You could do "network shares" as in mount the filesystem from Linux and export over Samba/NFS/etc; it would probably also be possible to export the drive as an iSCSI device and mount HFS(+) filesystems directly from the Mac.
What I've learned from visiting my own parents is, you can alleviate the energy concern, if you (1) get solar panels and (2) ban your spouse from running the dishwasher at night :P
Sounds like this is about making .OBJs that fit in the conventions set by Win32 and the Microsoft linker. If you were using Microsoft's LINK.EXE I'd look at https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/build/reference/nodefa... (and /Zi for the Microsoft compiler)
More generally, a lot of compiler generated code (including from LLVM IR -> native) will rely on compiler-specific runtime library functions, which aren't necessarily considered part of the "C runtime". https://wiki.osdev.org/Libgcc occupies this role for GCC-compiled code. See https://godbolt.org/z/fb75PPobz for an example (64-bit division on 32-bit x86 generates a call to ___divdi3)
I think Linux is the better choice for replacing the entire userland. From what I've seen, the BSDs don't have such an accessible userspace/kernelspace split. With some effort, on Linux you could probably just run an exe as your init.
I'm on a media engineering team and agree that applying the tech to a new use case often involves people with deep expertise spending a lot of time in the code.
I'd guess there are fewer media/codec engineers around today than there were web developers in 2006. In 2006, Gmail existed, but today's client- and server-side frameworks did not. It was a major bespoke lift to do many things which are "hello world" demos with a modern framework in 2025.
It'd be nice to have more flexible, orthogonal and adaptable interfaces to a lot of this tech, but I don't think the demand for it reaches critical mass.
> It was a major bespoke lift to do many things which are "hello world" demos with a modern framework in 2025.
This brings back a lot of memories -- I remember teaching myself how to use plain XMLHTTPRequest and PHP/MySQL to implement "AJAX" chat. Boy was that ugly JavaScript code. But on the other hand, it was so fast and cool and I could hardly believe that I had written that.
I started doing media/codec work around 2007 and finding experienced media engineers at the time was difficult and had been for quite some time. It's always been hard - super specialized knowledge that you can only really pick up working at a company that does it often enough to invest in folks learning it. In my case we were at a company that did desktop video editing software so it made sense, but that's obviously uncommon.
Intel doesn't like to officially use codenames for products once they have shipped, but those codenames are used widely to delineate different families (even by them!), so they compromise with the awkward "products formerly x" wording. Have done for a long time.
I wouldn't mind them coming up with better codenames anyway. "Some lower-end SKUs branded as Raptor Lake are based on Alder Lake, with Golden Cove P-cores and Alder Lake-equivalent cache and memory configurations." How can anyone memorize this endless churn of lakes, coves and monts? They could've at least named them in the alphabetical order.
AMD does this subterfuge as well. Put Zen 2 cores from 2019 (!) in some new chip packaging and sell it as Ryzen 10 / 100. Suddenly these chips seem as fresh as Zen 5.
The entire point of code names is that you can delay coming up with a marketing name. If the end user sees the code name then what is even the point? Using the code name in external communication is really really dumb. They need to decide if it should be printed on the box or if it's only for internal use, and don't do anything in between.
The problem, especially at Intel, but also at AMD, is that they sell very different CPUs under approximately identical names.
In a very distant past, AMD was publishing what the CPUID instruction will return for each CPU model that they were selling. Now this is no longer true, so you have to either buy a CPU to discover what it really is, or to hope that a charitable soul who has bought such a CPU will publish on the Internet the result.
Without having access to the CPUID information, the next best is to find on the Intel Ark site, whether the CPU model you see listed by some shop is described for instance as belonging to 'Products formerly Arrow Lake S", as that will at least identify the product microarchitecture.
This is still not foolproof, because the products listed as "formerly ..." may still be packaged in several variants and they may have various features disabled during production, so you can still have surprises when you test them for the first time.
So they should put it on the box. In small font on the back if necessary, but make it an official part of the spec sheet - don't pretend it's irrelevant.
Product lines are in design and development for years, two years is lightning fast, code names can be found for things five or more years before they were released, so everyone who works with them knows them better (much better) than the retail names.
