fee to > support the ReactOS Foundation, and they would gladly pay it, if we > developed killer applications for their devices. > > > > Of course, because most of ReactOS, in theory, should be portable, > software working on ARM is software working on x86_32/x86_64. I would > also like to mention here that there are a lot of developers who > would much rather have a stable kernel, and a paucity of user-mode > applications, versus an unstable kernel, and a plethora of user-mode > applications. User mode applications will be created by the hoard, > *if* the kernel is stable. If the kernel is not stable, the incentive > to do anything else is greatly reduced. > > > > This is the opportunity I see. My biological clock is telling me that > 2013 is the year to pursue this effort. The market is waiting. But an > effort like porting to ARM should not be done haphazardly or > opportunistically. It should be done with deliberation and intent. > > > > Just my opinion. > > > > -John > _______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
