3 ms·

Companies experiment on Linux everyday. Unless they want to use a different programming language, they can implement all sorts of innovation in the Linux Kernel

Companies experiment on Linux everyday. Unless they want to use a different programming language, they can implement all sorts of innovation in the Linux Kernel without incurring in massive overhead costs of rolling their own. I don't think the situation is nearly as bad as portrait here. They can always use *BSD as a second choice too. Additionally, where's the stagnation we are so worried about here? Any real world examples?

ThrowawayR2 9y ago
> Additionally, where's the stagnation we are so worried about here? Any real world examples? BeOS? Singularity? Plan 9? Hell, just read the last 20 years of OS research and realize that large swathes of it will never get used because anything that gets implemented has to be compatible with the way the Linux kernel does things. (By way of analogy, consider the x86 architecture, also a '70s era technology, and the massive contortions Intel had to go through to maintain compatibility over the years while adding new features and how all the newer alternative architectures died in the marketplace because x86 was too entrenched.) Fuschia and, ironically, Windows are the last hopes for advancing OS architecture and that's really only possible because the semi-monopolists that created them have enough cash and engineering talent to push them until they take off.
- gtirloni 9y ago
  Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. We are talking about HPC computing and how Linux being the only viable choice leads to stagnation. You are proposing those OSes advance the status quo (and I agree) but how is it that HPC computing is stagnated because Linux is the only viable option? If anything, HPC would be an awesome testbed for those experimental OSes and they still choose Linux. Where's HPC stagnated because awesome ideas from other OSes can't be used? Finally, are these other ideas so extremely awesome that they require a new OS from scratch (with all the uphill battle that it's to create it)? Can they be implemented on top of the Linux kernel? In which case, is Linux's success really such a bad thing?
- waddlesplash 9y ago
  Hey, Haiku's still around, and while we don't have time to experiment with such crazy ideas ourselves (keeping an operating system project afloat is no joke), we'll more than likely accept patches for such things ... provided they actually work and aren't just needless bloat, and especially if they fix or improve some area we've neglected :-p
sspiff 9y ago
I understand that there is experimentation and innovation inside and on top of the Linux kernel, but that still leads to some kind of local optimum, the best approach that fits within the design and implementation of the Linux kernel. I'm not saying this is necessarily a problem, but it risks becoming a problem. It's clear we're seeing reduced investment in Linux competitors in exchange for Linux flavours from large players the past decade or so.

ThrowawayR2 9y ago

> Additionally, where's the stagnation we are so worried about here? Any real world examples? BeOS? Singularity? Plan 9? Hell, just read the last 20 years of OS research and realize that large swathes of it will never get used because anything that gets implemented has to be compatible with the way the Linux kernel does things. (By way of analogy, consider the x86 architecture, also a '70s era technology, and the massive contortions Intel had to go through to maintain compatibility over the years while adding new features and how all the newer alternative architectures died in the marketplace because x86 was too entrenched.) Fuschia and, ironically, Windows are the last hopes for advancing OS architecture and that's really only possible because the semi-monopolists that created them have enough cash and engineering talent to push them until they take off.

gtirloni 9y ago
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. We are talking about HPC computing and how Linux being the only viable choice leads to stagnation. You are proposing those OSes advance the status quo (and I agree) but how is it that HPC computing is stagnated because Linux is the only viable option? If anything, HPC would be an awesome testbed for those experimental OSes and they still choose Linux. Where's HPC stagnated because awesome ideas from other OSes can't be used? Finally, are these other ideas so extremely awesome that they require a new OS from scratch (with all the uphill battle that it's to create it)? Can they be implemented on top of the Linux kernel? In which case, is Linux's success really such a bad thing?
waddlesplash 9y ago
Hey, Haiku's still around, and while we don't have time to experiment with such crazy ideas ourselves (keeping an operating system project afloat is no joke), we'll more than likely accept patches for such things ... provided they actually work and aren't just needless bloat, and especially if they fix or improve some area we've neglected :-p

sspiff 9y ago

I understand that there is experimentation and innovation inside and on top of the Linux kernel, but that still leads to some kind of local optimum, the best approach that fits within the design and implementation of the Linux kernel. I'm not saying this is necessarily a problem, but it risks becoming a problem. It's clear we're seeing reduced investment in Linux competitors in exchange for Linux flavours from large players the past decade or so.