Windows on Pi?


155 posts   Page 2 of 7   1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7
by Zobeid Zuma » Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:07 pm
If Microsoft are determined to go into this area, I figure they'll probably use something like the Intel NUC (Next Unit of Computing) as their hardware base.  See here:

http://www.extremetech.com/ext.....mputing-pc

Of course it'll cost at least 3X as much as the Pi, but it'll be worth it for an "industry standard" Microsoft/Intel system, right?  Right??  (Except of course, the world is now moving to tablets and other devices with ARM, iOS and Android.)

For many of us, getting away from X86 and Windows is part of the Pi's appeal, and it's hard for me to imagine the NUC making much inroads with the same crowd who are currently going ape over the Pi.  However, I could imagine some administrators in the educational establishment being dazzled by Microsoft's hard sell.
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:04 pm
by Dave_G_2 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:20 pm
@Zobeid Zuma

If M$ does go the Intel NUC route, I see a few potential problems:

(all with reference to the article you posted the link for).

1) It requires a fan.

Who wants a noisy Pi equivalent humming away on their desk?

Plus this would complicate the case to include ventilation.

2) $100 (probably more) is a tad too expensive.

I can pick up an Intel D410PT board with 1.6GHz CPU for less then that

and no fan required although it"s slightly bigger.

3) The article also mentions that it has very few GPIOs and that users would have to make use of PCIe.

Ever tried building a PCIe interface?

To me, as I"m sure to many others, one of the main attractions of the Pi are the GPIOs which are straight forward to use as opposed to a very complex PCIe interface which is technically out of reach to most if not all of us.

Not to mention the vastly more complex software/drivers that would be required.

What this means is that people wanting to use the I/Os would have to buy a dedicated PCIe interface board (another 20 or 30 bucks) and use the supplied driver which of course the source code to would not be released.

Yet another "lock-in" avenue available to our "friends" in Redmond.

But at the end of the day, as you quite rightly wrote, those with the purchasing power will no doubt be dazzled and before you know it, there are thousands of these units on school desks.
User avatar
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 7:04 pm
by obarthelemy » Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:46 pm
I find the M$ spelling childish, but I don't think there's an official policy to ban it.
Posts: 1399
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:53 pm
by cheery » Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:00 pm
rurwin said:


If all the RaspPi does is force Microsoft to support the teaching of computing, then it will have been a success. It's only us Linux fanatics who will be crying into our real ale.


You are terribly wrong. Microsoft needs to be smoked away from software industry, I prefer permanently. They have proven to be unreliable and awkward for purpose of holding a monopoly. They attempt to do everything they can to avoid competition and therefore innovation. They are there for profiting without adding value to anyone else than themselves.

Concept such as Raspberry will be not profitable for Microsoft in short run, so once they ´succeed´ monopolizing it, they'll drop the thing after a short while.

Disclaimer: I'm not a Linux fanatic. But I'm hostile to Microsoft. Also. There's nothing special in an operating system that'd require it to be a non-commodity. Commercial operating systems belong to history lessons.
User avatar
Posts: 219
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:39 pm
by jamesh » Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:02 pm
I'm not a fan of the M$ moniker either. But it's not being rude to other forum users, so I see no issues with letting people use it. As to the comment of the OP re: irrelevant tangents – this is an internet forum – tangents are a legal requirements (depending on jurisdiction). At least these ones are pretty low angle! Since I answered the OP's question as well, there shouldn't be any need for anyone to continue posting either. Never seen a discussion forum that worked like that though.
Soon to be employed engineer - Hurrah! Volunteer at the Raspberry Pi Foundation, helper at PiAcademy September 2014.
Raspberry Pi Engineer & Forum Moderator
Raspberry Pi Engineer & Forum Moderator
Posts: 11924
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 7:41 pm
by Dave_G_2 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:05 pm
obarthelemy said:


I find the M$ spelling childish, but I don't think there's an official policy to ban it.


Fair enough, you are entitled to your interpretation and since there is no official policy to ban it's use, then I'm not transgressing any rules by incorporating it in my posts.

I use it to indicate my distrust of that company and see no difference between using it or spelling out my feelings using other words or phrases.
User avatar
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 7:04 pm
by Joe Schmoe » Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:34 pm
It's occurred to me that maybe the answer to this eternal question is a co-processor board.

