Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 10:43:11 +0000 From: Chris.Smith@raytheon.co.uk To: chris@tourneyland.com Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD & Transmeta - something we should care about? Message-ID: <0025689C.003AC216.00@rslhub.raytheon.co.uk>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, ** "Transmeta expects that Linux will be the primary operating system for ** mobile Internet devices." Well they would. They need the compatibility of Win9x etc and as Linus was there -- hey lets add another convoluted OS to the list (Linux before I get flamed!). ** At first, upon reading the first quote, my only reaction was a knee-jerk ** "What about FreeBSD"? But the more I think about this, the more I think ** about this. From a technical standpoint, is Linux really a better candidate ** than FreeBSD? Well they'll both work. As for stability, as normal FreeBSD comes out way on top. ** Which has the smaller kernel, or rather, which can more ** easily have a smaller kernel created that's appropriate for internet ** devices? Linux is crappy for portable apps, so I agree there. FreeBSD isn't much better (read to the bottom before flaming). ** Is it a wash? Why wouldn't it be? And less technically: why would ** TransMeta say something like "Transmeta expects that Linux will be the ** primary operating system for mobile Internet devices"? Because Linus cost them a lot of money and they have expectations. Linux is a crap OS for portable devices. I wouldn't accept anything much more complicated than PalmOS. It's simple, elegant, scalable and once you've bought the hardware, free! It also works! ** That seems like an ** odd expectation. Even assuming the top OS for such a device wouldn't be a ** Windows or Palm variant (a big if), why would it be Linux? Palm should get in here. Windows (or CE) is a dead OS relying on age old technology. Microsoft recently quoted on www.dot-truth.com that 'Solaris 8 moves back to the ancient mainframe era of the 60's and therefore is not very scalable.'. Windows needs a portable Cray T3E in comparison to most portable devices. Linux is too big for portables and is surrounded by too much hype. Palm however, is simple and you never need to read the manual. Anyone can use a PalmOS device straight off. ** Is there any ** reason for such a claim other than Linus Torvalds' presence in Transmeta? No. ** (again, why would Linux be good but not FreeBSD?) Should they change ** 'Transmeta expects' to 'Transmeta would prefer'? Though if they're a ** hardware company why care, or why even mention the issue? Linux is bloated hype. FreeBSD is stability and most importantly -> reality. BSD UNIX variants (Solaris 2.7 etc) are very strong here, but Linux doesnt get a look. It's simply not reliable enough. It's also a botch of 4 or 5 different standards. ** I guess some of this stuff speaks to various Linux vs. FreeBSD wars, ** including a Should There Be a Linux vs FreeBSD war. Maybe it's meaningless. ** It's just something that popped into my head at this hour, and I thought ** someone might have a reaction. My view on this matter is who needs a 500MHz portable system (as Transmeta suggest)? Perhaps a dedicated DVD decoder or something to accelerate the graphics would be enough. I sold my 333MHz Celeron Laptop because my Palm V is a whole lot more productive (and faster due to windows only supporting the laptop devices). Do we really need this kind of power or are we being dragged into the the Intel/Transmeta/AMD Needs Constant Upgrading stream of things? I believe than neither Linux/Windows/FreeBSD are suited to portable use. We need a totally new platform which is scalable across bluetooth etc for portables and unfortunately we dont have it! PalmOS is the nearest thing to a proper portable OS that we have and it's still nowhere near there yet. Chris Smith Raytheon Systems Limited To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0025689C.003AC216.00>