3 ms·

> it's that both the major one and most of the minor ones are derivatives of either UNIX or the POSIX specification. How is that the problem? How does that sto

by phaemon 12y ago

> it's that both the major one and most of the minor ones are derivatives of either UNIX or the POSIX specification. How is that the problem? How does that stop you from doing anything? > you are at the same time throwing away 99% of POSIX, and you are highly expected to maintain compatibility with apps for the system you're building on top of Expected by whom? Who has any expectations for your own personal research project? I'd fully expect an experimental OS not to have any apps at all, besides basic utilities. I'm not going to point to any OS as a counter example, because you haven't made clear how the existence of any other UNIX-like OS prevents you from doing anything. If you want to do "greenfield R&D" then go ahead. No-one is stopping you.

vertex-four 12y ago
It doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything, but the result is that non-POSIX OSes will never take off in any meaningful way, therefore research is close to worthless.
- ryanjshaw 12y ago
  Maybe, maybe not. IMO, capabilities-based systems are all around us these days, just not in a completely pure form and not in the way most people expected (it's at a higher level, that is, in the way apps are being built on web APIs). I also note that Microsoft built a capabilities-based OS (Singularity - it's open source, have you considered building on something like this?) and that one of the most important modern contributors to the space (J. Shapiro) now works at MS Research last I read. Given his lifetime interest and work in the area it's not a stretch to imagine what they may have hired him to work on.
- phaemon 12y ago
  New POSIX OSes won't take off in a meaningful way either (whatever 'meaningful' means). It's nothing to do with it being POSIX or not, it's just difficult to get traction for a new OS. Linux faced exactly the same issue when it was released. But why do you need it to take off in a meaningful way? Open Source software doesn't need a particular market share to keep going, it just needs a certain absolute number of people (which differs depending on the software). Is having a small committed core of users not enough for you? If your research is truly useful then that number will grow over time. Unless you're talking about a commercial OS, in which case Microsoft is your obstacle, not POSIX. Good luck with that.

by phaemon 12y ago

vertex-four 12y ago

It doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything, but the result is that non-POSIX OSes will never take off in any meaningful way, therefore research is close to worthless.

ryanjshaw 12y ago
Maybe, maybe not. IMO, capabilities-based systems are all around us these days, just not in a completely pure form and not in the way most people expected (it's at a higher level, that is, in the way apps are being built on web APIs). I also note that Microsoft built a capabilities-based OS (Singularity - it's open source, have you considered building on something like this?) and that one of the most important modern contributors to the space (J. Shapiro) now works at MS Research last I read. Given his lifetime interest and work in the area it's not a stretch to imagine what they may have hired him to work on.
phaemon 12y ago
New POSIX OSes won't take off in a meaningful way either (whatever 'meaningful' means). It's nothing to do with it being POSIX or not, it's just difficult to get traction for a new OS. Linux faced exactly the same issue when it was released. But why do you need it to take off in a meaningful way? Open Source software doesn't need a particular market share to keep going, it just needs a certain absolute number of people (which differs depending on the software). Is having a small committed core of users not enough for you? If your research is truly useful then that number will grow over time. Unless you're talking about a commercial OS, in which case Microsoft is your obstacle, not POSIX. Good luck with that.