5 ms·
This is all super impressive especially for such a small team. But we should keep in mind that this project is what POSIX should have been, this is a big patch
by stephc_int13 3y ago
This is all super impressive especially for such a small team.
But we should keep in mind that this project is what POSIX should have been, this is a big patch to make things right, as they should have been more than 20 years ago.
It seems magical because of the failure of numerous other teams and people who never managed to tackle the portability issue with the right mindset and skills.
- zik 3y agoIs it the job of linux OS people to provide multi-platform executable compatibility with every other OS? That seems like a stretch considering that no OS has ever done that.
- uncomputation 3y agoYou have it backwards on two counts. First count is the point of POSIX is any OS vendor doesn’t need to worry about any other OS compatibility. Just implement POSIX interfaces. Second count is that is OP’s exact point: it never has been done before, because too many OS vendors give POSIX very little thought. This helps realize the original vision of POSIX.
- CharlesW 3y ago> First count is the point of POSIX is any OS vendor doesn’t need to worry about any other OS compatibility. Just implement POSIX interfaces. I must be missing something. How are you getting from "just implement POSIX interfaces" to "compile once run everywhere"? Wouldn't the former just promise that you could compile the same source on any POSIX-compliant OSs and get a binary that runs on that OS, on that architecture?
- gavindean90 3y agoIt's because cosmos implements POSIX in a portable way
- rhizome 3y agoPOSIX was never about binary portability.
- sheepscreek 3y agoWell said. In reality, it has been more about supporting common system level APIs (think read, write, fork, etc).
- stephc_int13 3y agoThe binary portability is, in practice, not the most difficult feature, as long as the CPU arch is the same. It is also kind of a hack and IMO a nice-to-have feature but not as vital as true portability. POSIX was not limited to the Unix world, the goal was for it to be implemented by all OS vendors, and it was partially done.
- rhizome 3y agoDoesn't matter. POSIX is "write once, compile everywhere," while this is "compile once, run everywhere." It could be that POSIX is easier to write than for Cosmo bins, shifting the balance between them! I see them as just different endpoints of development.
- hju22_-3 3y agoAh, yes, let's just keep on going without trying to make things better for anyone instead. That's sure to make things better! Improvement doesn't come from passiveness. Someone, somewhere, will have to start first.
- resonious 3y agoI think this could be said about pretty much any good invention. The physical world doesn't change much, so the only barrier to invention is human. And I suspect most inventions have someone imagining it long before some other person actually builds it.
- stephc_int13 3y agoI disagree. Most new development in tech, including software, have some dependencies on something that was not available before.
- arendtio 3y agoIf that is so, how was is possible to develop the dependency? By definition it was not available before, so it must be a new development. So by that reasoning it is impossible to ever see something new. Since you write "Most" there seem to be fewer 'new developments' which do not follow this pattern. So all you really say, is that rare new developments, which do not depend some other innovation, enable many followup innovations. After all, your argument is not in conflict with the previous argument. You say, that new developments (aka implementations) have dependencies that have to be available before they can be made a reality, while the previous post just said, that long before something can be implemented, someone had imagined/dreamt about it already.