4 ms·

Ask HN: Why don't big tech companies unite to build an OS?

1 points by mococa 2y ago

I really like Linux, but I think it needs a replacement for serious cloud and AI-related tasks.

talldayo 2y ago
> I think it needs a replacement for serious cloud and AI-related tasks. Why? I use it for both and it is expressly excellent at them. With configuration and automation frameworks on top like NixOS or k8s, you can build just about anything.
- mococa 2y ago
  How about “fuck you NVIDIA”?
  - talldayo 2y ago
    Nvidia doesn't need an OS. They sell hardware, and their hardware receives driver support on Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, and previously, MacOS. If you built and documented an OS for AI-based tasks, Nvidia would probably be the first OEM to merge hardware support. Linus' comment towards Nvidia was not made from the perspective of a business, either. He was lamenting that their drivers are nonfree and that their desktop support was lazy. Neither of those things matter to 99% of businesses that are using Nvidia hardware for AI compute. Also, both aren't strictly true anymore in 2025 as Nvidia officially supports Wayland now and technically has "Open" drivers.
    - mococa 2y ago
      NVIDIA is a software company.
      - talldayo 2y ago
        Apple is a software company, but that doesn't mean you can cross their moat with good software.
  - WantonQuantum 2y ago
    The smarter "f u nvidia" move would be for big tech companies to go to TSMC directly for their GPUs and cut out nvidia. They'd have to design the chips of course but that's probably easier than designing and writing an OS.
  - rstuart4133 2y ago
    > How about “fuck you NVIDIA”? That got the appropriate response. Hint: it wasn't replacing Linux, as that would be an impossibly huge task. Instead NVIDIA rewrote their drivers, so secret source code no one was supposed to see run on their secret source hardware. The system that replaced was asking every customer work around the licences incompatibilities by compiling it themselves.
6SixTy 2y ago
Serious questions: why and what's the point? You can pretty much mold Linux into whatever you want.
- mococa 2y ago
  No software is forever.
db48x 2y ago
They have. It’s called Linux.
- mococa 2y ago
  What is your long-term vision for the next 30 years or more? It’s time to start planning.
  - Finnucane 2y ago
    Floods, fires, drought. Food shortages. Tech oligarchs suffocating in bunkers while angry mobs burn their ‘AI’ data centers to the ground.
- andersco 2y ago
  Linus Torvalds != big tech
  - ThrowawayR2 2y ago
    Most contributions to the Linux kernel have already been from tech corps for a while now: https://lwn.net/Articles/915435/ https://lwn.net/Articles/915435/
  - db48x 2y ago
    The whole point of open source is that people who rely on the software will contribute to it. The tech giants all definitely rely on Linux; without it their businesses would not exist. They hire engineers by the hundreds to ensure that Linux does exactly what they need it to do. They are cooperating to maintain and improve Linux purely out of self–interest, but in so doing they benefit everyone simultaneously.
billybuckwheat 2y ago
Why should it be the big tech companies doing that?
WantonQuantum 2y ago
I'm glad they haven't. If they did, it wouldn't be free and open source like Linux is. Also, there are myriad reasons why big tech companies wouldn't unite to build anything, let alone something as complex as an OS.
gregjor 2y ago
Why does replacing Linux seem like a good idea to you? That would mean rewriting billions of lines of code written for Linux. Operating systems include lots of libraries and drivers. Programmers write code that depends on OS-level functionality. Before Unix every computer manufacturer had their own proprietary OS, specific to their hardware. While that did lead to some innovation and competition, it also made changing hardware platforms risky and expensive. Rob Pike wrote about this 25 years ago: https://doc.cat-v.org/bell_labs/utah2000/utah2000.pdf https://doc.cat-v.org/bell_labs/utah2000/utah2000.pdf
- mococa 2y ago
  Most of lines are drivers, cloud servers does not need then.
  - gregjor 2y ago
    Really? The cloud servers I use have networking stacks, drivers for various block storage devices, drivers for character-oriented devices (terminals), maybe GPU drivers. Running in the cloud means the hardware got virtualized, not that it went away from the OS point of view. A Linux cloud server appears to have disk drives and ethernet cards.
  - rstuart4133 2y ago
    Then don't compile in the drivers. This is the usual approach on embedded systems such as openwrt where flash storage is a precious resource. The Linux build system has a configuration system, complete with it's own UI, dedicated for doing just that. If that's your only reason there is no need for a new OS - Linux already does it. But usually you don't bother. You just compile everything as modules, and Linux only loads the modules for the hardware it discovers. Doing creates zero long term overhead, except for the storage space the modules consume on disk. Disk is near free in cloud systems.

