4 ms·

> an aging design What does that mean, exactly? Linux is also an "aging design", unless I missed a big announcement where they redesigned it at any point since

> an aging design What does that mean, exactly? Linux is also an "aging design", unless I missed a big announcement where they redesigned it at any point since 1994.

HPsquared 2y ago
cf Terry Davis saying "Linux wants to be a 1970s mainframe".
- beeflet 2y ago
  TD had some interesting ideas when it came to simplifying the system, but I think the average person wants something inbetween a mainframe and a microcomputer. In linux/unix there is too much focus on the "multiuser" and "timesharing" aspect of the system, when in the modern day you generally have one user with a ton of daemons so you forced to run daemons as their own users and then have some sort of init system to wrangle them all. A lot of the unixisms are not as elegant as they should be (see plan9, gobolinux, etc). TempleOS is more like a commodore 64 environment than an OS: there's not really any sort of timesharing going on and the threading is managed manually by userspace programs. One thing I like is that the shell language is the same as the general programming language (HolyC).
- jonathaneunice 2y ago
  Every new system wants to be a mainframe when it grows up. VMS, Unix, Linux, NT...they all started "small" and gradually added the capabilities and approaches of the Bigger Iron that came before them. Call that the mainframe--though it too has been evolving all along and is a much more moving target than the caricatures suggest. Clustering, partitions, cryptographic offload, new Web and Linux and data analytics execution environments, most recently data streaming and AI--many new use modes have been added since the 60s and 70s inception.
  - Someone 2y ago
    > Every new system wants to be a mainframe when it grows up. VMS, Unix, Linux, NT...they all started "small" and gradually added the capabilities and approaches of the Bigger Iron that came before them MacOS started on desktop, moved from there to smartphones and from there to smartwatches. Linux also moved ‘down’ quite a bit. NT has an embedded variant, too (https://betawiki.net/wiki/Windows_NT_Embedded_4.0 https://betawiki.net/wiki/Windows_NT_Embedded_4.0, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_editions#Windows_XP_Embedded https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_editions#Windows_XP..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_IoT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_IoT).
    - jonathaneunice 2y ago
      True. Every new system wants to be just about everything when it grows up. Run workstations, process transactions, power factors, drive IoT, analyze data, run AI... "Down" however is historically a harder direction for a design center to move. Easier to add features--even very large, systemic features like SMP, clustering, and channelized I/O--than to excise, condense, remove, and optimize. Linux and iOS have been more successful than most at "run smaller, run lighter, fit into a smaller shell." Then again, they also have very specific targets and billions of dollars of investment in doing so, not just hopeful aspirations and side-gigs.
- anthk 2y ago
  Every modern OS wants to be that, even iOS, at least internally.
runjake 2y ago
That was in response to the beginning of the article: "I’ve repeatedly heard that Windows NT is a very advanced operating system" It's very advanced for decades ago. It's not meant as an insult. About 20 years ago, despite being a Linux/UNIX/BSD diehard, I went through the entire Inside Windows NT book word by word and took up low-level NT programming and gained a deep respect for it and Dave Cutler. Also a h/t to Russinovich who despite having better things to do running Winternals Software[1], would always patiently answer all my questions. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sysinternals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sysinternals
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
kbolino 2y ago
Linux actually did have some pretty significant redesigns with some notable breaking changes. It wasn't until the 2.4 line ended in the late oughts that Linux as we know it today came fully into existence.
- yencabulator 2y ago
  Linux 2.6 internals were very different from 2.4 internals which were hugely different from 2.2. Programming for the three was almost like targeting 3 different kernels.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  What were some of those changes / developments?
  - kbolino 2y ago
    Some major, visible components to be added in 2.6 over 2.4 were ALSA, LVM2, and udev, all of which remain in modern kernels. The 2.4 kernel series also had a lot of differences over 2.2 but many of them were "half-baked" compared to where they ended up in 2.6 (e.g., input subsystem, iptables). Also, module loading was changed significantly; there's some documentation at https://tldp.org/HOWTO/Module-HOWTO/linuxversions.html https://tldp.org/HOWTO/Module-HOWTO/linuxversions.html The evolution starting from 2.6 has been much more gradual, especially at the interface between the kernel and other code. The version numbers are not nearly as significant as they used to be. There were more fundamental changes between 2.4 and 2.6 than between 3.0 and 4.0. Instead of discrete leaps, the kernel now changes through continuous, small increments, and such a pace was made possible by the current (2.6+) kernel architecture.
    - dredmorbius 2y ago
      Thanks!
ofrzeta 2y ago
FWIW Linux got support for kernel modules in January 1995.
- IgorPartola 2y ago
  Yeah this was one thing I spotted as well. The author seems to confuse the fact that the norm for Unix/Linux is that the OS should have the drivers whereas MS assumes the manufacturer should provide it with the capability to have this. It also entirely overlooks how the system that allows a user with know specialized knowledge to authorize random code to run in a privileged environment which led to vulnerabilities that had their own vulnerabilities.

