7 ms·
When I was younger there IBM, Apple, Be, and Microsoft were all working on these amazing new operating systems. Now the #1, #3, #4 most popular operating syste
by georgeecollins 10y ago
When I was younger there IBM, Apple, Be, and Microsoft were all working on these amazing new operating systems. Now the #1, #3, #4 most popular operating systems are all some variation on Unix. What happened? Why did no one except Microsoft come up with a new operating system worthy of mass adoption?
- JustSomeNobody 10y agoBecause the ideas on which Unix is based are sound.
- digi_owl 10y agoSay that to the systemd devs...
- loudmax 10y agoWell, Microsoft put OS/2 and BeOS out of business, and nearly did the same for Apple. While this was happening, FreeBSD and Linux emerged as excellent Unix variants, so when Apple and Google went to look for their own OSs to deploy, they leveraged what was already available. If you're looking for alternatives, there is stuff being developed. Google's Fuscia is intriguing, and there are other non-Unix kernels from other organizations in the pipeline. IMHO, the difference this time around is that the web is the new compatibility target. If you design a new OS today and manage to get a full working web browser with javascript and Web Assembly, you'll be in good shape.
- digi_owl 10y agoLets not forget that Google bought Android, it didn't start as a in-house project. Rubin and crew had picked Linux as their base, and Java as their main dev environment, before being bought by Google.
- dep_b 10y agoTwo classic mistakes with 20:20 hindsight. Linux makes updates more complicated because of it's monokernel and Java well.....Oracle....
- pjmlp 10y agoThere wouldn't be any problem with Oracle if they didn't try to scam Sun. There are lots of companies selling JVMs, many of them with extensions, and none of them got sued. Why? Because they play by the rules, instead of trying to be different. And at least on those platforms I can make use of proper Java 7 and 8 features, not the cherry picked ones on Android.
- Oletros 10y agoApache Foundation tried to scam Sun?
- pjmlp 10y agoNice game of words. Google was pretty much aware that GPL with Classpath exception was only for Java SE, not targeted at embedded deployments, but paying the license required for embedded deployments was too expensive apparently. According to Gosling, Sun would have sued Google if they still had any money left on the bank, instead Jonathan decided to make the public support announcement, angering quite a few folks internally. His blog posts are no longer live, but old references are quite easy to find.
- yuhong 10y agoThe fun thing is that OS/2 could have put DR-DOS out of business if MS didn't turn OS/2 2.0 into an entire fiasco.
- pjmlp 10y agoThe way I remember it, I would need to buy an expensive IBM with PS2 architecture to be able to use OS/2 properly, instead of the 386 I got with Windows, so lets not forget that IBM didn't managed the whole situation properly.
- yuhong 10y agoThat was always a myth, of course.
- pjmlp 10y agoWhat was a myth? Me saving around 500€ on today's money, because I got to use my savings on a no name OEM PC running DR-DOS/Windows 3.1, instead buying an IBM PC with OS/2 2.0?
- yuhong 10y agoOS/2 never required a PS/2.
- pjmlp 10y agoWell it required on the tiny city I was living in the early 90's, where getting OS/2 2.0 meant buying an actual IBM PC instead of a PC compatible. OS/2 was offered as option instead of IBM PC DOS + Windows. Actually you just made me search for the model I had as option, the IBM PS/2 Model 35 SLC.
- yuhong 10y agoHopefully you noticed that this PS/2 model did not have Microchannel.
- georgeecollins 10y agoBut Apple and IBM (and some others) spent years and millions of dollars coming up with an alternative. And they ended up with FreeBSD and Linux. You could say the software development was badly managed in many cases, or the business case wasn't there because of the app-OS dependency. But I think the fact that everybody failed implies a failure to come up with something better. And therefore a lack of progress,.
- pjmlp 10y ago> Microsoft put OS/2 Actually regarding OS/2, IBM had lots of blame as well. They didn't managed the whole situation properly and trying to use OS/2 to get back into the game of selling their own PS2 architecture didn't help win the hearts of the buyers. I would have had to pay almost 500 € extra, on today's money to get a PC capable of running OS/2 properly, instead of the one I got with Windows 3.1.