Remember, back in the old, old days of the Apple ][, in the world where CP/M was king?  People liked their Apples, but they needed CP/M (for the usual dreaded "business" reasons).  So, somebody created this board that you put in your Apple - the board was basically a complete computer itself - that had a Z80 (or whatever it was that you needed to run CP/M) on it and allowed you to run CP/M on your Apple.

It doesn't seem that unlikely that someone could come up with some kind of co-processor for the Pi, that has an X86 on it - and, bamm!  there ya go.
Never answer the question you are asked. Rather, answer the question you wish you had been asked.

- Robert S. McNamara - quoted in "Fog of War" -
Posts: 2779
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:11 pm
by tufty » Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:56 pm
Dave - whilst you"re certainly free to use "M$", it"s worth being aware that a lot of people (even those who, like I, are less sympathetic to MS than yourself) may well consider its presence as a sign that your post isn"t likely to contain any level of discussion worth bothering with. Platform (and anti-platform) fanatics are usually so blinkered that they are unable to sort the wheat from the chaff; it"s not worth engaging them.

The exception to the rule, of course, are Newton fanatics. They"re, put simply, /right/.

Simon.
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:32 pm
by Dave_G_2 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:15 pm
@tufty

Hence forth the | in M$ will be dropped ( like so MS_ ) :-)

Seriously though, what you say makes perfect sense and I had not thought of it that way.

Just MS from now on it is.

Thanks.
User avatar
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 7:04 pm
by jamesh » Mon Apr 30, 2012 5:08 pm
tufty said:


Dave - whilst you"re certainly free to use "M$", it"s worth being aware that a lot of people (even those who, like I, are less sympathetic to MS than yourself) may well consider its presence as a sign that your post isn"t likely to contain any level of discussion worth bothering with. Platform (and anti-platform) fanatics are usually so blinkered that they are unable to sort the wheat from the chaff; it"s not worth engaging them.

The exception to the rule, of course, are Newton fanatics. They"re, put simply, /right/.

Simon.


I think you'll find, and I'm always right, that you need to sort the chaff from the wheat, not the wheat from the chaff. And Linux is better than Windows. And Ubuntu is better than Mint. And I'm better than...er.....other OS fanatics who are all wrong. And...and...and....
Soon to be employed engineer - Hurrah! Volunteer at the Raspberry Pi Foundation, helper at PiAcademy September 2014.
Raspberry Pi Engineer & Forum Moderator
Raspberry Pi Engineer & Forum Moderator
Posts: 11924
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 7:41 pm
by Flying Toaster » Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:58 pm
(I know it's always bad karma to have a run-in with an admin, but, anyway, here goes nothing ;) )


JamesH said:

At least these ones are pretty low angle! Since I answered the OP"s question as well, there shouldn"t be any need for anyone to continue posting either.


Since I am unable to find out the exact who's-who of the R-P Foundation, I'll just reply, for this post only, based on the assumption that you are the go-to person for this kind of questions. This is despite the desciption in your bio, which states:

"Application engineer working at Broadcom specialising on the Videocore multi media chip."

Now, according to you (and despite I don't remember having a "sub-question" in my original post)"


"Windows won't run [on Raspberry Pi] without a colossal amount of work".


As far as I am aware, Windows NT used to support three entirely distinct instruction set architectures - DEC Alpha, MIPS and x86. Many of the posters here also seem to notice that Windows 8 will offer support for certain types of ARM-based SoC systems in parallel to x86/-64. Of course, this is not to mention the existence of other Windows families of products such as Windows Phone (or "Windows CE"), which now runs on devices such as the Nokia Lumia series of smartphones, and the customized NT4 supplied with the aforementioned, non-PC compatible SGI Visual Workstations, or the fact that the hardware requirements for Windows Server 2008 R2 (which offers the aforementioned barebone install option known as "Server Core") sets the minimum amount of system memory to 512MB. This leads us to the first question:

1) What does this supposed "colossal work", in strictly technical details, involved, and why will it inherently prevent the incorporation of Windows (of any breed) to Raspberry Pi despite the presently lack of expressed dis/interest from MS in the involvement of RPi?

Now, you have also mentioned that:


"There is also the thorny issue of secure boot[...] and the fact that Windows is entirely closed source."


For anyone who has read the "About us" page of the R-P Foundation, it ought to be clear that the organization simply does not appear to have any particular stance in relation to secure boot, open-source software, net neutrality or any "thorny" idealogical subjects that may concern certain communities. Rather, it states very clearly in its first sentence that:


"The idea behind a tiny and cheap computer for kids came in 2006, when Eben Upton and his colleagues at the University of Cambridge’s Computer Laboratory, including Rob Mullins, Jack Lang and Alan Mycroft, became concerned about the year-on-year decline in the numbers and skills levels of the A Level students applying to read Computer Science in each academic year."


