3 ms·

So when does the cruft and craziness build up to the point that you have to start all over again again?

by kingsuper20 5y ago

reirob 5y ago
There is actually a similar question that is asked in the interview: > Is there anything in the kernel which is not optimal, but would require a complete rewrite to address properly? In other words, the kernel is 30 years old and knowledge, languages and hardware have changed a lot in these 30 years: if you rewrote it from scratch now, what would you change? And Linus' answer was very interesting for me - and after reading it, I would answer your question (tongue in cheek): "Never, because it seems that Linux developers were quite successful in starting all over again for quite some parts of the Linux kernel." I guess it's not really an answer to your question, but kind-of ;)
- kingsuper20 5y ago
  No doubt any replacement would have to be enough better that it's worth the cost (opportunity and otherwise) to both produce and switch to it. Perhaps security/privacy issues might drive a serious rehatching of commonly used software. It occurred to me that there's enough inertia at this point that you'll likely only see ground-up architecture and/or implementation when some sort of hardware substrate is produced that requires it. Until then, we are on the karmic wheel of cpus that drive os/language design that drive cpu design.
  - sagarm 5y ago
    Google is building a new OS called Fuchsia, with no new hardware to drive it was far as I know.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Koshkin 5y ago
Well, even now Linux is not the only choice (in theory, anyway). As far as desktop, Haiku does not look bad at all. On the server, a BSD is all you need.
- kingsuper20 5y ago
  As a member of the old Thinkpads/OpenBSD masterrace, I appreciate the concept. It sure can be a pain sometimes though, plus I'm lusting after one of those M1 Mac Minis.

3 ms·

So when does the cruft and craziness build up to the point that you have to start all over again again?

by kingsuper20 5y ago

So when does the cruft and craziness build up to the point that you have to start all over again again?

reirob 5y ago
There is actually a similar question that is asked in the interview: > Is there anything in the kernel which is not optimal, but would require a complete rewrite to address properly? In other words, the kernel is 30 years old and knowledge, languages and hardware have changed a lot in these 30 years: if you rewrote it from scratch now, what would you change? And Linus' answer was very interesting for me - and after reading it, I would answer your question (tongue in cheek): "Never, because it seems that Linux developers were quite successful in starting all over again for quite some parts of the Linux kernel." I guess it's not really an answer to your question, but kind-of ;)
- kingsuper20 5y ago
  No doubt any replacement would have to be enough better that it's worth the cost (opportunity and otherwise) to both produce and switch to it. Perhaps security/privacy issues might drive a serious rehatching of commonly used software. It occurred to me that there's enough inertia at this point that you'll likely only see ground-up architecture and/or implementation when some sort of hardware substrate is produced that requires it. Until then, we are on the karmic wheel of cpus that drive os/language design that drive cpu design.
  - sagarm 5y ago
    Google is building a new OS called Fuchsia, with no new hardware to drive it was far as I know.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Koshkin 5y ago
Well, even now Linux is not the only choice (in theory, anyway). As far as desktop, Haiku does not look bad at all. On the server, a BSD is all you need.
- kingsuper20 5y ago
  As a member of the old Thinkpads/OpenBSD masterrace, I appreciate the concept. It sure can be a pain sometimes though, plus I'm lusting after one of those M1 Mac Minis.