Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th Aug 2008 23:33 UTC, submitted by Charles Wilson
Permalink for comment 327315
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
And the reason these abilities work so well is because it was factored into the design from the get-go. You can't keep on building on a system that was designed for mainframes and then hope it will still be up-to-date and capable 40 years later.
You're right - which is why I think it is a silly effort to try and retrofit these ideas to an existing operating system - when ever it is tried, it'll be a compromised version with limitations that take away from what it promised.
Linux is repeating the same mistake of UNIX - MacOS X broke free, but I have a feeling that we're going to revisit these issues again in 10 years time when MacOS X becomes long in the tooth. Same thing can be said for Linux as well.
I gave Plan 9 as an example, but I'm sure there are other ways to go about solving problems. We already have numerous clones of *NIX - what there needs to be is an easy to use operating system which is unrestrained from decisions made two decades ago.
One where the lessons from other operating systems can be learned. An operating system which is documented and well maintained from day one rather than something get grows into an out of control beast which ends up causing problems for the programmers at a later date.