Re:Programmer's critique of missing structure of operating s...
by ainar-g on Wednesday February 19, 2020 @06:42AM
(#22364728)
We already did that. It was called Plan 9 From Bell Labs[1]. And
while it gave us UTF-8, procfs, 9P, etc, it failed to become a popular
OS.
Re:Programmer's critique of missing structure of operating s...
by jamesrcole on Thursday February 20, 2020 @03:17AM
(#22373547)
The important question here is, why? Was it because of those features? Or something else?
I don't know, but one major factor in OS adoption is network effects. "The rich get richer", and it's very hard to introduce a new and different system, no matter how good it is.
Re:Programmer's critique of missing structure of operating s...
by teddyh on Tuesday February 25, 2020 @07:18AM
(#22412539)
Unlike Unix, which was basically free software and therefore extendable and available for companies to build their own versions of, Plan 9 was proprietary from Bell Labs.
Re:Programmer's critique of missing structure of operating s...
by hhas01 on Wednesday February 19, 2020 @07:44AM
(#22364945)
Ah, Plan 9. Vastly superior to its predecessor in every way, except the one that counts: bums on seats.
Re:Programmer's critique of missing structure of operating s...
by teddyh on Wednesday February 19, 2020 @12:46PM
(#22367935)
And, for a long time, price/licensing.
Re:Programmer's critique of missing structure of operating s...
by marcosdumay on Wednesday February 19, 2020 @07:13AM
(#22364832)
The thing about the crufty being on top instead of inside it is that we can replace it from time to time.
(Too bad the replacements aren't always better...)
Re:Programmer's critique of missing structure of operating s...
by hhas01 on Wednesday February 19, 2020 @07:37AM
(#22364921)
Having cruft in your top layer is fine and healthy; a sign of a living, evolving system that is still learning how best to do its job and hasn’t prematurely ossified.
The problems occur when a still-crufty layer becomes set in stone, ensuring its base defects go on to pollute everything built on top. That may happen either because its designers lack perspective and cannot accept their precious design is flawed; or because everyone else starts building on top before it is ready for prime-time, then reject all attempts to straighten it out because that would require them to rewrite as well.
On the other hand, it would take quite a lot of effort to reach a parity of capability for a new OS these days.