- vram22 10y agoI had read that OS/2 Warp was considered a pretty good OS technically, though I don't remember the details now, as to what made it an improvement over Windows. I remember that PC Quest, an Indian PC magazine, gave out OS/2 Warp on a CD [1] in one issue. [1] They often bundled a CD with lots of free software with their magazine issues, e.g. different distros of Linux, server software, utilities, etc. All free or trial software, usually. I remember they bundled the QNX OS once, and I installed it and tried it on my PC. It was very light and fast, had a GUI too - Photon, IIRC. They might even have bundled BeOS once. I think I tried installing that too, but it did not work on my PC.
- digi_owl 10y agoOS/2 existed for quite a while before Warp came about. Warp was IBM trying to salvage a sinking ship more than anything else. http://www.filfre.net/2016/08/ibms-new-flavor/ http://www.filfre.net/2016/08/ibms-new-flavor/ OS/2 was to go along with the PS/2. A update on the PC platform that was much more bespoke IBM compared to the largely assembled from off the shelf parts that was the PC/AT.
- vram22 10y ago>OS/2 existed for quite a while before Warp came about. >OS/2 was to go along with the PS/2. A update on the PC platform that was much more bespoke IBM compared to the largely assembled from off the shelf parts that was the PC/AT. Yes, I was aware of those points, that Warp was a late or last version of OS/2 and that IBM tried to make the PC architecture closed with the PS/2 line - after it being originally open with the PC (which was what led to its success as a platform, due to the adoption and all the clones and extension cards and software for it). Had read about it. That doesn't change the fact that Warp had good reviews. Didn't try it out personally though.
- huxley 10y agoA lot of Windows NT was based on work Dave Cutler had done on VMS and RSX-11, so while I'm sure most of the code was new, the ideas are of a similar vintage to Unix.
- digi_owl 10y agoFrankly it seems like nothing really new has come out of computing in decades. Basically all the container hoopla happening right now were in use on mainframes before Torvalds released the first Linux source code.
- lawnchair_larry 10y agoFrom what I understand, Dave Cutler would probably strongly disagree with that statement!
- justin66 10y ago> while I'm sure most of the code was new Is there any reason to believe less than 100% of the code was new?
- qznc 10y agoBecause there is no money in it. It is only worth it, if you use it to funnel people elsewhere, like Office or Play Store.
- georgeecollins 10y agoBut that implies that no one needs a different OS than Windows NT or Unix. People are constantly coming up with reasons to have new programming languages. Are there no reasons to justify a new OS?
- qznc 10y agoThere are plenty of research or toy OSs, but if they try to get really useable, they just implement a Unix compatibility layer and take drivers from BSD.
- gizmo686 10y agoUnix, in the sense that we talk about it today, is not an operating system, but a family of operating systems that is based on the original Unix. Linux is Unix in the same way that C is Algol. In the grand scheme of potential languages/operating systems they are very similar, and familiarity with one will transfer well. However, if you consider the ML family of languages (Haskell/Ocaml), or the Prolog family, you will see that Algol/C/Java/Rust are in some sense variations on the same language. In this sense, we have not seen the great variaty of new languages you are referring to. In the case of OSes, it is beneficial to formalize these similarities into a single API. As long as the operating systems remain conceptually simmilar, there is no point in unnessasarily fragmenting the API. When there is need to deviate from the common Unix system, Unix-like operating systems have no problem doing so. But there is not strong enough reason to through out the massive amount of investment, both in software and human expertise, that has been built up on the common Unix base.
- fasquoika 10y ago>Algol/C/Java/Rust are in some sense variations on the same language Actually, despite its syntax, Rust is more closely related to the ML family than the Algol family. The original Rust compiler was written in OCaml and it definitely shows in the algebraic data types, functional idioms, and immutability by default. More to the point, maybe a new OS could gain meaningful adoption by seeming superficially like Unix while actually taking significant inspiration elsewhere.
