Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Mon 14th Mar 2011 08:32 UTC, submitted by Dirge
Permalink for comment 466059
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-04-23
The list basically ignores research OSs, while focusing mainly on projects trying to reverse-engineer decades-old operating systems (Unix variants, Windows, BeOS and the Amiga OS). As such, it should have mentioned also Open RISC OS, which is in a similar category. Inferno seems to be the only example looking forwards rather than backwards.
But there are lots of research operating systems that are more future-oriented. These, for example, use various forms of code verification to formally guarantee safety (rather than just rewriting a few library routines while still using unverified code in an inherently unsafe programming language), use functional programming from kernel-level and up, use message passing without shared memory to ensure both safety and distribution or seamlessly integrate GPGPUs and CPUs to share a workload.
Such are more likely to form the basis of tomorrows OS than those in the list.