Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 21st Sep 2010 21:15 UTC, submitted by Gregory Plummer
GNU, GPL, Open Source "So what is the state of the Hurd? Is it vaporware, like Duke Nukem Forever? Fortunately not: the code exists, there is still work going on (for instance as part of Google Summer of Code), and there are even some relatively functional Hurd distributions. Let's look first at the code and the current architecture, and then at the Hurd distributions."
Thread beginning with comment 441986
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Outdated article
by BluenoseJake on Tue 21st Sep 2010 23:12 UTC in reply to "Outdated article"
BluenoseJake
Member since:
2005-08-11

This post is pretty much completely wrong.

OSX is based on Nextstep, and they didn't write it from scratch in a very short time, they bought the damn thing and modified it. Before that Apple tried several times to replace the classic Mac OS, please google Pink, Taligent and Rhapsody.

MS has never tried several times to replace the NT kernel, they did however write it from scratch, and in 2001 used it to replace the Win9x line of Windows. Windows 7, Vista, XP and Win2k are all NT. NT is a modern kernel, with modern features, it would be stupid for MS to try and replace it.

Edited 2010-09-21 23:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 9

RE[2]: Outdated article
by Radio on Tue 21st Sep 2010 23:59 in reply to "RE: Outdated article"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Yeah, and the NextStep kernel appeared out of thin air?

It was a huge rewrite of Mach mixed with BSD, done by a small team lead by Avadis Tevanian in a couple years. Huge enough to be considered as a "new" kernel.

And the Longhorn kernel was supposed to be a complete rewrite, but they dropped everything and went back to improving NT.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Outdated article
by dvhh on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 00:24 in reply to "RE[2]: Outdated article"
dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

This is only my opinion, but the NT kernel is a very modern one, the userspace is mostly the problem here.
I would have better faith in the minwin initiative than in a new kernel.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Outdated article
by BluenoseJake on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 02:08 in reply to "RE[2]: Outdated article"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

It was never supposed to be a complete rewrite. Google 3 pillars of Longhorn.

Also, NextStep was on version 3.3, released in 1995 when Apple bought them. It was first realeased in 89, and Apple bought them in 99. NextStep also ran on mach and BSD. Mach predates even Nextstep, it was written at Carnegie Mellon, and that project went from 1985 to 1994. BSD is based on the original Berkley Software Distribution, which was written at uh..Berkley, and was first released in 1977.

Doesn't sound like quickly, or a small team to me. All this information can be found through google.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Outdated article
by Boomshiki on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 21:53 in reply to "RE[2]: Outdated article"
Boomshiki Member since:
2008-06-11


And the Longhorn kernel was supposed to be a complete rewrite, but they dropped everything and went back to improving NT.


It was supposed to be a rewrite by rumor only. Microsoft's statement on the issue was something along the lines of "we always planned to work off of Vista's kernel, why would we abandon it after so much hard work?"

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Outdated article
by Kasi on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 00:25 in reply to "RE: Outdated article"
Kasi Member since:
2008-07-12

Additionally while MS Research has produced a many different kernels none of them have never been considered for implementation on commercial platforms irrespective of how good/interesting they were.

Even the most recent Singularity project which garnered a fair amount of interest was dismissed as only a test bed for incremental changes to the present kernel.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Outdated article
by _xmv on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 09:59 in reply to "RE: Outdated article"
_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09

NT is a modern kernel, with modern features, it would be stupid for MS to try and replace it.

Not stupid.
MS has been working on alternative OS (including new kernels) for a while. Take a look at singularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_%28operating_system~*~...) for example.

They're "only" research OS but they're pretty damn cool IMO. And so who knows, the NT kernel might be replaced someday (along with a lot of the legacy)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Outdated article
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 15:02 in reply to "RE[2]: Outdated article"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

singularity was before midori. They've actually talked about migrating to midori.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midori_%28operating_system%29

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Outdated article
by henderson101 on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 13:26 in reply to "RE: Outdated article"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

OSX is based on Nextstep, and they didn't write it from scratch in a very short time, they bought the damn thing and modified it.


Well, OpenStep {OS, not specification}, but essentially correct. NextStep's API was not OPENSTEP {Specification, not OS} compliant. The API in OpenStep 4.x is what Cocoa is based on/morphed from.

Before that Apple tried several times to replace the classic Mac OS :


True.

Pink,


Yes! Which was the project a few Be Engineers were working on before they joined Be Inc. There was Blue too, apparently.

Taligent


Technically, Taligent was what Pink became after Apple lost direction and took the "partnership" route. I have no idea if they shared a line of code, but I don't think Pink was an actual OS at the point they changed direction.

What you have COMPLETELY missed is Copland. This was what was to be Mac OS 8 and what was actually released Mac OS 8 ended up raping to steal a lot of the "new" features. I used to have a copy of Copland, but I never got it running because it required a serial debugger and I couldn't be arsed to mess about with it.

and Rhapsody.


Wrong. Wronger that a wrong turn in wrongton. Rhapsody *IS* Mac OS X. Rhapsody is Apples's "first go" at making OpenStep in to a Mac alike OS. The entire system is pure STEP, it just has the Workspace manager with an Apple style menu and platinum style Icons. In Fact, Mac OS X Server 1.x looks exactly like Rhapsody, and the initial developer released of OS X have a very similar "Finder" to Rhapsody. It wasn't till 3rd or 4th Developer Release that it started to look OS X-ish, and not till the Public Beta that it really was OS X as we know it.

MS has never tried several times to replace the NT kernel,


The Windows NT Kernel has been altered to varying degrees (sometimes beyond recognition) on a number of occasions.

1) NT 3.x > NT 4
2) XP > Vista/7
3) Server 2008
4) Longhorn (aborted)
5) Windows Mobile

NT 3.5 did not integrate the GDI. How much of a rewrite do you think it took to put the user land GDI functionality in to the NT4 kernel? It was not "trivial".

NT is a modern kernel, with modern features, it would be stupid for MS to try and replace it.


As to that last statement - it's debatable. I'd say, Windows 7 is the most happy I've been about Windows since Windows 2000 (which I used for about 6 years.) XP just seemed like tweaks over 2000 for the most part (yeah, super over generalisation, but let me have that one please :-)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Outdated article
by BluenoseJake on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 23:50 in reply to "RE[2]: Outdated article"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Just because Rhapsody became OS X, does not mean that it was not an attempt to replace classic Mac OS, it was just successful

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Outdated article
by BluenoseJake on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 23:56 in reply to "RE[2]: Outdated article"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Windows 7 is NT.

Reply Parent Score: 2