Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gopher-OS: A Proof of Concept OS Written in Go

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 84 posts

Re: Gopher-OS: A Proof of Concept OS Written in Go

#31

Post by Jaruzel »

josteink wrote: post #27

Maybe I'm old, but I immediately assumed this was an OS built around the Gopher-protocol[1], whatever that would mean in practice. Gopher is already an established name, so the naming seems a bit unfortunate. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher_(protocol)

The subsummation of the word 'Gopher' into the Go language eco-sphere irritates me also. I believe it has something to do with the Language having adopted the Gopher (animal) as their mascot?

Just because something is no longer in common/widespread use, does not mean you can come along and use its meaning or name on your shiny new product.

Gopher the protocol maybe niche these days, but it's not dead. The continued use of the term 'Gopher-XYZ' by the Go language people will only accelerate the death of the Gopher protocol, which although inevitable it does not mean it should be erased from history by something else.

Re: Gopher-OS: A Proof of Concept OS Written in Go

#32

Post by weberc2 »

josteink wrote: post #27

Maybe I'm old, but I immediately assumed this was an OS built around the Gopher-protocol[1], whatever that would mean in practice. Gopher is already an established name, so the naming seems a bit unfortunate. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher_(protocol)

So was windows, but that didn't stop Microsoft. ;)

Re: Gopher-OS: A Proof of Concept OS Written in Go

#33

Post by Jaruzel »

achilleasa wrote: post #26

Hi, I am the author of gopher-os. It started as a fun research project to learn more about the Go runtime internals and I didn't really expect it making it to HN. If you take a look at the Go runtime sources you will notice that all the low-level arch/os-related bits have been split into separate files which usually invoke some syscalls (e.g. the memory allocator eventually calls mmap) The idea I am currently investi…

I'm looking forward to seeing how well your dedicated OS supports the protocol. Are you following the RFC?

http://www.rfc-base.org/txt/rfc-1436.txt

Re: Gopher-OS: A Proof of Concept OS Written in Go

#34

Post by canes123456 »

Jaruzel wrote: post #31
josteink wrote: post #27

Maybe I'm old, but I immediately assumed this was an OS built around the Gopher-protocol[1], whatever that would mean in practice. Gopher is already an established name, so the naming seems a bit unfortunate. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher_(protocol)

The subsummation of the word 'Gopher' into the Go language eco-sphere irritates me also. I believe it has something to do with the Language having adopted the Gopher (animal) as their mascot? Just because something is no longer in common/widespread use, does not mean you can come along and use its meaning or name on your shiny new product. Gopher the protocol maybe niche these days, but it's not dead. The continued u…

There a tons of name conflicts for things that are more popular than the gopher protocol. If the creators wanted to avoid this they need to pick a unique name.

Re: Gopher-OS: A Proof of Concept OS Written in Go

#35

Post by ajmarsh »

weberc2 wrote: post #32
josteink wrote: post #27

Maybe I'm old, but I immediately assumed this was an OS built around the Gopher-protocol[1], whatever that would mean in practice. Gopher is already an established name, so the naming seems a bit unfortunate. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher_(protocol)

So was windows, but that didn't stop Microsoft. ;)

Or the 3 or 4 competing apps named "paper."

Re: Gopher-OS: A Proof of Concept OS Written in Go

#36

Post by hdjddjtjtj55 »

Jaruzel wrote: post #31
josteink wrote: post #27

Maybe I'm old, but I immediately assumed this was an OS built around the Gopher-protocol[1], whatever that would mean in practice. Gopher is already an established name, so the naming seems a bit unfortunate. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher_(protocol)

The subsummation of the word 'Gopher' into the Go language eco-sphere irritates me also. I believe it has something to do with the Language having adopted the Gopher (animal) as their mascot? Just because something is no longer in common/widespread use, does not mean you can come along and use its meaning or name on your shiny new product. Gopher the protocol maybe niche these days, but it's not dead. The continued u…

"Just because something is no longer in common/widespread use, does not mean you can come along and use its meaning or name on your shiny new product."

Just because you think that doesn't mean they can't.

Since when was the rest of the world obliged to follow your rules?

Besides, I doubt the world is about to ditch the usual operating systems for Gopher OS.

Is this really a problem?

Re: Gopher-OS: A Proof of Concept OS Written in Go

#37

Post by nawgszy »

Jaruzel wrote: post #31
josteink wrote: post #27

Maybe I'm old, but I immediately assumed this was an OS built around the Gopher-protocol[1], whatever that would mean in practice. Gopher is already an established name, so the naming seems a bit unfortunate. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher_(protocol)

The subsummation of the word 'Gopher' into the Go language eco-sphere irritates me also. I believe it has something to do with the Language having adopted the Gopher (animal) as their mascot? Just because something is no longer in common/widespread use, does not mean you can come along and use its meaning or name on your shiny new product. Gopher the protocol maybe niche these days, but it's not dead. The continued u…

>which although inevitable it does not mean it should be erased from history by something else

Why do you think it's inevitable, if not exactly because it is to be erased by something else?

Re: Gopher-OS: A Proof of Concept OS Written in Go

#38

Post by treve »

canes123456 wrote: post #34
Jaruzel wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The subsummation of the word 'Gopher' into the Go language eco-sphere irritates me also. I believe it has something to do with the Language having adopted the Gopher (animal) as their mascot? Just because something is no longer in common/widespread use, does not mean you can come along and use its meaning or name on your shiny new product. Gopher the protocol maybe niche these days, but it's not dead. The continued u…

There a tons of name conflicts for things that are more popular than the gopher protocol. If the creators wanted to avoid this they need to pick a unique name.

My pet peeve is Atom the protocol and Atom the text editor. They're obscuring a format and a protocol that's much more important for the web than another text editor is, and they're doing the world a disfavor as a result.

Re: Gopher-OS: A Proof of Concept OS Written in Go

#39

Post by weberc2 »

bitwize wrote: post #14
Numberwang wrote: post #3

I've never really understood OS:es. Why are so many people creating them, yet so few have any success? I've must have seen a dozen OS:es over the past two years on HN, most developed by people having no confidence in calling it a serious effort. Why care about OS:es when there is no room for anyone on that level of abstraction apart from a handful developers at MS, Apple and Google?

Why care for computers when there's a worldwide market for maybe five, tops?

That's not a good comparison. The original quote was made in reference to the total number of machines, not to the number of models.

Re: Gopher-OS: A Proof of Concept OS Written in Go

#40

Post by elinchrome »

treve wrote: post #38
canes123456 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There a tons of name conflicts for things that are more popular than the gopher protocol. If the creators wanted to avoid this they need to pick a unique name.

My pet peeve is Atom the protocol and Atom the text editor. They're obscuring a format and a protocol that's much more important for the web than another text editor is, and they're doing the world a disfavor as a result.

Even worse is when Justin Timberlake did that song "Cry Me A River", when there was already an excellent song by the same name. It just obscures the existing song, and does the world a disservice.
Post reply on HN