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

Writing a Unix clone in about a month

drewdevault.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 140 posts

Re: Writing a Unix clone in about a month

#131

Post by fuzztester »

PhilipRoman wrote: post #127
fuzztester wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are using C (with TCC) for GUI apps? with what GUI framework or library?

I used SDL2. Not actively working on that project anymore, but I picked it due to requirements - fast startup, low latency, low memory usage, portability anywhere (linux on multiple distros, CPU architectures and multiple rendering backends, any Windows version from XP to 11...). C fits that very well IMO and I don't regret choosing it.

Thanks for the info.

Seems like a good decision.

Re: Writing a Unix clone in about a month

#132

Post by jauntywundrkind »

lproven wrote: post #112
dboreham wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Unix itself took many years to write (if you count V7 as "properly finished Unix"). The first version was only a filesystem, for example.

So was MS-DOS. Sold in the tens of millions and kick-started the entire x86 PC industry, though. Sometimes small and simple is good .

I struggle like hell to imagine what the enduring lasting lessons of DOS are. It doesnt seem to have any real legacy in OS design. Not a single aspect but was copied or emulated or expanded on (although DOS in the whole was cloned purely for sale of having a DOS compatible system).

The lesson seems to be: it's a race to the bottom on price. The lesson seems to be: get lucky and have your competitor just happen to be on a trip the day IBM knocks at their door. The lesson seems to be: have a parent who sells your stuff direct the board. The lesson seems to be: take advantage of decades of now-non-existant anti-trust atmosphere to make the world's biggest computer company seek outside OS. DOS itself? I struggle to think of anything remarkable at all. Maybe the availability of very cheap BASIC on-ramps for enthusiasts.

Re: Writing a Unix clone in about a month

#133

Post by musicale »

teleforce wrote: post #123
balder1991 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I think it’s relevant to say that before writing Unix he was working on Multics for a long time already. Unix was a “simplified” version of it, if I remember well. So it didn’t “spring out of thin air.”

Unix was a kind of play word for Unique as an anti-thesis for Multics that latter was originally designed for modern multi-user and multi-process OS. Ironically as any real-world OS Unix eventually becomes multi-user system similar to Multics but the name stucked. Granted Unix has a very simple (as in simple as possible but no simpler) multi-user permission and security system that work reliably for many decades unti…

"We even knew that it had a joke name, Unix, coined by Brian Kernighan, that was a reference to Multics."

https://multicians.org/unix.html

"Brian Kernighan takes credit for the idea, but adds that 'no one can remember' the origin of the final spelling Unix."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix

Also note that Prof. Kernighan has written a historical memoir about Unix:

https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~bwk/

Re: Writing a Unix clone in about a month

#134

Post by lproven »

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #132
lproven wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So was MS-DOS. Sold in the tens of millions and kick-started the entire x86 PC industry, though. Sometimes small and simple is good .

I struggle like hell to imagine what the enduring lasting lessons of DOS are. It doesnt seem to have any real legacy in OS design. Not a single aspect but was copied or emulated or expanded on (although DOS in the whole was cloned purely for sale of having a DOS compatible system). The lesson seems to be: it's a race to the bottom on price. The lesson seems to be: get lucky and have your competitor just happen to be…

> Not a single aspect but was copied or emulated or expanded on

The business computing world still, to this day, largely runs on Windows, and Windows NT was built on the foundations of DOS: it bootstraps from a DOS filesystem, as UEFI still does in 2024, and it could be installed from DOS. It implements an API designed on DOS for a DOS GUI and to this day supports DOS-compatible filenames.

All the core system folders in Windows 11 still have DOS-compatible names, from `SYSTEM32` to `SYSWOW64`.

DOS itself was emulated by DR-DOS, FreeDOS, PTS-DOS, and other OSes.

> it's a race to the bottom on price.

Always was, still is. Why do you think Linux does so well? It's not technical merit!

> have your competitor just happen to be on a trip the day IBM knocks at their door.

Absolutely cast-iron lie, and you should be ashamed of yourself for repeating it.

Re: Writing a Unix clone in about a month

#135

Post by flohofwoe »

lproven wrote: post #134
jauntywundrkind wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I struggle like hell to imagine what the enduring lasting lessons of DOS are. It doesnt seem to have any real legacy in OS design. Not a single aspect but was copied or emulated or expanded on (although DOS in the whole was cloned purely for sale of having a DOS compatible system). The lesson seems to be: it's a race to the bottom on price. The lesson seems to be: get lucky and have your competitor just happen to be…

> Not a single aspect but was copied or emulated or expanded on The business computing world still, to this day, largely runs on Windows, and Windows NT was built on the foundations of DOS: it bootstraps from a DOS filesystem, as UEFI still does in 2024, and it could be installed from DOS. It implements an API designed on DOS for a DOS GUI and to this day supports DOS-compatible filenames. All the core system folders…

> Windows NT was built on the foundations of DOS

AFAIK Windows NT was mainly influenced by VMS (which Dave Cutler worked on before NT). The DOS-isms were mainly coming in via the Win95 side and for backward compatibility reasons, but I bet everybody on the NT team hated those requirements ;)

> Absolutely cast-iron lie, and you should be ashamed of yourself for repeating it.

Not the parent, but it's at best a good urban legend and not much different from "Gary Kildall was not interested". Do you have any first-person accounts that paint a different picture?

