4 ms·

Significant performance and correctness improvements to the kernel

126 points by akyuu 3y ago

fbdab103 3y ago
How usable is Redox as a daily driver? Is it sorta-kinda works territory or is it possible to run a significant number of programs without hoops? Firefox? VSCode? Flatpaks? Can I run a VM inside Redox to fill in the functionality gaps?
- stock_toaster 3y ago
  From the FAQ[1], it sounds like neither X11 nor Wayland are currently supported. [1]: https://www.redox-os.org/faq/#what-programs-can-redox-run https://www.redox-os.org/faq/#what-programs-can-redox-run
  - nwah1 3y ago
    But they have their own windowing system, yes?
    - rurban 3y ago
      Yes, Orbital, which is better. https://doc.redox-os.org/book/ch04-09-graphics-windowing.html#orbital https://doc.redox-os.org/book/ch04-09-graphics-windowing.htm...
      - ladyanita22 3y ago
        Why is it better? Asking an honest question.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
mdtrooper 3y ago
MIT licence really suitable? https://discourse.redox-os.org/t/mit-licence-really-suitable/92 https://discourse.redox-os.org/t/mit-licence-really-suitable...
- wmf 3y ago
  That's a real blast from the past. We're now in the post-open-source era where people don't even look at licenses (as long as they're OSI approved).
  - hobs 3y ago
    What lawyers are you talking to, because mine still care :)
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    Our legal department definitely cares.
- SpecialistK 3y ago
  Spoiler alert: people in the FLOSS space have different opinions on copyleft vs permissive licenses.
- zigzag312 3y ago
  From that thread: > The choice of MIT is not an arbitrary one ... > We wanted to encourage the use, modification, and packaging of Redox in absolutely all realms. Open source should be open, for everyone. There’s absolutely no reason for limiting the usage of the software. Therefore, MIT was the license of choice. ... > We like to have a decentralized structure of the project, allowing people to do whatever they want, no matter how they intend to share it. Based on their goals, the answer seems to be yes.
  - Karellen 3y ago
    > The GPL is good for forcing people who make changes to the source to contribute back. [...] The GPL is upstream-centric, the MIT license is downstream-centric. An interesting take. It doesn't match my understanding of the GPL though. AIUI, the GPL does not require that you send your changes "back"/"upstream". However, it does require that you make the source code to your changes available downstream, to the people you distribute the code to. Conversely, MIT does not require that you make your changes open and available to downstream users. > Open source should be open, for everyone. ...for everyone, except for users of modified versions of the project, apparently? Look, it's their project. If they want to distribute it under MIT, that's their right. I just get a bit frustrated when the rationales for using permissive licenses don't seem to make a whole lot of sense.
dralley 3y ago
Has anyone ever done an architectural comparison between Redox and Fuschia? That would be quite interesting.

126 points by akyuu 3y ago

How usable is Redox as a daily driver? Is it sorta-kinda works territory or is it possible to run a significant number of programs without hoops? Firefox? VSCode? Flatpaks? Can I run a VM inside Redox to fill in the functionality gaps?

stock_toaster 3y ago
From the FAQ[1], it sounds like neither X11 nor Wayland are currently supported. [1]: https://www.redox-os.org/faq/#what-programs-can-redox-run https://www.redox-os.org/faq/#what-programs-can-redox-run
- nwah1 3y ago
  But they have their own windowing system, yes?
  - rurban 3y ago
    Yes, Orbital, which is better. https://doc.redox-os.org/book/ch04-09-graphics-windowing.html#orbital https://doc.redox-os.org/book/ch04-09-graphics-windowing.htm...
    - ladyanita22 3y ago
      Why is it better? Asking an honest question.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

mdtrooper 3y ago

MIT licence really suitable? https://discourse.redox-os.org/t/mit-licence-really-suitable/92 https://discourse.redox-os.org/t/mit-licence-really-suitable...

wmf 3y ago
That's a real blast from the past. We're now in the post-open-source era where people don't even look at licenses (as long as they're OSI approved).
- hobs 3y ago
  What lawyers are you talking to, because mine still care :)
- pjmlp 3y ago
  Our legal department definitely cares.
SpecialistK 3y ago
Spoiler alert: people in the FLOSS space have different opinions on copyleft vs permissive licenses.
zigzag312 3y ago
From that thread: > The choice of MIT is not an arbitrary one ... > We wanted to encourage the use, modification, and packaging of Redox in absolutely all realms. Open source should be open, for everyone. There’s absolutely no reason for limiting the usage of the software. Therefore, MIT was the license of choice. ... > We like to have a decentralized structure of the project, allowing people to do whatever they want, no matter how they intend to share it. Based on their goals, the answer seems to be yes.
- Karellen 3y ago
  > The GPL is good for forcing people who make changes to the source to contribute back. [...] The GPL is upstream-centric, the MIT license is downstream-centric. An interesting take. It doesn't match my understanding of the GPL though. AIUI, the GPL does not require that you send your changes "back"/"upstream". However, it does require that you make the source code to your changes available downstream, to the people you distribute the code to. Conversely, MIT does not require that you make your changes open and available to downstream users. > Open source should be open, for everyone. ...for everyone, except for users of modified versions of the project, apparently? Look, it's their project. If they want to distribute it under MIT, that's their right. I just get a bit frustrated when the rationales for using permissive licenses don't seem to make a whole lot of sense.

dralley 3y ago

Has anyone ever done an architectural comparison between Redox and Fuschia? That would be quite interesting.