Christopher Smith wrote:
That said, portability is really a crappy metric for how much a software platform stresses a memory subsystem. In a lot of cases it is more of a measure of business strategies/deals/etc. than anything technological.
Agreed. However, this was Tracy's query:
I'm confused. If this is so then why does Unix run on so many different processors? It was even ported for free by hackers over very short timeframes. And Windows so few?
I simply pointed out that the porting of Linux to multiple architectures was not preordained nor was NT particularly locked to x86 at the time.
-a -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
