2 ms·
It's interesting to me that this article was written ~seven years ago and already feels thoroughly outdated. The core problem is that its basic premise is that
by TrevorFSmith 2y ago
It's interesting to me that this article was written ~seven years ago and already feels thoroughly outdated. The core problem is that its basic premise is that we need to scratch-write an OS that is essentially the Alto WIMP (1972), a few BeOS features (1995), and questionable improvements like forcing apps through a messaging bus a la Smalltalk (1972) or CORBA (1991).
It isn't that the individual ideas are bad, per se, but if you're going to suggest write an OS from scratch then it really should be significantly different and inherently impossible to make by tweaking an existing OS, of which there are so, so many. Just an unbelievable number of OS options.
- scroot 2y agoAre there really so many OS options these days? Everything is pretty much "a Unix" of some sort, or else Windows. There is a key difference between today and the period of the 80s/90s when we had true OS efflorescence. Back then, the real concern was compatibility of software and in particular file/data formats. These days we have so many data format standards and protocols that a lot of this interoperability is essentially system-agnostic. I think that's a huge advantage.