Comment by laumars | Hacker News Reader

Comment by laumars | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

N64 wouldn’t have been considered “constrained” when it was new though. To be honest it’s not really constrained even now, not compared to the sort of hardware you were discussing earlier. And it’s rather disingenuous how you keep rocking back and forth between current generation consoles and 20+ year old tech as if it’s all current hardware. It makes it rather hard to reply to your points when you then when the goal posts constantly get shifted.

PS5 would easily run Linux considering the PS3 had a few Linux distros ported to it (back when Sony endorsed running Linux on their hardware via the “Other OS” option, which they later removed). Linux is pretty lightweight by modern hardware standards anyways. It’s just not suitable for every domain (but what OS is?)

On then topic of consoles running Linux, pretty sure I have a CD-R somewhere with Linux for the Dreamcast. That was the era when consoles really started to converge on a modern-looking software development approach.

> And it’s rather disingenuous how you keep rocking back and forth between current generation consoles

I never did. I never mentioned current generation consoles not even implicitly. I always talked either about the N64 or (gaming) devices that are constrained and cannot run linux.

Except you did:

“I think that Nintendo might use Microkernels [in the Switch] according to reverse engeneering finds shows their massive potential for constrained devices.”

Maybe you hadn’t grokked that pjmlp was talking about the Switch (Nintendo’s current generation console) rather than the N64?

Either way, my other comment[0] also applies:

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25559670

Execpt that you entered "[in the Switch]" from your own imagination and it's simply not there in my original comment.

> Nintendo actual devices use microkernel based designs. We are way past the usual FUD against microkernels.

Regarding pjmlp post, yes that's true, it wasn't clear (and still isn't) to me from his post, that he specifically speaks about the Switch when referring to "devices".

> Execpt that you entered "[in the Switch]" from your own imagination and it's simply not there in my original comment.

I know it’s not there in your original comment, that’s why it was inside square brackets. That’s a standard way of including context in a quote that otherwise would lack said context. You would see that in news papers and other publications. This isn’t some weird markup I’ve just invented and it’s definitely not a figment of my imagination because the post you were replying to was about the Switch.

> Regarding pjmlp post, yes that's true, it wasn't clear (and still isn't) to me from his post, that he specifically speaks about the Switch when referring to "devices".

You’re right, it wasn’t explicit. My apologies there.

> I know it’s not there in your original comment [and I'm sorry that I have abused the square brackets in such a way, that it changes the meaning] ... My apologies there.

[No problem.]

I wasn’t changing the meaning though. You were replying to a post about Switch. It’s not my fault you can’t grasp enough of this stuff to hold an intellectual discussion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com