With the Exemption of Plan9 all the OS's you named are pure Unixes. As a example FreeBSD is nearly a mirror of Solaris. Nexstep was pure BSD with a Mach Kernel (OO development was the great seller on NextStep)...Irix? Well OpenGL and XFS is available under Linux.
>iOS, macOS, Android, Windows (UWP), GenodeOS, Fuchsia, Haiku, Azure Sphere for the pursuit of modern ideas in OS research
Haiku modern?? BeOS is 25 years old.
Hint, it goes beyond doing CLI applications and daemons.
BeOS is 25 years older and 25 years younger than UNIX, yes modern.
So please tell me then. All Unixes have more or less the same FHS, Solaris did nothing different as..lets say BSD in the User-space nor did Irix, so tell me what did Solaris or Irix and even Nextstep fundamentally different then any other Unix?
>BeOS is 25 years older and 25 years younger than UNIX, yes modern.
Yeah lets stop here, it's getting ridiculous.
Irix had Inventor.
NeXT had the mach kernel, drivers written in Objective-C, Renderman, EOF, WebObjects, DisplayPostscript.
Ridiculous is putting up with certain clueless people online that don't have any idea of what they are talking about.
>explored the idea of Java based kernel drivers
They even made a Java OS a Browser and a Chip, we all know what a stupid decision that was, you could have say ZFS which is against the unix philosophy (one program one job) but you forgot that i think.
>Irix had Inventor.
Windows had paint, and Mac the almighty HyperCard...but that's NOT the Operating-system nor does it make any difference Unix-wise.
>NeXT had the mach kernel, drivers written in Objective-C
Ahh, now you bring the kernel argument i already brought, yeah drivers written in the beloved Objective-C (is that a feature or a User-space thing?)...you know Multics was made with EPL waaay earlier.
They are pure and certified Unixes (not NeXT, but MacOS X is/was), based on Unix ideas..basta.
(Yeah, Linux is a server OS, not news.)
cgroups has been a thing on mainframes for decades.
And your comment about it having been a thing on mainframes underscores my point.
The server story for Linux is evolving (and maturing) greatly, and very quickly. The Linux of today is not at all like the Linux from 2010. To say that Linux is stuck in some sort of legacy UNIX quagmire is just silly.
That's a crime to say "finesse" and "systemd" in the same discussion.
And, on cgroups, I think AIX has something like that but much, much, MUCH better.
It’s not the wrong type of solution but systemd is somewhat stinky compared to what we could have had.
Generic is the complete wrong word for systemd, it's the opposite of Generic.
>The two are huge and novel developments in OS design
Yeah "new" since the 1960 on a Computer called PDP10 from DEC
Nah... you can't take one of the handful of major styles of interaction with computing devices and diminish adherence to that style as just 'gatekeeping'. There are moments where the strengths of GUI interaction is useful (discovery of options, selection of individual objects, etc.), but modern systems are complex and large enough that you can't really walk away from the idea of expressing operations and state linguistically without walking away from tools you need to do your job efficiently (or at all). So yeah, maybe CLI is less accessible and more difficult for newcomers, but the problems they solve aren't necessarily easy, either.
However... I do think there are many opportunities for both better accessibility in CLI's and better interoperability between CLI's and GUI's. Better discovery of options in CLI would help (autocomplete, etc.), as would a better connection between the GUI and CLI worlds. (Lisp has some good ideas where the "terminal" remembers the object it prints and allows interaction with those objects, as opposed to just remembering a string character representation of them. Microsoft's Office applications similarly will write macro code for you as you interact with the UI - which is a great way to understand the relationship between the two worlds.)
I like and want the powerful combination of the CLI and GUI applications.
It's generally a joy to use Linux. In some cases (like HP LaserJet printers) even more painless than Windows and macOS!
Yes it does have a couple of nice ideas, and it was much better to use than Windows 3.x + MS-DOS, but that is about it.
All the UNIX based OSes that I really appreciate, have moved beyond it, namely NeXTSTEP, Solaris/NeWS, Irix, Plan 9/Inferno.
Thankfully only BSD and GNU/Linux are stuck into being a continuum of UNIX clones without much to add, when you see their conferences it always boils down to kernel features or filesystems.
GNU/Linux has the ingredients to make an Amiga like desktop experience, with D-BUS, GNOME/KDE, but the fragmentation and love for POSIX CLI applications just doesn't make it worthwhile to try to make it work.
Look at iOS, macOS, Android, Windows (UWP), GenodeOS, Fuchsia, Haiku, Azure Sphere for the pursuit of modern ideas in OS research. The fact that some of those have a POSIX like kernel (or deeply customise Linux kernel) it is just an implementation detail of the overall architecture.