4 ms·
At least someone hasn't complained about it being 'unix like', always without defining what the non-unix-like OS they want would look like, or where the softwar
by kjs3 11mo ago
At least someone hasn't complained about it being 'unix like', always without defining what the non-unix-like OS they want would look like, or where the software to run on it would come from.
- pjmlp 11mo agoFirst, we could start by what UNIX authors did after they considered UNIX done, looking at Plan 9 and Inferno. Then there are the OSes already done during the 1960 and 1970 outside Bell Labs, as possible ideas. As from where the software would come from, if we keep recicling UNIX, we will keep getting UNIX regardless of whatever cool features the OS might offer, as most developers are lazy. Hence why it is great that while Apple and Google OSes have some UNIX there, bare bones POSIX apps will hardly make it into the store.
- kjs3 11mo agoYeah, once again you (you, pjmlp specifically) have missed the point. But thanks for explaining the obvious (once again).
- snvzz 11mo agoBecause it is not UNIX like. It does provide some degree of POSIX compatibility, but it does not dictate architecture.
- kjs3 11mo agoYes, I think most of us are clear that seL4 isn't Unix. But people continue to complain that anything with a Posix layer is Unix-like, and therefore somehow 'bad'. My point was that virtually everyone who complains about this never, ever explains what would have been better to implement, just that it should have been different.