This leads us to the second question:

2) What is the relevance of such "thorny" idealogical subjects to the incorporation of Windows to RPi despite the apparant fact that they exist entirely outside of the goal of R-P Foundation, which is, in the organization's own words, "to address problems like an inadequate school curriculum [for Computer Science] or the end of a financial bubble"?

Lastly, you also state that:


If MS want Windows to run on the Raspi (rather than the other way round), they should approach the foundation, not vica versa.


This leads us to the obvious, third question:

3) Why should R-P Foundation not initiate a dialogue between the organization itself and MS in regards to the incorporation of Windows to RPi despite the obvious fact that it is entirely within the interests of R-P Foundation to do so?

Your answers to these questions will be greatly appreciated!
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:16 am
by obarthelemy » Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:49 pm
tufty said:


The exception to the rule, of course, are Newton fanatics. They"re, put simply, /right/.

Simon.


You mean that thing that wanted to be a Palm but couldn't ? I recently came across the shoebox into which I had retired my 3 Palms, the original one, the Vx, and the color one (T3 ?). No reliable way to get them to sync with Windows anymore, and nobody wanted them on ebay, so they met a disgraceful demise in a recycling bin.. but how handy they were at the time ! Apart from web browsing, they pretty much were doing everything I am doing now on my Android phone (email, ebooks, rss, video, music), 15 years ago. And the battery lasted longer ^^ In the end, I find them much more Apple-y than the Newton ever was.

Much smaller than the NEC PC101 they replaced for crap emails during my commute, too. I'm still wondering about how good that Sinclair 4-line laptop was, and regretting not getting one. Very flaky software at the time, I think.

/end of taunting old geezer rant. You may disregard.
Posts: 1399
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:53 pm
by nick.mccloud » Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:54 pm
Please James, I beg you, please don't. I'll let you have my Pi.
User avatar
Posts: 795
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 4:18 pm
by tufty » Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:06 pm
Flying Toaster said:


Since I am unable to find out the exact who's-who of the R-P Foundation, I'll just reply, for this post only, based on the assumption that you are the go-to person for this kind of questions.


James is a pretty nice guy, and highly technically competent.  However, if you want people from the Foundation to answer your questions, you probably need to look a bit harder.

Anyway, as a totally non-foundation affiliated person, I'll have a shot at this.  Feel free to ask me for more technical details if you need them, or point out anywhere I've fouled up.


As far as I am aware, Windows NT used to support three entirely distinct instruction set architectures - DEC Alpha, MIPS and x86.


At least five, actually.  It ran on PowerPC as well, and intergraph had a working Clipper build at one point, and there were rumours about a SPARC one as well.  The original NT kernel was quite nice, but at around the NT 4.0 mark, it started going off the rails, with an awful lot of stuff being brought into kernel space "for performance reasons".  I'm not quite sure at which point MS dropped all the multiplatform stuff, but PowerPC at least was dropped after NT 4.0.  Wikipedia tells me that Alpha was dropped during the NT5.0 days (Windows 2000), but we all know how reliable that is.  Certainly from NT5.1 (Windows XP) it was x86 only.


Many of the posters here also seem to notice that Windows 8 will offer support for certain types of ARM-based SoC systems in parallel to x86/-64.


Indeed it will.  Its baseline hardware requirements are quite significantly higher than that provided by the Pi, though.


Of course, this is not to mention the existence of other Windows families of products such as Windows Phone (or "Windows CE"), which now runs on devices such as the Nokia Lumia series of smartphones


CE runs on a lot of stuff with a far lower spec than that.


1) What does this supposed "colossal work", in strictly technical details, involved, and why will it inherently prevent the incorporation of Windows (of any breed) to Raspberry Pi despite the presently lack of expressed dis/interest from MS in the involvement of RPi?


First of all, let's assume we have access to the codebase of whatever Windows variant we want to start from.

If you wanted to start from the NT codebase, AIUI you'd be looking at bringing in support for a whole new architecture platform that isn't currently supported, into a platform that has thrown away all pretensions of supporting anything other than x86.  It may be that the Vista/Win7/Win8 family of kernels are still multi-platform, but I strongly doubt it.  You'd probably have to start with something at around the Win2K point.

