4 ms·

Don't need to imagine, it did not take off, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MkLinux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MkLinux > Reception was mixed, focusing on the

by pjmlp 8mo ago

Don't need to imagine, it did not take off, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MkLinux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MkLinux > Reception was mixed, focusing on the difficult installation process and the significant performance costs of the Mach kernel. Reviewers noted its potential as a "Unix killer", but that it required users to abandon the user-friendly Macintosh experience for a pure Linux environment.

fsflover 8mo ago
> difficult installation process and the significant performance costs So it was a failure in implementation.
- pjmlp 8mo ago
  And the Apple that delivered Tahoe will do better?
  - cromka 8mo ago
    All they would need is to provide complete DTBs and some drivers, no need to write a new OS from scratch.
kingstnap 8mo ago
1996 is not now. This comparision makes little to no sense. I'm sure if Apple provided support for installing your own OS on their M series laptops it would be incredibly popular. And I don't need to guess at this using weird 1996 research on microkernels because Asahi Linux exists and clearly there is interest in it.
- pjmlp 8mo ago
  Indeed, Apple from 1996 would not released Tahoe, most likely. We don't need research because QNX, L4 and many others on embedded space do exist as well.
  - mhurron 8mo ago
    Do you forget what Apple in '96 was? Or are you saying that Tahoe is too polished for the Apple of '96? Apple was not a bastion of quality in the 90's. They couldn't modernize the Mac OS, and that continued with little more than window dressing over what was released in the 80's. The Mac line up was a horrible mess of barely different models that needed a Ph.D to figure out what was different. The company was bleeding money and seriously close to bankruptcy. The Apple of the mid 90's wishes it could release something like Tahoe.
    - pjmlp 8mo ago
      Yes the 1996 Apple was on the edge of bankruptcy, yet Mac OS 8 was definitely much more polished than Tahoe.
      - mhurron 8mo ago
        Ya ok, unless you looked at it wrong, then it crashed. OS 8 was a platinum theme over System 7. Which was a slightly better System 6, which wasn't significantly different than System 4. System 7 was good for the time, OS 8 and 9 were not, and Apples inability to improve the OS were really starting to show. Windows 95 was a more stable OS than OS 8. Tahoe is better.
        pjmlp 8mo ago
        How many Tahoe related radar issues do you want?
      - raw_anon_1111 8mo ago
        Yeah - an OS that crashed every time you launched Netscape and you as an end user had to manually allocate memory to apps? Not to mention that the OS itself was still mostly 68K emulated code even on PPC Macs and holding the mouse down over the menu caused all apps to stop running.
        pjmlp 8mo ago

by pjmlp 8mo ago

fsflover 8mo ago

> difficult installation process and the significant performance costs So it was a failure in implementation.

pjmlp 8mo ago
And the Apple that delivered Tahoe will do better?
- cromka 8mo ago
  All they would need is to provide complete DTBs and some drivers, no need to write a new OS from scratch.

kingstnap 8mo ago

1996 is not now. This comparision makes little to no sense. I'm sure if Apple provided support for installing your own OS on their M series laptops it would be incredibly popular. And I don't need to guess at this using weird 1996 research on microkernels because Asahi Linux exists and clearly there is interest in it.

pjmlp 8mo ago
Indeed, Apple from 1996 would not released Tahoe, most likely. We don't need research because QNX, L4 and many others on embedded space do exist as well.
- mhurron 8mo ago
  Do you forget what Apple in '96 was? Or are you saying that Tahoe is too polished for the Apple of '96? Apple was not a bastion of quality in the 90's. They couldn't modernize the Mac OS, and that continued with little more than window dressing over what was released in the 80's. The Mac line up was a horrible mess of barely different models that needed a Ph.D to figure out what was different. The company was bleeding money and seriously close to bankruptcy. The Apple of the mid 90's wishes it could release something like Tahoe.
  - pjmlp 8mo ago
    Yes the 1996 Apple was on the edge of bankruptcy, yet Mac OS 8 was definitely much more polished than Tahoe.
    - mhurron 8mo ago
      Ya ok, unless you looked at it wrong, then it crashed. OS 8 was a platinum theme over System 7. Which was a slightly better System 6, which wasn't significantly different than System 4. System 7 was good for the time, OS 8 and 9 were not, and Apples inability to improve the OS were really starting to show. Windows 95 was a more stable OS than OS 8. Tahoe is better.
      - pjmlp 8mo ago
        How many Tahoe related radar issues do you want?
    - raw_anon_1111 8mo ago
      Yeah - an OS that crashed every time you launched Netscape and you as an end user had to manually allocate memory to apps? Not to mention that the OS itself was still mostly 68K emulated code even on PPC Macs and holding the mouse down over the menu caused all apps to stop running.
      - pjmlp 8mo ago