3 ms·
>It's astonishing how far this can boot with less than a third of the syscalls of Linux implemented. It's a great project, but I don't find this ratio surprisi
by Arainach 3y ago
>It's astonishing how far this can boot with less than a third of the syscalls of Linux implemented.
It's a great project, but I don't find this ratio surprising at all. Any mature platform builds up logic to enable scenarios such that most things don't need most of the system. As the saying goes, no one uses more than 10% of Excel, but it's a different 10% for everyone.
You could implement 30% of Excel functions and probably have an engine which opens 99% of spreadsheets out there.....though if you wanted full doc compatibility you would still have a long journey ahead of you.
- kelvie 3y ago> You could implement 30% of Excel functions and probably have an engine which opens 99% of spreadsheets out there.....though if you wanted full doc compatibility you would still have a long journey ahead of you. Isn't this what effectively googles docs did? For a ton of use-cases google sheets is enough, I've heard of companies that basically were extra stringent about excel licenses (as a cost cutting measure no doubt), instead heavily pushing users toward using google sheets instead.
- staunton 3y agoNo. Excel/Docs is user-facing. Most of the way is enough, people will figure out the edge cases or just give up on them. To be viable as an OS, you have to support applications. An application running on your OS won't go "well, I guess this syscall doesn't work. I'll try to go around it somehow"...
- Anonbrit 3y agoIf you're writing your own libc, then you absolutely can work around a whole bunch of missing syscalls by emulating them in userspace