3 ms·

Really, though, Unix is just the UI over the top of the underlying operating system. Like, Minix and Linux work in radically different ways, but they both expos

Really, though, Unix is just the UI over the top of the underlying operating system. Like, Minix and Linux work in radically different ways, but they both expose a Unixy/Posixy interface with file descriptors and pipes and the same execution model. Further out, Haiku is even more different; and then there are all the different Unixy front ends to Windows, which is very far from a traditional Unix inside. Then there's stuff like Genode, which is... difficult to describe concisely, but is a capability-based OS designed for running OSes in; they wanted it to have the ability to self-host, so they added a personality for running toolchains in, and of course it's Unixy, because what else is it going to be? https://genode.org/documentation/release-notes/11.02#Noux_-_an_execution_environment_for_the_GNU_userland https://genode.org/documentation/release-notes/11.02#Noux_-_... So, while I agree that I'd like to see a working environment that's not a traditional Unix, I think that's a UI thing rather than an OS thing.

cmrdporcupine 10y ago
Honestly, even Haiku etc. have underneath very Unix-like assumptions about the services and nature of the things an operating system provides, and a lot of that goes with the Posix and ANSI lib-C slant that programmers expect everything to have now. Basically every single mainstream OS out there has the assumption that there are files with filenames as binary/text blobs in a separate storage space from 'memory', and with that ... file descriptors, processes, threads, and sockets. But it doesn't take much imagination to conceive of different models -- what if instead of a file system we have a relational model? Relations/relvars and tuples as fundamental storage units? What if instead of malloc/free and fopen/fclose (and mmap/msync) we have instead some unified notion of allocation/storage with hints/specifications of permanence requirements, performance requirements, type, and intended use and the OS takes care of where to put it (cache, main memory, flash, magnetic storage, network storage etc.)? One can think of any number of possibilities. But the needs of the C-language semantics and the orthodoxy of 50 years of OS/language patterns keep us where we are.

cmrdporcupine 10y ago

Honestly, even Haiku etc. have underneath very Unix-like assumptions about the services and nature of the things an operating system provides, and a lot of that goes with the Posix and ANSI lib-C slant that programmers expect everything to have now. Basically every single mainstream OS out there has the assumption that there are files with filenames as binary/text blobs in a separate storage space from 'memory', and with that ... file descriptors, processes, threads, and sockets. But it doesn't take much imagination to conceive of different models -- what if instead of a file system we have a relational model? Relations/relvars and tuples as fundamental storage units? What if instead of malloc/free and fopen/fclose (and mmap/msync) we have instead some unified notion of allocation/storage with hints/specifications of permanence requirements, performance requirements, type, and intended use and the OS takes care of where to put it (cache, main memory, flash, magnetic storage, network storage etc.)? One can think of any number of possibilities. But the needs of the C-language semantics and the orthodoxy of 50 years of OS/language patterns keep us where we are.