Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 23rd Dec 2010 19:19 UTC
Windows The rumours about Windows possibly being ported to ARM has left a lot of people bewildered; why would you port Windows NT when Windows CE 6.0 is a perfectly capable operating system? Putting all the pieces together, it's actually quite clear why you would want Windows NT on ARM: servers.
Thread beginning with comment 454789
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
TheGZeus
Member since:
2010-05-19

Look, NT _IS_ more portable, because it _already runs_ on multiple architectures.
Hell NT runs on chips not even made any more.

Will ReactOS _become_ more portable? Possibly. We can't see NT's code, or try to compile it on some obscure architecture, so if it becomes as portable as NT has been shown to be, we can assume a tie.

FOSS doesn't necessarily become more portable over time.
That's a fallacy.

It's _often_ true, perhaps even _usually_, but _pleaaaaase_ don't make blanket statements in favour of FOSS that _aren't true_. It just becomes fodder for trolls.
ZSNES has been around for 10 years, and only runs on IA32.
Why? Because it's written in asm.
BareMetal OS isn't going to become portable because it's not a priority, it's not even close.

"Often" "Usually" but not "".
Qualify the statement and I'll say it's true.

Reply Parent Score: 2

oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

Look, NT _IS_ more portable, because it _already runs_ on multiple architectures.
Hell NT runs on chips not even made any more.

Will ReactOS _become_ more portable? Possibly. We can't see NT's code, or try to compile it on some obscure architecture, so if it becomes as portable as NT has been shown to be, we can assume a tie.

My simple point here we don't know. Prototypes of Reactos exist for all arch NT use to support plus a few extras. Yes Reactos has be prototypes exist for those chips that are not made any more.

Reactos may be more portable than NT now. Just no one has really checked fully. I also understand why most people would not be interested to find out.

FOSS doesn't necessarily become more portable over time.
That's a fallacy.

It's _often_ true, perhaps even _usually_, but _pleaaaaase_ don't make blanket statements in favour of FOSS that _aren't true_. It just becomes fodder for trolls.
ZSNES has been around for 10 years, and only runs on IA32.
Why? Because it's written in asm.
BareMetal OS isn't going to become portable because it's not a priority, it's not even close.

"Often" "Usually" but not "".
Qualify the statement and I'll say it's true.


Older the project in the FOSS world the more portable it becomes. Its a nature of the FOSS world as the backgrounds of the coders become more diverse so does the project supported platforms.

You really did not read this. I did not say portable only in the sense of processor chips alone. Also I did not say the speed the projects become more portable. I should have been more clear in this. The speed of FOSS projects become more portable is unique to each project. But it is happening.

Even ZSNES does obey the FOSS world of becoming more portable with age as community around it has got more diverse. Being written in pure asm x86 for dos has yes slowed its progress. These days it has ports on Windows and Linux as well. Also it now has a splattering of C code appearing in parts of the engine.

Of course the speed of somethings becoming portable across cpu types may take 40 to 50 years to never with the community around and the complexity involved. Even with that limitation portability between OS's and other things will still increase.

No matter how much you say no it will not happen FOSS it does happen over time and always will as long as the project has a growing community with growing interests.

Basically a FOSS project getting more portable with time is a sign of health about the open source project. Reasons why FOSS project will not get more portable with age all point to unhealthy things that either lead to a project forked or project fading away.

BareMetal OS is too young to know where it will and up and its Community is still very compact. You have to remember when Linux was young it was only intended for x86 processes. Coders around it grew and that ended as they become more diverse. Also BareMetal OS is not 1 kernel its two. 1 written in asm and 1 written in C. Of course the C one would be simpler to port. Yes even BareMetal possibility of portability has increased from when it started as a asm only kernel.

Really all the examples you gave to back your case back mine.

Reply Parent Score: 1

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

I think you're misunderstanding the words that you're using. Some grammatical issues tell me it's quite possible that English is not your first language, so that's forgivable, but your hubris at not admitting that possibility to yourself is not. If it _is_ your first language, perhaps you should study it a bit more.



I'm responding what you said, not what you meant; because I don't have access to your thoughts.
Older the project in the FOSS world the more portable it becomes.
ZSNES has not grown any more portable for years. The portable C code is still portable C code, the i386 asm code is still i386 asm code.
It's not a perfect example, but it still holds true.
If what you _said_ were true, it would have continued to become more portable as time passed. It hasn't. Many other projects are the same. If it's not a priority for a project, FOSS or not, a thing will not be done. If it is, it might be, even if it requires a total re-write. This has nothing to do with FOSS.

BareMetal states what it will not do. "It's too young" is a foolish thing to say, because _they state it will never be ported_.

The article is about processor architectures, and you were talking about processor architectures. Why should I assume you were talking about anything but processor architectures?

"If it is a priority and feasible for a given project it will become more portable over time" is... something a rhetorical tautology, and pointless thing to say. It's the closest thing to a true version of what you said, though.

"we don't know" is false. NT has already had fully-working versions for more architectures. It _may become_ more portable than NT in the future, but as it stands ReactOS kinda-sorta compiles for PPC, and is pre-alpha quality on i386. You said ReactOS is more portable, because it's FOSS. Not the case. It _can become_ more portable, but so can NT. NT currently has a more portable codebase.
If it was pre-alpha across i386, AMD64, i860(890? I've forgotten), Power, PPC and IA64, you'd be correct in saying it's more portable. That's not the case.

I'm trying to catch you in an incorrect statement before MS fanboys come in and say "LIAR!!!!11"

Say what you mean, and stop being so reactionary, because otherwise you're just asking for trouble.

Reply Parent Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Look, NT _IS_ more portable, because it _already runs_ on multiple architectures.
Hell NT runs on chips not even made any more.

This isn't usenet or IRC. You can bold and italic the text.

On the topic:
Wasn't the latest NT kernel a substantial rewrite? I think it was...
NT once ran on systems that are no more, so it's no longer true. And having over 5 years of development concentrated on x86 brings in a lot of non-portable code.

We can argue as much as we like, but the fact is that we just don't know. Unless you happen to work for MS in that division.

Reply Parent Score: 2

mbpark Member since:
2005-11-17

JAlexoid,

Windows 7/Server 2008 R2 also runs on Itanium. It's not x86-specific.

Microsoft just never released a workstation version for Itanium after Windows XP because they only sold about 300 licenses.

Reply Parent Score: 2

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

"Look, NT _IS_ more portable, because it _already runs_ on multiple architectures.
Hell NT runs on chips not even made any more.

This isn't usenet or IRC. You can bold and italic the text.
"
Yes, because 7 characters gets the same point across with so much less effort than two.
O_O

On the topic:
Wasn't the latest NT kernel a substantial rewrite? I think it was...
NT once ran on systems that are no more, so it's no longer true. And having over 5 years of development concentrated on x86 brings in a lot of non-portable code.
Not much changed with server 2003, and 2008 officially runs on Itanium, so my point stands. The original statement is false, the new one is moot.

We can argue as much as we like, but the fact is that we just don't know. Unless you happen to work for MS in that division.

We know the latest server products runs on three architectures, and ReactOS works its best on one, and kinda boots on another.
You're _wrong_. It's not bad to be wrong. It's bad to refuse to admit it in the face of irrefutable evidence.

Edited 2010-12-27 03:06 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

I work on NT. Just like any other OS (Linux, BSD, etc), it doesn't get rewritten every release. Some code gets changed, other code stays the same. It's more evolutionary than you seem to think.

Reply Parent Score: 2