- JohnStrange 10y agoBecause of the application barrier. It's a chicken and egg problem, nobody wants to use an OS without applications and not many want to develop for an OS that nobody uses. To get it started, a lot of resources and power (e.g. quasi-monopoly or tons of money) is needed, or you need to have some binary compatibility with another OS. The latter is difficult due patents and copyright, and because it will likely make applications slower than on other platforms. Apple was able to do it, because they sell hardware, not software, but the transition from Classic OS to OSX was hard and rocky even for them and could have failed. It's a pity, because neither Unix/Linux clones nor Windows are really good and technically sound desktop operating systems from a modern perspective, and it would be possible to develop something way better. As for mobile, I don't know, it's a different thing.
- JonathonW 10y agoApple was able to do it, but not without both a compatibility layer for direct binary compatibility (Classic) and a migration path to allow the same source code to be compiled for both OS 9 and OS X (Carbon). Not to mention the heavy Java push they made for a while, which didn't end up becoming much in the long run but did provide one more way for developers to get their applications onto the platform. And developers like Omni that followed NEXT after their purchase by Apple.
- pjmlp 10y agoThe Java push was mainly driven by the uncertainty of Objective-C's adoption. Once it was clear developers were ok with using Objective-C, Java Bridge was shown the door.
- peterwwillis 10y agoThere's a very long list of inferior technologies that beat superior ones in popularity, or age. QWERTY keyboards, Electronic forms, Combustion engines, Agribusiness refinements, Byte-oriented computers, Genetic technology (outside of GM crops), Building construction/insulation, Monorail and near-sonic trains, Pharmaceuticals, PlayStation, 8086, TDMA, USB, PHP, VHS... The most common link between them is a low barrier to entry, which has multiple facets. 1. Intellectual Property If you patent technology, it makes it hard or more expensive for others to license and/or implement it, which leads to a loss of market share unless you completely monopolize the market your product occupies. Any alternative technology which is both cheaper and more ubiquitous will dominate. 2. Cost More advanced technology is, almost by default, more costly. It is costly for manufacturers to develop a new process to manufacture it, it is more costly for developers to learn to develop new products that use it, and it is more costly for consumers to buy it, both because of the lack of manufacturers and developers for it. It also will inevitably require one to learn a new way to use it. 3. Doesn't address a critical need If there are two competing technologies, and both provide for the same need, the one that best addresses a need and costs less will win out. If one does not provide for a critical need, it will be left in the dust. Often that "need" is as simple as being faster or easier to operate, but it can also include specific functions. -- The earlier you are able to introduce a technology, and as long as a newer technology does not beat you on platform support, cost, and critical features, you will remain on top. Browsers are a good model for how this has changed hands over the years. The barrier for entry is smaller because you can make them for multiple OS platforms fairly easily, but sometimes one would have a monopoly. So to compete with the monopoly, one browser would remove a barrier to entry - cost - and develop new critical features. But then the other competitors could adopt the same changes and compete again. Another example is Intel x86. Intel tried several times to end the x86 product line. But as the industry refined standards around it, it became too expensive and complicated to try and introduce a complete replacement. It was even forced to adopt features that competitors introduced. UNIX (and C, since a lot of people lump them together) has stayed around so long because it has a low cost, low complexity, is ubiquitous, can adopt new features easily, and is highly compatible/portable. Even if you have a new critical feature, it can usually just adopt it. In the end, kernel design has nothing directly to do with how it is adopted by users. Kernel design affects how software developers, and later manufacturers, will use it. And that affects what is left for users to adopt. Nobody really notices a kernel; what they notice is the ecosystem.
- bighi 10y agoLinux and others are indeed new operating systems. They just decided to follow some of the standards used in Unix.
- digi_owl 10y agoNah, they started out as direct clones. But certain people (hello systemd) don't want to admit that and try to claim that Linux is its own beast.