If you want to start from the Win8/ARM codebase, you'd have to backport all the ARMv7 stuff it uses to use ARMv6 equivalents where possible, slim the whole thing down to work within the amount of memory available, and somehow work out a way of getting it to run at anything above a snail's pace (the Pi's ARMv6 core is *significantly slower per-cycle than a single ARMv7 core, which Win8 is demanding 2 of, and at a significantly higher clockspeed).

CE, you could probably get to work.  <irony>All</irony> you'd need to do would be to write a new BSP (that's actually quite a lot of work to do).

In all cases, you'd need to get support from Broadcom to develop the GPU side of things, but if we assume you're MS, then that's probably gonna be OK.


2) What is the relevance of such "thorny" idealogical subjects to the incorporation of Windows to RPi despite the apparant fact that they exist entirely outside of the goal of R-P Foundation, which is, in the organization's own words, "to address problems like an inadequate school curriculum [for Computer Science] or the end of a financial bubble"?


The "secure boot" issue is not thorny for ideological reasons, it's thorny for hardware reasons - you can't implement it on the Pi platform.  Thus, you are not going to get MS's approval to run Win8/ARM on the Pi unless they decide to throw away that restriction.

There are ideological reasons to avoid such a hardware restriction from a user's point of view (I own the hardware, I should be able to run what the hell I like on it, for example), but that's an aside.


3) Why should R-P Foundation not initiate a dialogue between the organization itself and MS in regards to the incorporation of Windows to RPi despite the obvious fact that it is entirely within the interests of R-P Foundation to do so?


In what way would it be in the interests of the foundation to do so?  They already have an OS kernel (that's having some little bugs worked out) that works, and other people (like myself) working on other OS kernels.  There are multiple distributions of Linux running on the Pi already, and more will come.

In what way would it be beneficial to have Windows of some variant running on the Pi, given that it's not going to be able to run any existing software (x86 stuff won't run because it's x86, Win8/ARM stuff won't run because it assumes ARMv7, CE stuff because what little there is of it is a festering pile of dingo's kidneys).

The Foundation don't need Microsoft.  Simple as.

Simon
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:32 pm
by tufty » Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:16 pm
obarthelemy said:


/end of taunting old geezer rant. You may disregard.


Cannot resist. Rest of world may disregard :)


tufty said:


The exception to the rule, of course, are Newton fanatics. They"re, put simply, /right/.

Simon.


You mean that thing that wanted to be a Palm but couldn"t ?


That"s the one.  Still, it"s hard to aim at being little more than an electronic version of an address book when you"re a fully fledged computer, and aiming at being a palm was kinda hard given that Newton came out 3 years beforehand :)

I have to say the palms were actually quite nice for what they were, and they certainly were lightweight.  I have a Palm III on my desk right now (it"s busted, and I keep wondering what to do with it).  The main downfall to the palm was if your batteries ran out.  You lost *everything* you hadn"t synced.

Newtons on the other hand – Apart from the form factor (hard to get around at the time) and the flaky HWR on the early models, are perfect.  Everything computing should be.  Consistent UI, fantastic peripheral support, no filesystem showing its underwear above the waistline of the trousers, etc.  Pretty much the same battery life as a palm, with the added bonus that you can throw it in a desk drawer, come back *years* afterwards, chuck some new batteries in it, hit the go button, and 2 seconds later you"re back *exactly* where you were when you last turned it off.

Sadly, my MP2100 has a buggered touchscreen, so it"s currently retired until I can source a replacement.

I assume by the "sinclair laptop" you mean the Z88?  I deeply regret giving mine away.  It had a godawful keyboard, but it was lovely.

Simon
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:32 pm
by scep » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:01 pm
Flying Toaster said:

3) Why should R-P Foundation not initiate a dialogue between the organization itself and MS in regards to the incorporation of Windows to RPi despite the obvious fact that it is entirely within the interests of R-P Foundation to do so?

You are begging the question.
User avatar
Posts: 1063
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:53 am
by thomas.erskine » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:11 pm
Sorry.  I don't understand that statement.  Why do you think it's in the foundation's interest to investigate licensing an OS which would cost many times what the hardware does?  Their stated goal is to make _cheap_ computers available to kids.  Increasing the costs by many times isn't going to help with that.
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:23 am
by scep » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:25 pm
Just to clarify - I mean "begging the question" in the correct sense, not the Daily Mail journo sense ;) . It's the logical fallacy of assuming that which you are setting out to prove.

