Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 20th Dec 2009 21:22 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 400517
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 05/18/13 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
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links




Member since:
2009-05-20
I don't know if it just me, but I find the term "hobby OS" to have negative connotations.
It is like a "hobby OS" can not be a "real OS". "Real men" use "real OSes" in "real production". Often I hear trolls using the term when describing something they've never even tried.
In many cases something like "research OS" would be more polite and even often more accurate. Is something like MINIX or Plan9 really a "hobby OS", despite of the great legacy and strong influence?
Edited 2009-12-20 22:23 UTC