Linked by bcavally on Mon 21st Dec 2009 17:18 UTC
BeOS & Derivatives Today there are many operating systems available. Every vendor or community round it tries to make it as good as possible. Having different goals, different legacy and different cultures, they succeed in it more or less. We (end users) end up with big selection of operating systems, but for us the operating systems are usually compromise of the features that we would like to have. So is there an operating system that would fit all the needs of the end user? Is is the BeOS clone Haiku?
Permalink for comment 400660
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Legacy architecture == bad?
by malxau on Tue 22nd Dec 2009 09:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Legacy architecture == bad?"
malxau
Member since:
2005-12-04

What people like you forget is that those very smart computer engineers were making decisions based on completely different computing needs and hardware. For example I really doubt they would build an OS today with a shared library system when 1TB drives can be had for $100.


If the size of code on disk were the only issue, that may be valid. However, the reality is more nuanced. Unix was not born with shared libraries - they actually arrived there later (mid 90s), and arrived largely to reduce RAM footprint, since multiple processes can now share the same code pages.

Today shared libraries (or DLLs or frameworks) largely exist to minimize servicing problems. If a security bug is found in one component, a shared library enables it to be patched once. Static linking results in the same patch being issued multiplicatively.

Although shared libraries aren't distributed as part of applications as much as they used to be, this is really a reflection of operating systems/distributions incorporating more functionality themselves, so that applications distribute less. The basic architecture of shared libraries + smallish program specific code hasn't changed in a long time.

Reply Parent Score: 2