Jump to content
arctic

Microsoft looking to run Windows on OLPC

Recommended Posts

I like me some bsd my self, but I don't think there are enough drivers to make it work.

 

If I had my choice Solaris :) cause its just cool, plus every buisness and there brother uses it and coding/programy is good on it too.

That's somewhat irrelevant with the OLPC.... since the drivers are all for a single model.... with very limited hardware and expandability (I don't see the kids going out and buying add-ons)

From what I read the screen/display is going to be a one off driver for the OLPC anyway... so the smaller resource footprint of BSD might be a better choice...

In the end... almost anything except Windows is a better choice so the kids learning to program be it linux/*BSD or Solaris are learning real skills...

 

 

Hello Gowater. The comment about the nvidia driver could maybe be a little unfair. That driver is intended to cover a lot of versions of nvivia video cards after all. I would quess a driver for a specific card would be very small. I do accept and take on your point though.

 

The $100 Project would likely have just a basic video card and a driver specially tailored for it so it would be quite small. On top of that I don't think the Project necessarily will have to be a heavily hacked down Linux OS. Just so long as the HD in it is around 4Gb or more it will be OK. It costs as much to make a small HD as to make a larger one so I don't think HD size wll be an issue. I believe that most of the cost was for the powering mechanism. I don't know if this correct but it would seem to make sense.

Absolutely... I'm just pointing out that linux is mainstream enough to throw CPU cylces and resources :D

The kernel design of *BSD is IMHO unarguably technically better and more efficient ... but I use linux because memory and CPU cycles are cheap....

Technically better is not necassarily more practical or useful and the microkernel vs monolithic vs the present linux 2.6 mix is as old as linux ....

 

What it does mean is that linux has developed along with hardware and takes advantage of the new hardware often at an efficiency cost whereas *BSD maintains the efficiency even where its mostly not needed.... because HW costs are so low compared to the old arguament at the time in the famous post by linus....

 

In this particular case though the HW is very limited and resources limited.... so it is perhaps pertinent?

A very direct anaology on HW support is OS-X... because apple control the HW and the BIOS...

 

Here is the techy stuff

http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/arch_xnu.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...