Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
I should write a study, comparing two operating systems. My choice was OS X and Ubuntu, especially because the last Ubuntu, 11.11 (Oneiric Ocelot) seems to be as OS X Lion.
This two themes are too large - I would like to be more specific in my study - such as kernel or thread differences. Can you suggest me some ideas, which are large enough to write a study about them, but specifically good enough in the same time?
Thanks.
Some ideas to investigate:
license and freedom of software (and of user data).
the /proc filesystem
kernel limitations (number of threads, of processes, of inodes, max file sizes)
availability of cross platform framework libraries (like Qt)
hardware drivers & heterogeneity
thread implementations
dynamic libraries, plugins
graphical interfaces
availability of language implementations
etc etc
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
"Technically, however, they represent different philosophies: the ARM architecture is designed to be as simple as possible, to keep energy wastage to a minimum, whereas Intel's range uses a more complex design that benefits from compatibility with the company's (much more power-hungry) desktop and laptop CPUs." Well then why can't I run Windows on a raspberry Pi? Also, what is start4.elf?
Microsoft seems to know there are issues with Windows on ARM because it won't even sell you a copy of it. The company licenses the ARM version only to OEMs to pre-install on new systems. When asked if it would open up sales so people could run Windows on the new Macs, Microsoft said it had no plans at this time.
Start4.elf is a file that raspberry pi uses to boot.
Hope this helps!
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I am in my learning the landscape of Linux kernel for ARM-based SoCs development.
This is the very early stage of learning and will surely take a long time as the matters seem to be comprehensive.
The goal is to have sufficient orientation in the eco-system so as soon as concrete issues in own project are to be solved one is able to route the search/investigation in the proper trails.
There is the Linus's tree, vanilla kernel. As for ARM platform there is also the ARM port tee/project/repository. If however to have a look at MAINTAINER file there are several maintainers/sub-systems of, apparently, ARM specific narrow-spectrum topics.
I wonder why all those narrow-spectrum topics do not deliver/contribute to the ARM port (http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/) repository instead of delivering directly to Torvalds tree?
There seems to exist also ARM SUB-ARCHITECTURES sub-system. Several those narrow-spectrum sub-systems/maintainers seem to be intended for porting to certain platform, conclusion based on naming the found sub-system/maintainer. Why are these centralized at / contribute to Linus tree directly instead of doing it to ARM SUB-ARCHITECTURES sub-system or as mentioned above?
The organization is somehow mysterious, in-transparent for a newbie.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I recently had to enable VT for windows7 since I want to run ubuntu on vmware so I was wondering why isnt it enabled by default is it some kind of security issue or just not necessary for the average user?
There are several reasons, including "security" and "performance":
https://superuser.com/questions/291340/why-do-pc-manufacturers-disable-advanced-cpu-features-in-the-bios-by-default
http://www.vmware.com/pdf/asplos235_adams.pdf
Intel virtualization technology can get hardware intensive and although the software requirement is low (Windows Vista) only modern CPUs made by INTEL ONLY such as Intel i7 support it.
Not all windows computers have an Intel CPU though (a good amount of them do). The only people that use the VTX technology are developers and people who want to run a different operating system than their computer came with, so not everyone. As for security issue, I'm not sure but it can get very RAM intensive. (i.e. the Android HAXM for developers has a default RAM usage of 2GB, and the minimum is 512 MB!).
If you want to know more you can check out this article
or the website:
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/virtualization/virtualization-technology/intel-virtualization-technology.html
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Closed 8 years ago.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.
Improve this question
I am learning to customize the Linux kernel to make it portable on embedded systems. To test my customized kernel , i want a completely open sourced ARM board. I investigated the Raspberry pi but some it's firmware (i.e. "start.elf") is not open source. Can anybody name an ARM board which is completely open source?
Also are there any such board whose ROM/AVRAM contents can also be replaced?
Thank you !
If by "completely open source" you mean open source bootloader, kernel and OS (correct me if I'm wrong), then I would recommend one of Beagle family boards -- they are inexpensive, user friendly and have a good community support. Their open source stack consists of U-Boot, Linux kernel and one of few available distributions. If you need advanced features, check out EVM's by Texas Instrument, but they cost much more.
Jetson-TK1 from nvidia, is a developer platform,
does have u-boot loader, Linux Kernel and rootfs,
The board layout is also shared, you can recompile things for you.
It comes with 2GB RAM, a 2.3GHz Quad core processor, with GPU that is ready for CUDA kind of high level programming
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813190005
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm looking for a shell where I can test shellscripts and a programs on a Mac.
What I'm looking for, is something like bshellz.net but with Apple computers (i.e. Macs). Is there such thing available?
I was googling for the last few days, but I couldn't find anything.
If you are developing a free software (open source) project, you might be able to request access to the GCC compile farm, which appears to include at least one Mac Mini.
If you're not developing free software, it might be harder to find people willing to donate their CPU and bandwidth to you for free, especially since Mac hardware tends to be a bit expensive and Mac OS X is difficult to virtualize unless you pay half a grand for Mac OS X Server. There seem to be a variety of places which offer colo or dedicated hosting for Mac Minis and XServes, but not a lot of people providing free or cheap shell accounts on shared servers.