> an aging design What does that mean, exactly? Linux is also an "aging design", unless I missed a big announcement where they redesigned it at any point since 1994.

HPsquared 2y ago

cf Terry Davis saying "Linux wants to be a 1970s mainframe".

beeflet 2y ago
TD had some interesting ideas when it came to simplifying the system, but I think the average person wants something inbetween a mainframe and a microcomputer. In linux/unix there is too much focus on the "multiuser" and "timesharing" aspect of the system, when in the modern day you generally have one user with a ton of daemons so you forced to run daemons as their own users and then have some sort of init system to wrangle them all. A lot of the unixisms are not as elegant as they should be (see plan9, gobolinux, etc). TempleOS is more like a commodore 64 environment than an OS: there's not really any sort of timesharing going on and the threading is managed manually by userspace programs. One thing I like is that the shell language is the same as the general programming language (HolyC).
jonathaneunice 2y ago
Every new system wants to be a mainframe when it grows up. VMS, Unix, Linux, NT...they all started "small" and gradually added the capabilities and approaches of the Bigger Iron that came before them. Call that the mainframe--though it too has been evolving all along and is a much more moving target than the caricatures suggest. Clustering, partitions, cryptographic offload, new Web and Linux and data analytics execution environments, most recently data streaming and AI--many new use modes have been added since the 60s and 70s inception.
- Someone 2y ago
  > Every new system wants to be a mainframe when it grows up. VMS, Unix, Linux, NT...they all started "small" and gradually added the capabilities and approaches of the Bigger Iron that came before them MacOS started on desktop, moved from there to smartphones and from there to smartwatches. Linux also moved ‘down’ quite a bit. NT has an embedded variant, too (https://betawiki.net/wiki/Windows_NT_Embedded_4.0 https://betawiki.net/wiki/Windows_NT_Embedded_4.0, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_editions#Windows_XP_Embedded https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_editions#Windows_XP..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_IoT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_IoT).
  - jonathaneunice 2y ago
    True. Every new system wants to be just about everything when it grows up. Run workstations, process transactions, power factors, drive IoT, analyze data, run AI... "Down" however is historically a harder direction for a design center to move. Easier to add features--even very large, systemic features like SMP, clustering, and channelized I/O--than to excise, condense, remove, and optimize. Linux and iOS have been more successful than most at "run smaller, run lighter, fit into a smaller shell." Then again, they also have very specific targets and billions of dollars of investment in doing so, not just hopeful aspirations and side-gigs.
anthk 2y ago
Every modern OS wants to be that, even iOS, at least internally.

runjake 2y ago

That was in response to the beginning of the article: "I’ve repeatedly heard that Windows NT is a very advanced operating system" It's very advanced for decades ago. It's not meant as an insult. About 20 years ago, despite being a Linux/UNIX/BSD diehard, I went through the entire Inside Windows NT book word by word and took up low-level NT programming and gained a deep respect for it and Dave Cutler. Also a h/t to Russinovich who despite having better things to do running Winternals Software[1], would always patiently answer all my questions. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sysinternals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sysinternals

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

kbolino 2y ago

Linux actually did have some pretty significant redesigns with some notable breaking changes. It wasn't until the 2.4 line ended in the late oughts that Linux as we know it today came fully into existence.

yencabulator 2y ago
Linux 2.6 internals were very different from 2.4 internals which were hugely different from 2.2. Programming for the three was almost like targeting 3 different kernels.
dredmorbius 2y ago
What were some of those changes / developments?
- kbolino 2y ago
  Some major, visible components to be added in 2.6 over 2.4 were ALSA, LVM2, and udev, all of which remain in modern kernels. The 2.4 kernel series also had a lot of differences over 2.2 but many of them were "half-baked" compared to where they ended up in 2.6 (e.g., input subsystem, iptables). Also, module loading was changed significantly; there's some documentation at https://tldp.org/HOWTO/Module-HOWTO/linuxversions.html https://tldp.org/HOWTO/Module-HOWTO/linuxversions.html The evolution starting from 2.6 has been much more gradual, especially at the interface between the kernel and other code. The version numbers are not nearly as significant as they used to be. There were more fundamental changes between 2.4 and 2.6 than between 3.0 and 4.0. Instead of discrete leaps, the kernel now changes through continuous, small increments, and such a pace was made possible by the current (2.6+) kernel architecture.
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    Thanks!

ofrzeta 2y ago

FWIW Linux got support for kernel modules in January 1995.

IgorPartola 2y ago
Yeah this was one thing I spotted as well. The author seems to confuse the fact that the norm for Unix/Linux is that the OS should have the drivers whereas MS assumes the manufacturer should provide it with the capability to have this. It also entirely overlooks how the system that allows a user with know specialized knowledge to authorize random code to run in a privileged environment which led to vulnerabilities that had their own vulnerabilities.