1 points by mococa 2y ago

I really like Linux, but I think it needs a replacement for serious cloud and AI-related tasks.

> I think it needs a replacement for serious cloud and AI-related tasks. Why? I use it for both and it is expressly excellent at them. With configuration and automation frameworks on top like NixOS or k8s, you can build just about anything.

mococa 2y ago
How about “fuck you NVIDIA”?
- talldayo 2y ago
  Nvidia doesn't need an OS. They sell hardware, and their hardware receives driver support on Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, and previously, MacOS. If you built and documented an OS for AI-based tasks, Nvidia would probably be the first OEM to merge hardware support. Linus' comment towards Nvidia was not made from the perspective of a business, either. He was lamenting that their drivers are nonfree and that their desktop support was lazy. Neither of those things matter to 99% of businesses that are using Nvidia hardware for AI compute. Also, both aren't strictly true anymore in 2025 as Nvidia officially supports Wayland now and technically has "Open" drivers.
  - mococa 2y ago
    NVIDIA is a software company.
    - talldayo 2y ago
      Apple is a software company, but that doesn't mean you can cross their moat with good software.
- WantonQuantum 2y ago
  The smarter "f u nvidia" move would be for big tech companies to go to TSMC directly for their GPUs and cut out nvidia. They'd have to design the chips of course but that's probably easier than designing and writing an OS.
- rstuart4133 2y ago
  > How about “fuck you NVIDIA”? That got the appropriate response. Hint: it wasn't replacing Linux, as that would be an impossibly huge task. Instead NVIDIA rewrote their drivers, so secret source code no one was supposed to see run on their secret source hardware. The system that replaced was asking every customer work around the licences incompatibilities by compiling it themselves.

6SixTy 2y ago

Serious questions: why and what's the point? You can pretty much mold Linux into whatever you want.

mococa 2y ago
No software is forever.

db48x 2y ago

They have. It’s called Linux.

mococa 2y ago
What is your long-term vision for the next 30 years or more? It’s time to start planning.
- Finnucane 2y ago
  Floods, fires, drought. Food shortages. Tech oligarchs suffocating in bunkers while angry mobs burn their ‘AI’ data centers to the ground.
andersco 2y ago
Linus Torvalds != big tech
- ThrowawayR2 2y ago
  Most contributions to the Linux kernel have already been from tech corps for a while now: https://lwn.net/Articles/915435/ https://lwn.net/Articles/915435/
- db48x 2y ago
  The whole point of open source is that people who rely on the software will contribute to it. The tech giants all definitely rely on Linux; without it their businesses would not exist. They hire engineers by the hundreds to ensure that Linux does exactly what they need it to do. They are cooperating to maintain and improve Linux purely out of self–interest, but in so doing they benefit everyone simultaneously.

billybuckwheat 2y ago

Why should it be the big tech companies doing that?

WantonQuantum 2y ago

I'm glad they haven't. If they did, it wouldn't be free and open source like Linux is. Also, there are myriad reasons why big tech companies wouldn't unite to build anything, let alone something as complex as an OS.

gregjor 2y ago

Why does replacing Linux seem like a good idea to you? That would mean rewriting billions of lines of code written for Linux. Operating systems include lots of libraries and drivers. Programmers write code that depends on OS-level functionality. Before Unix every computer manufacturer had their own proprietary OS, specific to their hardware. While that did lead to some innovation and competition, it also made changing hardware platforms risky and expensive. Rob Pike wrote about this 25 years ago: https://doc.cat-v.org/bell_labs/utah2000/utah2000.pdf https://doc.cat-v.org/bell_labs/utah2000/utah2000.pdf

mococa 2y ago
Most of lines are drivers, cloud servers does not need then.
- gregjor 2y ago
  Really? The cloud servers I use have networking stacks, drivers for various block storage devices, drivers for character-oriented devices (terminals), maybe GPU drivers. Running in the cloud means the hardware got virtualized, not that it went away from the OS point of view. A Linux cloud server appears to have disk drives and ethernet cards.
- rstuart4133 2y ago
  Then don't compile in the drivers. This is the usual approach on embedded systems such as openwrt where flash storage is a precious resource. The Linux build system has a configuration system, complete with it's own UI, dedicated for doing just that. If that's your only reason there is no need for a new OS - Linux already does it. But usually you don't bother. You just compile everything as modules, and Linux only loads the modules for the hardware it discovers. Doing creates zero long term overhead, except for the storage space the modules consume on disk. Disk is near free in cloud systems.