In this case, no evidence has been presented to demonstrate the "obvious fact" that it is in the interests of  the Foundation to talk to MS about getting Windows on the Pi. Yet this premise is used to question why the Foundation have not talked to MS! :)
User avatar
Posts: 1063
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:53 am
by jamesh » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:14 pm
Simon missed out one thing in his otherwise comprehensive answer. If MS were to provide their OS on the Raspi, they would CONTROL the OS on the Raspi. That means any fixes would need to come from Microsoft, any upgrades would need to come from Microsoft. With Linux we already have a community of people fixing up problems, for free. That makes a lot of sense - faster response, more work done, better quality of code (through peer review).
Soon to be employed engineer - Hurrah! Volunteer at the Raspberry Pi Foundation, helper at PiAcademy September 2014.
Raspberry Pi Engineer & Forum Moderator
Raspberry Pi Engineer & Forum Moderator
Posts: 11924
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 7:41 pm
by Joe Schmoe » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:49 pm
You can't have any sort of meaningful conversation (debate, discussion, argument, pick whatever word suits your fancy) with someone whose values are fundamentally and incompatibly different from your own.  If you cannot agree on what is good (desirable), then you can't even begin to agree on what are right choices of action.  This is why discussions of religion and politics (which are fundamentally about values) are to be avoided (unless the participants are known to be on the same page).  Discussions of Microsoft are similarly loaded.

In this case, Mr Toaster is coming from an assumption  that not only is running Windows on the Pi desirable, but that it is as morally proper and inevitable as is the sunshine and the rain.  Despite all his claims that he is just asking a simple yes/no question, the fact is that it has been obvious from the get-go what his agenda is.  That simple yes/no question was answered many times in the first few responses on the thread, yet he persisted - and clearly elaborated into what we all knew was the real question (what JamesH referred to as the "sub-question"), which is (and always was) "Why not?".

To re-iterate, Mr Toaster's fundamental question is "Why not?", while for the rest of us, the fundamental question is "Why?"
Never answer the question you are asked. Rather, answer the question you wish you had been asked.

- Robert S. McNamara - quoted in "Fog of War" -
Posts: 2779
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:11 pm
by Flying Toaster » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:50 pm

tufty said:

The original NT kernel was quite nice, but at around the NT 4.0 mark, it started going off the rails, with an awful lot of stuff being brought into kernel space "for performance reasons".


I do believe – if I am not mistaken – that the Linux kernel is monolithic, and that means however much NT has in the kernel, there simply can't be any more than what Linux currently does. I do not see this has hindered Linux in anyway to run on ARM-based hardware, however.


First of all, let's assume we have access to the codebase of whatever Windows variant we want to start from.


Irrelevant. Unless we are looking at some very convoluted division of responsibilities here and the total absence of well-defined APIs, there is no reason for access to soucre code being essentially for any party other than MS itself for the incorporation of Windows to RPi.


If you wanted to start from the NT codebase, AIUI you'd be looking at bringing in support for a whole new architecture platform that isn't currently supported, into a platform that has thrown away all pretensions of supporting anything other than x86.


Don't get me wrong here, but do you have any substantial evidence to prove that such "pretensions" do in fact exist?


It may be that the Vista/Win7/Win8 family of kernels are still multi-platform, but I strongly doubt it.  You'd probably have to start with something at around the Win2K point.


Again, don't get me wrong here, but I do believe I have phrased my question carefully enough to exclude any speculations that are without technical merits. Unless you have something to substantiate your doubt, then I'll simply have to kindly ask you, again, for some substantial evidence to support your claim.


If you want to start from the Win8/ARM codebase, you'd have to backport all the ARMv7 stuff it uses to use ARMv6 equivalents where possible


I am not sure I am missing something here – and pushing aside the fact Windows embedded lines support ARMv6 from the word "go" - but isn't this supposed to be the kind of stuff that you take care of in the compiler?


slim the whole thing down to work within the amount of memory available


As I have pointed out several times, this has been done once on the server side of things, and I am not seeing that the Server Core install option is going to vanish in the next release of Windows Server, which, I must add, has always been based on the same things released for the client editions of Windows.


and somehow work out a way of getting it to run at anything above a snail's pace (the Pi's ARMv6 core is *significantly slower per-cycle than a single ARMv7 core, which Win8 is demanding 2 of, and at a significantly higher clockspeed).


Again, I expect reasoning well-substantiated with technical details and not idle speculations based on the system requirements of a specific release of a product family that is in no way created specifically with RPi in mind, and I do hope that I won't have to repeat this again just to remind people what my question is and isn't in the future.


