3 ms·

I don't get all this hate on Linux: it basically sustained GNU project for almost 25 years...

by ai_ja_nai 11y ago

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
No one is hating Linux. But Linux isn't exactly of much help towards advancing the status quo of OSes, either.
- renox 11y ago
  That's highly debatable: for example BeOS recreators/Haiku devs CHOSE to use a new exotic kernel instead of Linux or FreeBSD kernel. But their reasons seems mainly because of NIH syndrome: those who like to create a new OS also to tinker with "their own kernel" instead of reusing something already existing.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    Why the hell would you recreate BeOS on a Unix-like kernel? Are you even listening to yourself? That's not NIH, that's common sense. It's far more effort to try and learn the ins-and-outs of a large kernel like FreeBSD or Linux, then try to shoehorn completely different OS semantics onto Unix, than to just roll your own. Also, Haiku's kernel was forked from NewOS, which was back in 2001, and written by a former Be engineer. Besides, how is their choice signifying a hatred for Linux?
    - renox 11y ago
      > Why the hell would you recreate BeOS on a Unix-like kernel? Because you wouldn't have to code all these drivers to make the result an useful OS? > Are you even listening to yourself? That's not NIH, that's common sense. 1) You're being rude. 2) 'common sense' is not an argument. > It's far more effort to try and learn the ins-and-outs of a large kernel like FreeBSD or Linux, then try to shoehorn completely different OS semantics onto Unix, than to just roll your own. Well its depends whether your goal is to have an OS running in very few configurations or if your goal is to have an OS which is able to be run by many. > Besides, how is their choice signifying a hatred for Linux? It doesn't, I was replying to the sentence "But Linux isn't exactly of much help towards advancing the status quo of OSes, either." an OS isn't a kernel and there WERE discussions about whether using Linux or FreeBSD kernel or NewOS in Haiku..
      - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
        Because you wouldn't have to code all these drivers to make the result an useful OS? Writing a driver framework compatibility layer is quite a separate and doable activity from adopting an entire kernel. Haiku actually does have some FreeBSD driver compatibility, and then efforts like DDE have been around for running Linux 2.6 drivers on other systems. More recently rump kernels. You're being rude. You're being ignorant. Well its depends whether your goal is to have an OS running in very few configurations or if your goal is to have an OS which is able to be run by many. Absolute nonsense, as elaborated above.
superuser2 11y ago
Linux is required to support a lot of legacy at this point; to try truly new paradigms you need to be in a codebase with no backwards compatibility requirements to break.
- mhd 11y ago
  Then again, if it is supposed to be a Unix/POSIX system, you've already got plenty of compatibility requirements…
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    Compatibility is mostly on the interface level. The underlying semantics are often different or extended, though kept reasonable. This emerges from the fact that you're not actually setting traps in the kernel, but sending RPC messages to servers.
Sanddancer 11y ago
Diversity is a good thing. Systems-level research is at a woeful state right now because the status quo is Good Enough for a lot of people. Thus, the number of interesting ideas to try, to fail, to succeed is a trickle to what it should be. Database-based and object-based filesystems are little more than research projects because of the hard to shake belief of what stored items should look like and what their properties are. We need to work on projects with little to no preconceived notions, so we can start poking at things, figuring out what can be done better. We indeed have a working model, but I'm certain we can do better than just working.
- simula67 11y ago
  Are you saying that Linux folks should do a terrible job to trigger advances in systems research ?

I don't get all this hate on Linux: it basically sustained GNU project for almost 25 years...

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

No one is hating Linux. But Linux isn't exactly of much help towards advancing the status quo of OSes, either.

renox 11y ago
That's highly debatable: for example BeOS recreators/Haiku devs CHOSE to use a new exotic kernel instead of Linux or FreeBSD kernel. But their reasons seems mainly because of NIH syndrome: those who like to create a new OS also to tinker with "their own kernel" instead of reusing something already existing.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Why the hell would you recreate BeOS on a Unix-like kernel? Are you even listening to yourself? That's not NIH, that's common sense. It's far more effort to try and learn the ins-and-outs of a large kernel like FreeBSD or Linux, then try to shoehorn completely different OS semantics onto Unix, than to just roll your own. Also, Haiku's kernel was forked from NewOS, which was back in 2001, and written by a former Be engineer. Besides, how is their choice signifying a hatred for Linux?
  - renox 11y ago
    > Why the hell would you recreate BeOS on a Unix-like kernel? Because you wouldn't have to code all these drivers to make the result an useful OS? > Are you even listening to yourself? That's not NIH, that's common sense. 1) You're being rude. 2) 'common sense' is not an argument. > It's far more effort to try and learn the ins-and-outs of a large kernel like FreeBSD or Linux, then try to shoehorn completely different OS semantics onto Unix, than to just roll your own. Well its depends whether your goal is to have an OS running in very few configurations or if your goal is to have an OS which is able to be run by many. > Besides, how is their choice signifying a hatred for Linux? It doesn't, I was replying to the sentence "But Linux isn't exactly of much help towards advancing the status quo of OSes, either." an OS isn't a kernel and there WERE discussions about whether using Linux or FreeBSD kernel or NewOS in Haiku..
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      Because you wouldn't have to code all these drivers to make the result an useful OS? Writing a driver framework compatibility layer is quite a separate and doable activity from adopting an entire kernel. Haiku actually does have some FreeBSD driver compatibility, and then efforts like DDE have been around for running Linux 2.6 drivers on other systems. More recently rump kernels. You're being rude. You're being ignorant. Well its depends whether your goal is to have an OS running in very few configurations or if your goal is to have an OS which is able to be run by many. Absolute nonsense, as elaborated above.

superuser2 11y ago

Linux is required to support a lot of legacy at this point; to try truly new paradigms you need to be in a codebase with no backwards compatibility requirements to break.

mhd 11y ago
Then again, if it is supposed to be a Unix/POSIX system, you've already got plenty of compatibility requirements…
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Compatibility is mostly on the interface level. The underlying semantics are often different or extended, though kept reasonable. This emerges from the fact that you're not actually setting traps in the kernel, but sending RPC messages to servers.

Sanddancer 11y ago

Diversity is a good thing. Systems-level research is at a woeful state right now because the status quo is Good Enough for a lot of people. Thus, the number of interesting ideas to try, to fail, to succeed is a trickle to what it should be. Database-based and object-based filesystems are little more than research projects because of the hard to shake belief of what stored items should look like and what their properties are. We need to work on projects with little to no preconceived notions, so we can start poking at things, figuring out what can be done better. We indeed have a working model, but I'm certain we can do better than just working.

simula67 11y ago
Are you saying that Linux folks should do a terrible job to trigger advances in systems research ?