Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's clear that Linux 'won' in the marketplace it depends a lot on what you mean by won and which marketplace you are talking about. as a desktop os linux is essentially non existent with an ever shrinking 1.5% of the market share or so as more and more regular joe consumers get machines with windows or os x preinstalled at a much faster rate than expert-level geeks are installing linux. as a software developer tar…
Don't forget that Android also runs on the Linux kernel and there are more Android phones than desktop PCs running any operating system.
LINUX is obsolete (1992)
51–60 of 76 posts
Re: LINUX is obsolete (1992)
#52"viewpoint may be largely unrelated to its usefulness. Many if not most of the software we use is probably obsolete according to the latest design criteria. Most users could probably care less if the internals of the operating system they use is obsolete. They are rightly more interested in its performance and capabilities at the user level.
"I would generally agree that microkernels are probably the wave of the future. However, it is in my opinion easier to implement a monolithic kernel. It is also easier for it to turn into a mess in a hurry as it is modified."
Re: LINUX is obsolete (1992)
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
>We've reached a point where ideas are gaining ground about immutable infrastructure, people are talking more about things with similarities to microkernels called unikernels [1] (and where they might be used [2]). Not only this. Amoeba, Tanenbaum's research OS is a distributed operating system, meaning that many devices could be used as a single system. This would be incredibly useful in our current age where everyo…
Usually distributed OS are designed for a scenario where every device is (nearly) always on. Like a supercomputer or a LAN of desktops. Mobile devices want to be mostly off to save energy.
Re: LINUX is obsolete (1992)
#54On the portability aspect why Minix is better than Linux? I didn't get that point.
Re: LINUX is obsolete (1992)
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't forget that Android also runs on the Linux kernel and there are more Android phones than desktop PCs running any operating system.
Given the way Google is steering Android these days i am not sure i want it on a "desktop" any time soon. Back during early 3.x it had a spark of potential. But since then Google has done quite a bit to lock it down so that it is basically a media consumption terminal.
With that said, you’re right about the locking down. It’s a good thing that we’ve CyanogenMod and Replicant.
Re: LINUX is obsolete (1992)
#56The problem with this whole debate is that Linus was 'more wrong' than Tanenbaum and Tanenbaum made plenty of mistakes with Minix which also make it more of a macrokernel than a true microkernel. A true microkernel does one thing and one thing only: pass messages. Now that's an ideal and in the real world you don't get to have your ideals realized so rather than to be able to realize this spherical cow you're going t…
If cost was the only problem, why didn't Hurd take off? Did Minix not suffer from the same problems?
Of course, if the BSD kernel plan went through, then Hurd would be quite different architecturally today. I'm not sure how versatile it actually was, though - perhaps a multiserver design still might have been possible.
See: http://www.h-online.com/open/features/GNU-HURD-Altered-visio...
Re: LINUX is obsolete (1992)
#57Btw Linus called DOS as DOG:
> You mention OS/360 and MS-DOG as examples of bad designs as they were hardware-dependent, and I agree.
Re: LINUX is obsolete (1992)
#58I find it interesting that this post can be taken two ways. 1. It's clear that Linux 'won' in the marketplace so we can all laugh at how wrong this guy was and the curiosity of these 'microkernel' things and that portability stuff. Lols all around. 2. We've reached a point where ideas are gaining ground about immutable infrastructure, people are talking more about things with similarities to microkernels called unike…
> It's clear that Linux 'won' in the marketplace it depends a lot on what you mean by won and which marketplace you are talking about. as a desktop os linux is essentially non existent with an ever shrinking 1.5% of the market share or so as more and more regular joe consumers get machines with windows or os x preinstalled at a much faster rate than expert-level geeks are installing linux. as a software developer tar…
Re: LINUX is obsolete (1992)
#59The problem with this whole debate is that Linus was 'more wrong' than Tanenbaum and Tanenbaum made plenty of mistakes with Minix which also make it more of a macrokernel than a true microkernel. A true microkernel does one thing and one thing only: pass messages. Now that's an ideal and in the real world you don't get to have your ideals realized so rather than to be able to realize this spherical cow you're going t…
If cost was the only problem, why didn't Hurd take off? Did Minix not suffer from the same problems?
AST was firmly of the belief in Minix as being educational code, and hence only accepted patches along those lines. I don't remember if there was copyright assignment too, but there must have been something similar. This was at odds with the people who wanted to use Minix as their operating system.
For example the Minix of the time only supported 16 bit mode on x86 which meant no memory protection and only using about half a megabyte of memory on multi-megabyte machines. Someone produced fairly large patches that let it work in 32 bit mode, but they were never distributed as part of Minix because they didn't further the education goal (more code, harder to read and understand etc).
Another example was that the filesystem code was single threaded and only handled one request at a time. This meant easy to read and understand code, but dismal performance. Again this hindered those trying to use Minix versus those learning from it. This was such an issue that the original Linux announcement has this line:
PS. Yes – it’s free of any minix code, and it has a multi-threaded fs.
Essentially Minix wasn't seriously usable, cost a lot, was not open source/community oriented, and was not progressing towards being usable. That is why so many of us jumped on Linux because it immediately worked, didn't cost anything, was 32 bit, had a rapid pace of development, and was trying to be usable.On the Hurd side, there never was anything you could actually download and use. It was also developed very strongly in the cathedral style as many GNU projects were. Of course the promises were that "soon" there would be something. But Linux was there now and accepted patches without copyright assignment, and had rapid releases.
Re: LINUX is obsolete (1992)
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't forget that Android also runs on the Linux kernel and there are more Android phones than desktop PCs running any operating system.
Given the way Google is steering Android these days i am not sure i want it on a "desktop" any time soon. Back during early 3.x it had a spark of potential. But since then Google has done quite a bit to lock it down so that it is basically a media consumption terminal.
It remains possible to choose to install, or not to install Google play Services and Google's app suite on aftermarket Android installations, and still be running Android, and running most 3rd party Android apps.
Any app developers who wants to run on Amazon, Jolla, Blackberry, CyanogenMod, and on the embedded Android in cars and appliances, and all the Android variants in China is going to have to take care to make use of Google Play Services optional, and to correctly use Intent filtering to make of of and respond to high level IPC messages to and from other apps, no matter if they are the "official" Google apps or not.
So, while Google could be more open without risking much if any advantage, Android hasn't been locked-down. Google has little chance of doing an "embrace and extend" on Android ISVs. You still have a wide range of choices.