4 ms·

As an old guy, I'm rather unimpressed with this sort of bashing. Yeah, Ward made the first wiki. Kudos for that, he deserves it. But if you are going to bash

As an old guy, I'm rather unimpressed with this sort of bashing. Yeah, Ward made the first wiki. Kudos for that, he deserves it. But if you are going to bash unix, Ritchie, plan 9, and windows all one page, I'd like it if you had a concrete proposal for a better answer. And saying unix and windows are the same, really? I've supported a fairly complex SCM on windows, linux, macos, all the other unices, for 18 years. I don't find unix to be the same as windows but maybe that's just me.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
I'd like it if you had a concrete proposal for a better answer. http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?BlueAbyss http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?BlueAbyss Old spec: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?BlueAbyssFramework http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?BlueAbyssFramework (By the way, it's Richard Kulisz who is saying all of this. Ward Cunningham has nothing to do with it.)
- luckydude 11y ago
  Thanks for setting me straight. So after reading that stuff I'm still not impressed. Might be me, I worked on SunOS and we did "objects" for the VFS layer. It was like a class with all virtual methods. Worked well. Full on object oriented stuff in an OS seems weird to me. But I'm not an OO person, I like really simple stuff, SunOS made that work, I hacked vi so that when you tagged on VOP_OPEN it knew that there was ufs_open and nfs_open and tmpfs_open and you could walk all of them, but it was very simplistic. And as such it actually worked. I like stuff that works, proven in the field, proven in the development space, we can ship this and can support it. I may be well behind the times but what I read didn't make me want to go work on it, it made me skeptical about it actually working in real life. I'd be happy if someone proved me wrong, it sounds cool. When is it shipping?
  - tedunangst 11y ago
    Yeah, but see, vfs doesn't count because... Uh, it uses macros, or something. Hell, even the user land side is "OO". The same set of syscalls work on files, sockets (IPv4 and IPv6), pipes, etc. "needs more OO" is a pretty nebulous complaint about an OS.
    - luckydude 11y ago
      Device drivers are the original OO in operating systems and they seem to work pretty well. Without any OO support in the programming language.
mmphosis 11y ago
it's ironic that both NT and UNIX have roots in the mid-1970s and that both were influenced by many identical theoretical OS concepts and principles Although most UNIX variants today support either the POSIX or X/OPEN standard, every UNIX vendor has tried to differentiate its offering with a proprietary interface, applications, and architecture. http://windowsitpro.com/systems-management/nt-vsunix-one-substantially-better http://windowsitpro.com/systems-management/nt-vsunix-one-sub... [1998] AmigaOs is underused solely because it's superior. http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WimpIsBroken http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WimpIsBroken My concrete proposal is to avoid using concrete.
- tedunangst 11y ago
  I don't understand. How is Amiga not WIMP?
antod 11y ago
I can't help feeling that there is some sort of operating system uncertainty principle involved in purity vs practicality. The more you optimise for one, the more you lose the other. A more contemporary version of that rant would no doubt be extolling the more FP oriented OS instead of OO though. Written by someone who drifted off while reading Lisp books too many times. They are in for a let down when they find stuff was "hacked together in Perl" instead.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

I'd like it if you had a concrete proposal for a better answer. http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?BlueAbyss http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?BlueAbyss Old spec: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?BlueAbyssFramework http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?BlueAbyssFramework (By the way, it's Richard Kulisz who is saying all of this. Ward Cunningham has nothing to do with it.)

luckydude 11y ago
Thanks for setting me straight. So after reading that stuff I'm still not impressed. Might be me, I worked on SunOS and we did "objects" for the VFS layer. It was like a class with all virtual methods. Worked well. Full on object oriented stuff in an OS seems weird to me. But I'm not an OO person, I like really simple stuff, SunOS made that work, I hacked vi so that when you tagged on VOP_OPEN it knew that there was ufs_open and nfs_open and tmpfs_open and you could walk all of them, but it was very simplistic. And as such it actually worked. I like stuff that works, proven in the field, proven in the development space, we can ship this and can support it. I may be well behind the times but what I read didn't make me want to go work on it, it made me skeptical about it actually working in real life. I'd be happy if someone proved me wrong, it sounds cool. When is it shipping?
- tedunangst 11y ago
  Yeah, but see, vfs doesn't count because... Uh, it uses macros, or something. Hell, even the user land side is "OO". The same set of syscalls work on files, sockets (IPv4 and IPv6), pipes, etc. "needs more OO" is a pretty nebulous complaint about an OS.
  - luckydude 11y ago
    Device drivers are the original OO in operating systems and they seem to work pretty well. Without any OO support in the programming language.

mmphosis 11y ago

it's ironic that both NT and UNIX have roots in the mid-1970s and that both were influenced by many identical theoretical OS concepts and principles Although most UNIX variants today support either the POSIX or X/OPEN standard, every UNIX vendor has tried to differentiate its offering with a proprietary interface, applications, and architecture. http://windowsitpro.com/systems-management/nt-vsunix-one-substantially-better http://windowsitpro.com/systems-management/nt-vsunix-one-sub... [1998] AmigaOs is underused solely because it's superior. http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WimpIsBroken http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WimpIsBroken My concrete proposal is to avoid using concrete.

tedunangst 11y ago
I don't understand. How is Amiga not WIMP?

antod 11y ago

I can't help feeling that there is some sort of operating system uncertainty principle involved in purity vs practicality. The more you optimise for one, the more you lose the other. A more contemporary version of that rant would no doubt be extolling the more FP oriented OS instead of OO though. Written by someone who drifted off while reading Lisp books too many times. They are in for a let down when they find stuff was "hacked together in Perl" instead.