Off-Topic > Off-Topic - Tiny Tux's Corner
New Idea - New Challenge and Glory
bmarkus:
--- Quote from: gerald_clark on October 30, 2009, 09:13:21 PM ---Tclfan, maybe you should look at minix.
--- End quote ---
MINIX 3.1.3 was released friday, april 13th 2007. On 8 june 2007, 3.1.3a, containing some fixes to 3.1.3, was released. Seems that there are no development resources.
Same feeling with Kolibri.
You can throw away LINUX Kernel for example, but who will develop hardware drivers? You can also create higher levels to a certain level, without knowing anything about hardware layer. It can be a nice hobby. But to develop Kernel requires hugh amount of resources, including deep knowledge of hardware, protocols, etc. This is the issue. Or you can be happy with a working sw fits to your machine.
tclfan:
--- Quote from: bmarkus on October 31, 2009, 04:53:25 AM ---
--- Quote from: gerald_clark on October 30, 2009, 09:13:21 PM ---Tclfan, maybe you should look at minix.
--- End quote ---
MINIX 3.1.3 was released friday, april 13th 2007. On 8 june 2007, 3.1.3a, containing some fixes to 3.1.3, was released. Seems that there are no development resources.
Same feeling with Kolibri.
You can throw away LINUX Kernel for example, but who will develop hardware drivers? You can also create higher levels to a certain level, without knowing anything about hardware layer. It can be a nice hobby. But to develop Kernel requires hugh amount of resources, including deep knowledge of hardware, protocols, etc. This is the issue. Or you can be happy with a working sw fits to your machine.
--- End quote ---
I trust you have a good point. My raising this question was to ask whether it is feasible. If it not realistically feasible, then it cannot be accomplished.
My thinking is however that BSD kernel appears to be continually updated, considering some heavy use of BSD on the server side, utilities such like FreeNAS (Great NAS!), etc. Also if I remember, Apple is based on BSD? If this is correct there must be some significant recognition of BSD out there. In addition to recognition, BSD is focused, while Linux is extremely fragmented, which makes decisions adopting Linux for practical use quite difficult...
However if resurrecting BSD requires development of drivers, etc, then unfortunately this solid and secure OS might be as well considered dead for desktop use, which is another loss of good system...
Guy:
The team, who are volunteers, are putting in a lot of time and effort developing Tiny Core.
You should appreciate what they are doing, not expect them to do more.
Maybe in the future more people will get involved.
If more people are involved, they may decide to develop Tiny Core in different ways.
What happens in the future remains to be seen. There are probably many other things which are higher priority than building Tiny Core for BSD. It is up to the people doing it.
Someone could develop Tiny Core for BSD if they wanted.
thane:
Disclaimer: I know little about Linux and less about BSD (just what I've seen from a quick glance at various BSD websites).
That said, my impression is that BSD distros already use the core + custom set of applications approach that TCL does. However, the BSD "core" piece is much larger and more tightly integrated than are the equivalent pieces in Linux. A small BSD equivalent of TCL may not be possible.
My opinion: BSD looks like it was developed by and for software engineers (just as Windows looks like it was developed by the marketing department for whoever they can sell it to). Linux (and TCL) looks like it was developed by people who want useful computers for other people who want useful computers.
Winner: Linux (and TCL).
robc:
IMHO a port of TCL to ARM would come before a fork to BSD
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version