CE, you could probably get to work.  <irony>All</irony> you'd need to do would be to write a new BSP (that's actually quite a lot of work to do). In all cases, you'd need to get support from Broadcom to develop the GPU side of things, but if we assume you're MS, then that's probably gonna be OK.


I do believe that's part of the idea of having MS involved.


The "secure boot" issue is not thorny for ideological reasons, it's thorny for hardware reasons – you can't implement it on the Pi platform.  Thus, you are not going to get MS's approval to run Win8/ARM on the Pi unless they decide to throw away that restriction.


I don't see why that would be an issue at all unless I have already formed an opinion on whether they will hesitate to forgo this supposed "restriction". (Needless to say, I have not.)


There are ideological reasons to avoid such a hardware restriction from a user's point of view (I own the hardware, I should be able to run what the hell I like on it, for example), but that's an aside.


And why is that a problem at all with Windows?


In what way would it be in the interests of the foundation to do so?


Because, say, Windows is a popular operating systems? In fact, I am using it right now, all my family members are using it right now, all my friends are using it right now, and my neighbour's cats would probably be using it as well if not for the fact they are cats. Hence, I don't think the question that one should be asking here is "why" but, rather, "why not".


In what way would it be beneficial to have Windows of some variant running on the Pi, given that it's not going to be able to run any existing software.


I do believe that the userland side of the issue is well taken care of by the existing development frameworks of the platform and, if possible, the involvement of MS. This is not to mention that development tools for Windows are also pretty well-established due to the commercial nature of the platform - and, if I am not mistaken, this ought to take care of the "Computer Science" side of the picture pretty thoroughly.


(x86 stuff won't run because it's x86, Win8/ARM stuff won't run because it assumes ARMv7, CE stuff because what little there is of it is a festering pile of dingo's kidneys).


I am pretty sure your personal sentiments of the platform is not what exactly I am asking for here, but that nonetheless gets me to rethink whether my queries are indeed worth the effort.
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:16 am
by Flying Toaster » Tue May 01, 2012 12:31 am

JamesH said:

Simon missed out one thing in his otherwise comprehensive answer. If MS were to provide their OS on the Raspi, they would CONTROL the OS on the Raspi. That means any fixes would need to come from Microsoft, any upgrades would need to come from Microsoft.


I'll take this as an addendum of tufty's response.

So, what is the problem with having Microsoft looking after the software it itself has created? Or are we supposed to be in preparation for some unforseen scenarios where a meteorite reduces Redmond into a smothering crater?


With Linux we already have a community of people fixing up problems, for free. That makes a lot of sense – faster response, more work done, better quality of code (through peer review).


So, who exactly is this "community of people", and when exactly are they available for "fixing up problems"? How do they divide responsibility precisely? Do they ever retire? Who's going to be the backup when someone gets sick or has a long vacation? These questions are legitimate even for a church group, a book club or even a support group for alchoholics, and I do believe a "community of people" fixing up problems" is no exception.
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:16 am
by Joe Schmoe » Tue May 01, 2012 12:54 am
Your true agenda and your true colors are certainly coming through loud and clear now.  We thank you for that.
Never answer the question you are asked. Rather, answer the question you wish you had been asked.

- Robert S. McNamara - quoted in "Fog of War" -
Posts: 2779
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:11 pm
by Flying Toaster » Tue May 01, 2012 1:07 am

Joe Schmoe said:

Your true agenda and your true colors are certainly coming through loud and clear now.  We thank you for that.


There is an agenda only so as long as you see there is. Unless I have misread your previous post, then it is pretty clear that, to you, there is somehow a way to classify the involvement of a software company in a computer system project as "morally proper" or "morally imporper". Unless you are talking about somewhere along the line of IBM colluding with the Nazis, then I honestly wonder what this supposed moral properness might be.

I don't know, but maybe you can shed some light on it just so I'll understand what this complete absence of agenda - as you define it – involves.
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:16 am
by Joe Schmoe » Tue May 01, 2012 1:23 am
You're funny - no doubt about it.  I certainly give you props for that.

Your style reminds me a lot of mgmt_idiot - who posted here a few months ago.  No, I'm not making that up - and no, it isn't a slam - that really was his posting ID.  Your style is very similar to his - and it was equally a hoot then as now.
Never answer the question you are asked. Rather, answer the question you wish you had been asked.

- Robert S. McNamara - quoted in "Fog of War" -
Posts: 2779
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:11 pm