[Info-vax] [OT] Bare metal definition, was: Re: VMS port to x86

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2012-03-27 16.23, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
> Bob Koehler wrote 2012-03-27 17:49:
>> In article<jkqkjv$p1i$1 at news.albasani.net>, Jan-Erik
>> Soderholm<jan-erik.soderholm at telia.com> writes:
>>>
>>> But Linux runs on "bare metal". And if that part is builtin in whatever
>>> the developer calles "the product", then what ? Doesn't "the product"
>>> then
>>> run on "bare metal"? Yes, one component of "the product" is some parts
>>> usualy called "Linux", but so what ? Why should the customer/user care ?
>>
>> Because the Linux kernel can't handle some of the hard real-time
>> applications that the user might have.
>>
>
> But that is a completly different question.
> It has nothing to do with the "bare metall" discussion.

I think it has a lot of relevance if your "bare metal" actually 
introduce a non-deterministic middle layer to your emulation.

The bare metal actually, by definition, do not have this property. So I 
would expect something that runs on the bare metal to retain that 
property, which to some is a very much wanted property. By falsely 
claiming that a product is running on the bare metal, when it actually 
is running on top of an operating system, they are in fact doing false 
marketing, and implicitly claim properties of their system which they 
can not back up.

"Bare metal" is not just a word... It *means* something.

	Johnny