6 ms·

#1 reason is probably nostalgia, and just the idea that you have a simpler, older-style OS. vs a modern OS just reskinned to look old. Personally i think speed

#1 reason is probably nostalgia, and just the idea that you have a simpler, older-style OS. vs a modern OS just reskinned to look old. Personally i think speed: I see a 90s UI and I expect stuff to happen almost instantly on my modern Desktop. Also expecting less bugs because it’s a simpler OS. But in practice even though Linux is much larger and more complex it’s probably still faster and less buggy. So probably just the idea. EDIT: Should also add, probably because these OSs do some core things differently than Unix and Windows. Those OSs are constantly updated but the core features are still old, so the niche OSs could possibly implement them “better”.

anthk 5y ago
> Also expecting less bugs because it’s a simpler OS. That's not my experince on late 90's. You sneezed, and w98se BSOD'd.
- somewhatbetter 5y ago
  You probably cannot add 1+1, that person meant the 90's style desktop means there is no unnecessary cruft in it, therefore it won't try to amaze the user with eyecandy, so operations will happen instantly. And less code means less chance for bugs.
  - anthk 5y ago
    > And less code means less chance for bugs. The OpenBSD bug on Xenocara which allowed root needed more code, not less. So this is the case with pledge(4) and unveil(4), you need (a little) more code in onder to sandbox setuff properly. NT4 was much more complex than W98SE, yet NT4/w2k was much better on multitasking (by a huge margin). I've seen w98se crawl even with a Pentium 4 and 512MB of RAM with just 3 IE windows open back in the day, while 2k flied.
    - somewhatbetter 5y ago
      >The OpenBSD bug on Xenocara which allowed root needed more code, not less. X was considered and still is a "hack". >So this is the case with pledge(4) and unveil(4), you need (a little) more code in onder to sandbox setuff properly. You don't write a graphical subsystem and then tries to sandbox it. Sadly nix advocates won't ever understand this logic. >NT4 was much more complex than W98SE, yet NT4/w2k was much better on multitasking (by a huge margin). I've seen w98se crawl even with a Pentium 4 and 512MB of RAM with just 3 IE windows open back in the day, while 2k flied. Let me compare apples with pears, i mean two different approach for OS development which have almost nothing common except the w32 stuff, and let me conclude the newer is better. I don't really see your point.
      - anthk 5y ago
        I woudn't say "newer" is better, but sometimes you need a bigger and more complex codebase to get more performance, stability and security.
        somewhatbetter 5y ago
        And bugs.

anthk 5y ago

> Also expecting less bugs because it’s a simpler OS. That's not my experince on late 90's. You sneezed, and w98se BSOD'd.

somewhatbetter 5y ago
You probably cannot add 1+1, that person meant the 90's style desktop means there is no unnecessary cruft in it, therefore it won't try to amaze the user with eyecandy, so operations will happen instantly. And less code means less chance for bugs.
- anthk 5y ago
  > And less code means less chance for bugs. The OpenBSD bug on Xenocara which allowed root needed more code, not less. So this is the case with pledge(4) and unveil(4), you need (a little) more code in onder to sandbox setuff properly. NT4 was much more complex than W98SE, yet NT4/w2k was much better on multitasking (by a huge margin). I've seen w98se crawl even with a Pentium 4 and 512MB of RAM with just 3 IE windows open back in the day, while 2k flied.
  - somewhatbetter 5y ago
    >The OpenBSD bug on Xenocara which allowed root needed more code, not less. X was considered and still is a "hack". >So this is the case with pledge(4) and unveil(4), you need (a little) more code in onder to sandbox setuff properly. You don't write a graphical subsystem and then tries to sandbox it. Sadly nix advocates won't ever understand this logic. >NT4 was much more complex than W98SE, yet NT4/w2k was much better on multitasking (by a huge margin). I've seen w98se crawl even with a Pentium 4 and 512MB of RAM with just 3 IE windows open back in the day, while 2k flied. Let me compare apples with pears, i mean two different approach for OS development which have almost nothing common except the w32 stuff, and let me conclude the newer is better. I don't really see your point.
    - anthk 5y ago
      I woudn't say "newer" is better, but sometimes you need a bigger and more complex codebase to get more performance, stability and security.
      - somewhatbetter 5y ago
        And bugs.