4 ms·

Unix is bad, crusty and getting less relevant due to how computers are becoming more distributed and less as a single system. Linux may be the top of the herd r

Unix is bad, crusty and getting less relevant due to how computers are becoming more distributed and less as a single system. Linux may be the top of the herd right now but sooner rather than later there is going to be a huge paradigm shift into distributed computing. Linux will have no place in distributed computing without either layers upon layers to the POSIX API (aka backwards compatibility) or well a new operating system.

glhaynes 16y ago
What sort of distribution of computing is going to happen beyond what's already happened?
- 0bfusct3 16y ago
  Simple interfaces tying into a vm for complete distribution of software on any architecture. Concurrent, functional and slightly object orientated low level languages allowing automatic formal provability and easier formal provability. This is all quiet similar to Microsofts Midori / Singularity from what I can read on it anyways... but I'm sure Microsoft will screw it up somehow and cripple it.
moomba 16y ago
I'm wondering why you're saying linux has no place in distributed computing. Most supercomputers and distributed systems run linux. Not sure what paradigm shifts are going to have a significant impact on the OS. The only changes I've seen are in hardware/programming syntax as of late.
- 0bfusct3 16y ago
  Sure they do but they use extremely specialized software that probably took years to apply to the platform let alone developing the software. Linux is the top in distributed computing because it filled a niche (free) and has momentum if BSD, L4, etc was created then / didn't have some sort of issue we'd all be using kernel x instead of linux
  - djacobs 16y ago
    What, specifically, about the Linux kernel and Unix structure makes them bad for distributed applications, again?
    - 0bfusct3 16y ago
      c, capabilties (or lack there of), self healing, runtime based optimizations, concurrency, locking, threading and just generally the way it's structured it's not meant to be a distributed operating system the applications developed for it show this. Have you seen how glusterfs, lustre or any other distributed FS works? They bend over backwards trying to implement a POSIX API usually with hideous hacks.
      - djacobs 16y ago
        As far as I know, building small is the best way to do concurrency. (And the functional programming paradigm is in some ways an extension of the principle of building small.) Also, traditional Unix philosophy (the kind this author is arguing against) rejects threads in favor of lightweight, inexpensive processes and IPC and sockets.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]

glhaynes 16y ago

What sort of distribution of computing is going to happen beyond what's already happened?

0bfusct3 16y ago
Simple interfaces tying into a vm for complete distribution of software on any architecture. Concurrent, functional and slightly object orientated low level languages allowing automatic formal provability and easier formal provability. This is all quiet similar to Microsofts Midori / Singularity from what I can read on it anyways... but I'm sure Microsoft will screw it up somehow and cripple it.

moomba 16y ago

I'm wondering why you're saying linux has no place in distributed computing. Most supercomputers and distributed systems run linux. Not sure what paradigm shifts are going to have a significant impact on the OS. The only changes I've seen are in hardware/programming syntax as of late.

0bfusct3 16y ago
Sure they do but they use extremely specialized software that probably took years to apply to the platform let alone developing the software. Linux is the top in distributed computing because it filled a niche (free) and has momentum if BSD, L4, etc was created then / didn't have some sort of issue we'd all be using kernel x instead of linux
- djacobs 16y ago
  What, specifically, about the Linux kernel and Unix structure makes them bad for distributed applications, again?
  - 0bfusct3 16y ago
    c, capabilties (or lack there of), self healing, runtime based optimizations, concurrency, locking, threading and just generally the way it's structured it's not meant to be a distributed operating system the applications developed for it show this. Have you seen how glusterfs, lustre or any other distributed FS works? They bend over backwards trying to implement a POSIX API usually with hideous hacks.
    - djacobs 16y ago
      As far as I know, building small is the best way to do concurrency. (And the functional programming paradigm is in some ways an extension of the principle of building small.) Also, traditional Unix philosophy (the kind this author is arguing against) rejects threads in favor of lightweight, inexpensive processes and IPC and sockets.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]