Re: Writing a Unix clone in about a month

#136

Post by lproven »

flohofwoe wrote: post #135
lproven wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not a single aspect but was copied or emulated or expanded on The business computing world still, to this day, largely runs on Windows, and Windows NT was built on the foundations of DOS: it bootstraps from a DOS filesystem, as UEFI still does in 2024, and it could be installed from DOS. It implements an API designed on DOS for a DOS GUI and to this day supports DOS-compatible filenames. All the core system folders…

> Windows NT was built on the foundations of DOS AFAIK Windows NT was mainly influenced by VMS (which Dave Cutler worked on before NT). The DOS-isms were mainly coming in via the Win95 side and for backward compatibility reasons, but I bet everybody on the NT team hated those requirements ;) > Absolutely cast-iron lie, and you should be ashamed of yourself for repeating it. Not the parent, but it's at best a good urb…

> AFAIK Windows NT was mainly influenced by VMS (which Dave Cutler worked on before NT).

It had three parents: OS/2, DOS and VMS. However, MS could use code from 2 of them but not from VMS. I've blogged about this more than once:

https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/67492.html

https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/54464.html

> The DOS-isms were mainly coming in via the Win95 side

Nope. Not true, and you have the timeline backwards.

NT was released in 1993, 2 years before Win95, and only the 2nd version of NT, 3.5, supported VFAT long file names.

NT did not support Win95B's FAT32 until its 5th release, Windows 2000.

> backward compatibility reasons, but I bet everybody on the NT team hated those requirements

No, I don't think so. NT could be installed on top of DOS, via the WINNT.EXE setup program. (Something I urged in OS/2 communities, but they didn't understand the need or usefulness.)

https://networkencyclopedia.com/winnt-exe/

NT could dual-boot with DOS, even in the same partition in early versions. It could also dual-boot with Win9x.

This level of interop was hugely important and useful and really helped the new OS gain adoption. It was not some reluctant bolt-on.

> a good urban legend

No, it isn't. It's a horrid calumny against a good and brilliant man.

> not much different from "Gary Kildall was not interested".

Also utter nonsense.

> Do you have any first-person accounts that paint a different picture?

TL;DR version.

Dr Kildall's wife, Barbara McEwen, was DR's lawyer. She negotiated with clients and suppliers, not the CEO who was a programmer.

IBM wanted an NDA which DR was unwilling to do. She said no. Remember DR was the industry giant in microcomputer OSes at this time, and IBM didn't have an offering at all.

Kildall was flying to visit an important client; this wasn't some accidental joyride.

This lie about Kildall literally drove him to drink and his early death. Stop repeating it. It's not funny or clever. It's an evil, vindictive lie.

Tom Rolander was the other passenger in the plane. Is his testimony good enough?

Listen to him describe the flight he was on.

https://youtu.be/bLVbSjDq0DE?si=Ig9KksWWiJG3KDFn&t=1025

A much longer interview:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2008/12/18/cassidy-theres-more-t...

Video interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VREZ6Zx_usc

Transcript:

http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/201...

Re: Writing a Unix clone in about a month

#137

Post by flohofwoe »

lproven wrote: post #136
flohofwoe wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Windows NT was built on the foundations of DOS AFAIK Windows NT was mainly influenced by VMS (which Dave Cutler worked on before NT). The DOS-isms were mainly coming in via the Win95 side and for backward compatibility reasons, but I bet everybody on the NT team hated those requirements ;) > Absolutely cast-iron lie, and you should be ashamed of yourself for repeating it. Not the parent, but it's at best a good urb…

> AFAIK Windows NT was mainly influenced by VMS (which Dave Cutler worked on before NT). It had three parents: OS/2, DOS and VMS. However, MS could use code from 2 of them but not from VMS. I've blogged about this more than once: https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/67492.html https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/54464.html > The DOS-isms were mainly coming in via the Win95 side Nope. Not true, and you have the tim…

Well that's a lot more hard info than I was hoping for, thanks for taking the time!

Re: Writing a Unix clone in about a month

#138

Post by lproven »

flohofwoe wrote: post #137
lproven wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AFAIK Windows NT was mainly influenced by VMS (which Dave Cutler worked on before NT). It had three parents: OS/2, DOS and VMS. However, MS could use code from 2 of them but not from VMS. I've blogged about this more than once: https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/67492.html https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/54464.html > The DOS-isms were mainly coming in via the Win95 side Nope. Not true, and you have the tim…

Well that's a lot more hard info than I was hoping for, thanks for taking the time!

Thanks.

The thing is, the computer industry is now old enough it has a lot of folklore and legend: stuff that "everyone knows" and repeats.

But many of the people involved are still alive and you can just ask them.

And there are some really nasty people in this industry -- such as Bill Gates, or Larry Ellison -- who tell lies about others and to others, and then some of those lies catch on and everyone repeats them.

These lies that people share destroy lives. Don't repeat stuff you heard. Just Google it. It's easy to find the truth.

Re: Writing a Unix clone in about a month

#139

Post by [deleted] »

lproven wrote: post #134
jauntywundrkind wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I struggle like hell to imagine what the enduring lasting lessons of DOS are. It doesnt seem to have any real legacy in OS design. Not a single aspect but was copied or emulated or expanded on (although DOS in the whole was cloned purely for sale of having a DOS compatible system). The lesson seems to be: it's a race to the bottom on price. The lesson seems to be: get lucky and have your competitor just happen to be…

> Not a single aspect but was copied or emulated or expanded on The business computing world still, to this day, largely runs on Windows, and Windows NT was built on the foundations of DOS: it bootstraps from a DOS filesystem, as UEFI still does in 2024, and it could be installed from DOS. It implements an API designed on DOS for a DOS GUI and to this day supports DOS-compatible filenames. All the core system folders…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN