Linked by Kroc Camen on Thu 5th Nov 2009 21:05 UTC
There's no right way to do it, only ideas that are better than others in certain situations. But if you had the opportunity to head up the design of a new OS, one to Put Things Right, one that could be radical enough to varnish out those UI/X bumps that have clung on for years, but practical enough to be used every day, what would you design? How would you handle application management? What about file types and compatibility? Where would you cherry pick the best bits from other OSes and where would you throw away tradition? I've tackled this challenge for myself and present (an unfinished idea): KrocOS (warning: HTML5 site, will display without CSS in IE/older browsers). OSnews Asks: What would make your perfect OS?
Thread beginning with comment 393362
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Why was he modded down?
by sorpigal on Sat 7th Nov 2009 13:24
in reply to "RE[4]: Why was he modded down? "
Member since:2005-11-02
"It's a simple process. Once commercial companies have a stable target, they target it. They stop releasing hardware specs. People use their drivers because such drivers exist, greatly driving down demand for a Free replacement or for enhancements to a Free version.
You ignored his question. He asked how a stable ABI would kill the kernel, not reduce the number of open source drivers. Oddly enough, Microsoft is able to keep advancing their kernel, despite the fact that their ABI is relatively stable. "
And you cannot see how the Linux kernel will be a non-starter if its drivers cannot be legally distributed with it? Assuming some kind of shim ala nvidia is used to bypass the GPL problem you still have to have agreements between each and every distribution vendor and each and every hardware vendor, or open distribution offers from the hardware vendors. This is an untenable situation and will lead to a decline in the usefulness of Linux.
RE[6]: Why was he modded down?
by tomcat on Sat 7th Nov 2009 19:17
in reply to "RE[5]: Why was he modded down? "
Member since:2006-01-06
And you cannot see how the Linux kernel will be a non-starter if its drivers cannot be legally distributed with it?
You're looking at this all wrong. Hardware manufacturers aren't at war with Linux. They want a symbiotic relationship with OS developers that allows them to sell as much hardware as possible and protect their intellectual property. Microsoft has been able to make this work because they provide a stable driver platform for the hardware manufacturers to work with, and Microsoft doesn't require that they disclose their secret sauce, as you clearly want them to do. Hardware manufacturers *want* to ship drivers with your distros. They really do. But you're making it impossible -- or, at best, extremely difficult -- for them to do it by constantly shifting the ABIs and thus requiring source code disclosure.
Let me ask you something: If you find yourself doing something over and over again, and things aren't getting better, should you keep doing the same thing again and again (and repeat the same mistakes), or should you try something different? I would argue that Linux is going to get far better driver support if it accedes to the business requirements of hardware manufacturers and works with them.
I do understand that there are many people who prefer to look at this issue through an ideological lens, but I don't think it's reasonable to make all-or-nothing demands of hardware manufacturers without giving anything back. Give them a stable ABI. Allow them to ship binary drivers and protect their intellectual property. If you did this, the whole issue of not being able to play DVDs, not use the latest graphics hardware, and many other issues would simply disappear, and level the playing field with Windows.
But I fear that that won't happen, as long as you listen to people like Stallman, who really don't care about commercial interests.
Member since:
2006-01-06
You ignored his question. He asked how a stable ABI would kill the kernel, not reduce the number of open source drivers. Oddly enough, Microsoft is able to keep advancing their kernel, despite the fact that their ABI is relatively stable.