Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
Ghosts of Unix past, part 2: Conflated designsGhosts of Unix past, part 2: Conflated designsPosted Nov 17, 2010 12:45 UTC (Wed) by brinkmd (subscriber, #45122)Parent article: Ghosts of Unix past, part 2: Conflated designs
Amazingly, yet another article in the series that completely fails to recognize the contributions that have been made by Plan 9, GNU Hurd, and microkernels from Mach to L4 to KeyKOS/EROS/Coyotos in the last two decades. These problems have already been analyzed in much detail by these projects, and fixed. Does the author not know this, or does he have a hidden agenda of secretly educating his readers without them being scared by too big a world out of their comfort zone? I can't wait to see the answer, hopefully in one of the later parts of the series.
(Log in to post comments)
Ghosts of Unix past, part 2: Conflated designs Posted Nov 19, 2010 22:23 UTC (Fri) by Zizzle (guest, #67739) [Link] Well from the article:"The fact that these design decisions are still with us and worth talking about shows that their weaknesses were not immediately obvious and, additionally, that these designs lasted long enough to become sufficiently entrenched that simply replacing them would cause more harm than good." Those who care deeply about such things have probably already gone to those other OSes. Not a very popular decision, but good for them. For the rest of us, apps are more important than the OS, and we prefer to keep our existing apps running. On Linux. So they are pretty much irrelevant to the bulk of us here reading Linux Weekly News. Which I think is implied in the "more harm than good" phrase. The fact that the OSes you mention occupy such small niches it could be argued shows that caring about backwards compatibility matters to most users.
|
|||||||||||||