|In reply to Comment 102 (Anonymous):|
> They have to manually port the system to each new target, just like Linux.
OF course they do port Intent/VP to host OS and hardware platforms.
> They have absolutely no advantage over a Free Software alternative, in fact > if anything they are at a disadvantage because they must defend binary
> portable solutions over other choices,
I don't see the problem with Intent's solution in regards to "transparent" binary portability.
> Tao's claim for OS portability is that you can write a PCI driver on x86 and > then use the same driver on Alpha or Sparc. That would be a big deal, except > that Windows and Linux do that too,
> you just recompile the driver, a purely mechanical operation.
It's not transparent for the mundane user. Not very one is elitist linux geek.
> You can write non-portable code on Linux, but you can
> also write non-portable code on Intent. Similarly you can write code that > > isn't thread safe, or which has security holes on any of these platforms.
The focus of Intent's solution is "transparent" binary portability for mundane end user.
> while Linux and *BSD are free to do either as appropriate to the situation.
It's not transparent for mundane user.