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

CharlotteOS – An Experimental Modern Operating System

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 104 posts

Re: CharlotteOS – An Experimental Modern Operating System

#61

Post by LavenderDay3544 »

varispeed wrote: post #19

Modern operating system, ready to face challenges of today political landscape, should natively support "hidden" encrypted containers, that is you would log in to completely different, separate environment depending on password. So that when under threat could disclose a password to an environment you are willing to share and attacker would have no way of proving there is any other environment present.

The only thing political about this project so far is that I insist on it being free software and also free from tivoization. Well that and not going to insane lengths to support hardware whose vendors are clearly hostile to third party operating systems and free software in general like Apple and Qualcomm.

Re: CharlotteOS – An Experimental Modern Operating System

#63

Post by hunterpayne »

jancsika wrote: post #54
nathcd wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like it's explained here: https://github.com/charlotte-os/Catten/blob/main/License/cla... Specifically, "Users may link this kernel with closed-source binary drivers, including static libraries, for personal, internal, or evaluation use without being required to disclose the source code of the proprietary driver.".

Ok, even Doug Crockford has mucked around with licensing before, so this is definitely a digression and not aimed at CharlotteOS which looks fascinating: I wish there was a social stigma in Open Source/Free Software to doing anything other than just picking a bog standard license. I mean, we have a social stigma even for OS developers about rolling your own crypto primitives. Even though it's the same very general do…

Its almost impossible to have a non-begging based business model and a standard OpenSource license. So unless you want to donate a lot of work to some huge company's bottom line for free, a standard OpenSource license is a non starter. I'm sorry that you don't seem to understand the events that led to this state. But if you ever wrote an OpenSource platform that people wanted to use, you would know why the standard licenses don't work. That's why the social stigma is the other way around. Your position from the POV of OpenSource devs is naive at best and likely destructive to the developers themselves.

Re: CharlotteOS – An Experimental Modern Operating System

#64

Post by rasta57 »

embedding-shape wrote: post #3

This is probably a better introduction it seems, than specifically the kernel of the OS: https://github.com/charlotte-os/.github/blob/main/profile/RE... > URIs as namespace paths allowing access to system resources both locally and on the network without mounting or unmounting anything This is such an attractive idea, and I'm gonna give it a try just because I want something with this idea to succeed. Seems the proje…

[flagged]

Re: CharlotteOS – An Experimental Modern Operating System

#65

Post by ori_b »

ofrzeta wrote: post #9
Rohansi wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you need to recompile if hardware changes? Linux manages just fine as a monolithic kernel that ships with support for many devices in the same kernel build.

It's true that you can compile everything in but it's not really the standard practice. On a stock distro you have dozens of dynamic modules loaded.

OpenBSD removed support for loadable modules. Hardware today is big enough that compiling everything in is fine, and we don't need a ton of fiddly code to put a special-purpose linker into the kernel. Saving a bit of memory isn't worth the risk.

Re: CharlotteOS – An Experimental Modern Operating System

#66

Post by Brian_K_White »

skissane wrote: post #52
incognito124 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recompiling the whole kernel just to change drivers seems like a deal-breaker for wider adoption

Recompile (or at least relink) the kernel to change drivers (or even system configuration) is a bit of a blast from the past - in the 1960s thru 1980s it used to be a very common thing, it was called “system generation”. It was found in mainframe operating systems (e.g. OS/360, OS/VS1, OS/VS2, DOS/360); in CP/M; in Netware 2.x (3.x onwards dropped the need for it) Most of these systems came with utilities to partiall…

Not just old stuff like that either. At least also all the SCO Xenix & Unix'es up to the technically current OSR5, OSR6 and Unixware. I don't know about other (commercial) unixes as much as SCO but given where they all come from I assume Solaris and most of the other commercial unix that still technically exist today have something at least somewhat similar.

The sys admin scripts would even relink just to merely change the ip address of the nic! (I no longer remember the details, but I think I eventually dug under the hood and figured out how you could edit a couple files and merely reboot without actually relinking a new kernel. But if you only followed the normal directions in the manual, you would use scoadmin and it would relink and reboot.) And this is not because SCO sux. Sure they did, but that was actually more or less normal and not part of why they sucked.

Change anything about which drives are connected to which scsi hosts on which scsi ids? fuggeddabouddit. Not only relink and reboot, but also pray and have a bootable floppy and a cheat sheet of boot: parameters ready.

Re: CharlotteOS – An Experimental Modern Operating System

#68

Post by [deleted] »

varispeed wrote: post #28
Razengan wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be easy to tell for anyone seriously after you: If I kidnap you and make you log into your computer, and you log into the decoy state, it'd be obvious to see that the last time you visited any website etc. was over a month ago and so on.

For sure you'd have to use it from time to time.

[deleted]

Re: CharlotteOS – An Experimental Modern Operating System

#69

Post by cultofmetatron »

card_zero wrote: post #53
cultofmetatron wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

fast necessitates manual control -> more semantics for low level control) that need to be expressible, ie: more complex easy to understand, maintain -> computer does more work for you to "figure things out" in a way that simply can't be optimal under al conditions. TLDR: what you're asking for isn't really possible without some form of AGI

What languages are easy to understand and maintain, anyway?

Id argue that python, elixir, ruby and all manner of languages are easy to understand and maintain. I dont' have to think about memory management or buffer overuns. its much easier to avoid race conditions since I'm not stressing about low level details.

by that same definition, rust is pretty easy to maintain. I won't say its easy to write though.

Re: CharlotteOS – An Experimental Modern Operating System

#70

Post by irusensei »

ofrzeta wrote: post #24
IshKebab wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's still newer than Linux's system design.

In an operating system course I attended it was mostly Unix and everyone was used to bashing Windows NT ("so crappy, bsod etc.") but we had Stallings' book and I was surprised to learn that NT was in many ways an improvement over Unix and Linux.

NT is the brainchild of Dave Cutler, who also had a leading role in developing Dec's VMS.
Post reply on HN