[Info-vax] openvms and xterm

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

On Wed, 8 May 2024 14:34:09 +1200, David Goodwin wrote:

> In article <v1cjv2$343as$1 at dont-email.me>, ldo at nz.invalid says...
>> 
>> So Windows needed some special handholding to run on non-x86
>> architectures, where Linux was able to operate without such training
>> wheels.
> 
> Please don't be absurd. Special hand-holding? I'm really not sure how
> you think Windows NT has more special hand-holding than Linux here.
> Delete all the "special handholding" OpenFirmware support code from the
> linux kernel and see how well it boots on a SPARCstation.

The point is, Linux has all that built-in support so it doesn’t need the 
handholding. It is versatile and adaptable to the wide world of non-x86 
hardware out there. Windows, on the other hand, has a very specific and 
inflexible set of requirements for the hardware before it can even be 
ported.

> This is a reasonable choice when you're a company that is after some
> kind of return on investment.

Except I suspect that all the non-x86 ports of Windows have been dead 
losses so far. Including the current decades-old money pit that is 
Windows-on-ARM.

> You don't make money by developing a
> product no one will buy no matter how cheap or easy that product is to
> develop.

Precisely my point. Nobody wanted Windows on those architectures, but they 
do want Linux.

> I asked if [Linux] could run with a FAT32 root filesystem (/).

Of course it can. I see online some mention of lack of support for 
symlinks, but that’s just an issue with the more elaborate userlands that 
you typically run on Linux distros. You won’t need symlinks just to run a 
simple command.

Remember, you can boot up a Linux kernel and specify whatever command you 
want to run for its “init” (PID 1) process. That can be as simple as a 
shell. And shells on Linux can cope with whatever filesystems Linux itself 
can cope with.