3 ms·
In a regular OS there would be a bunch of implicit things provided by the OS that the app can access, while in this OS those things are explicit in the context.
by jmull 3y ago
In a regular OS there would be a bunch of implicit things provided by the OS that the app can access, while in this OS those things are explicit in the context.
But I don’t think that’s really that significant… you could, e.g., enumerate all the implicit things the OS provides, express them in a structure, and now you’ve got your explicit context. The “fomos” context is only as simple as it is because the OS provides a small number of simple things. Expand those to full OS capabilities and the context will get full OS complex.
The odd thing about this “OS” is that a running app is just the start function called repeatedly in a loop. This makes one app call a single coherent slice of app execution. That’s kind of interesting, but makes this pretty limited. E.g., it looks like apps are entirely cooperative. It’s maybe more of a cooperative execution environment.
Maybe it would be good for some embedded uses?
- lostmsu 3y agoSeems similar to Singularity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_%28operating_system%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_%28operating_syste...
- benj111 3y agoMy takeaway was that compared to a dynamically linked binary, you don't need to literally patch it to get the correct addresses. So you get the benefits of simplicity of a static binary and the size benefit of a dynamically linked binary. Well that's the way I understood it anyway.