Linked by David Adams on Mon 4th Oct 2010 19:32 UTC, submitted by Idefix
OSNews, Generic OSes Once upon a time, operating systems used to matter a lot; they defined what a computer could and couldn't do... Today, there's only one operating system: Unix (okay, there are two, but we'll get to that). This is why I contend that the OS doesn't matter - or that we need to take another look at the word's content, at what we mean when we say 'Operating System'.
Thread beginning with comment 443913
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: "There is only one."
by tylerdurden on Tue 5th Oct 2010 19:23 UTC in reply to ""There is only one.""
tylerdurden
Member since:
2009-03-17

"BeOS (and its open-source counterpart, Haiku) is much better than UNIX ever will be AT DOING NOTHING"

There, I fixed that for you.

How exactly is BeOS, an operating system that has been dead for a decade, better than unix? It had a awful networking stack, almost no drivers, no multiuser, and basically no application base to speak of, no real value proposition other than it could boot up "real fast." So on what metric exactly do you base you utterly qualitative and arbitrary statement?

Granted it had a filesystem which supported metadata. So you could boot up real fast, and do queries on useless data since there were no apps. That makes it "better" than UNIX how exactly?

Edited 2010-10-05 19:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: "There is only one."
by SamuraiCrow on Wed 6th Oct 2010 00:58 in reply to "RE: "There is only one.""
SamuraiCrow Member since:
2005-11-19

How exactly is BeOS, an operating system that has been dead for a decade, better than unix? It had a awful networking stack, almost no drivers, no multiuser, and basically no application base to speak of, no real value proposition other than it could boot up "real fast." So on what metric exactly do you base you utterly qualitative and arbitrary statement?

Granted it had a filesystem which supported metadata. So you could boot up real fast, and do queries on useless data since there were no apps. That makes it "better" than UNIX how exactly?


Since when is the quality of the OS dependent on the apps ported to it? The OS could be great but if there are no apps it is useless, agreed. But I plan on writing more software in the future for Haiku than for SCO UNIX. UNIX is dead, long live UNIX.

Linux I plan on supporting because there are a lot of users of it but UNIX is designed for server usage and multiuser supercomputers. Haiku is a single-user OS and designed for an entirely different market.

C++ kicks ass against the C underpinnings used to create UNIX but there are very few OSs built on object-oriented architecture. Haiku and BeOS are written in C++. MacOS X, as you mentioned, has many of its internal apps written in Objective C.

Also, see what I said about Microsoft Singularity. It's written in an excellent programming language (Sing#) which defines it as something different and special from plain UNIX. I can foresee a time when a derivative from Singularity kicks UNIX off the servers for good. Then you'll wish for the day that Haiku was on your hard drive, because then UNIX will truly be dead.

My point is that, IMHO, UNIX is the tried and true but been there and done that architecture that people only come crying to when all other options have failed. It is the least user-friendly OS that has ever been conceived. The sooner it dies the better. Same goes for Solaris and the parts of Linux that date back to the original GNU projects such as GCC. I hope that more streamlined approaches dominate the world someday and UNIX is the second-biggest obstacle to that occurring.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: "There is only one."
by tylerdurden on Wed 6th Oct 2010 01:10 in reply to "RE[2]: "There is only one.""
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

So basically your answer is "no" you do not have any actual quantitative argument.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: "There is only one."
by Neolander on Wed 6th Oct 2010 06:11 in reply to "RE[2]: "There is only one.""
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

There are interesting things in this post, but I think you misunderstood the original comment and went a bit too far in UNIX hate to make a good point.

Since when is the quality of the OS dependent on the apps ported to it? The OS could be great but if there are no apps it is useless, agreed. But I plan on writing more software in the future for Haiku than for SCO UNIX. UNIX is dead, long live UNIX.

The OP complained about several things. Apart from lack of applications on an OS that has been here for a long time, he complained about the low-leven layers (networking stack) and about the lack of vision, of plans for the future. You did not answer those.

Linux I plan on supporting because there are a lot of users of it but UNIX is designed for server usage and multiuser supercomputers. Haiku is a single-user OS and designed for an entirely different market.

Agreed, it's good to point this out. UNIX advocates' point is that it can be adapted to just about anything, but I'm more skeptical about this myself. It remains an OS based on text files and pipes, with a user/admin security model, not exactly the best start for a mono-user OS design.

C++ kicks ass against the C underpinnings used to create UNIX but there are very few OSs built on object-oriented architecture. Haiku and BeOS are written in C++. MacOS X, as you mentioned, has many of its internal apps written in Objective C.

This is highly debatable (and I'm writing a kernel in C++). Several features of C++ (exceptions, RTTI...) require runtime support and can be considered dead for kernel development. Other, like templates, are nice but more adapted to API coding than low-level OS code. When writing code at the kernel level, it's mostly classes (for code separation in independent blocks) and operator overloading (for easier debug code than printf) which prove to be useful. Where most of C++ really shines is on the interface side, and you can very well make a C++ interface to a C kernel.

Also, see what I said about Microsoft Singularity. It's written in an excellent programming language (Sing#) which defines it as something different and special from plain UNIX.

Yeah, it's written in managed code, like those experimental OSs written in Java we've had for ages. And ?

I can foresee a time when a derivative from Singularity kicks UNIX off the servers for good.

This is ridiculous. Singularity has been canned by microsoft and doesn't have the tools which server users use daily. Plus, being fully written in managed code, it will have a comparatively weak performance, maybe suitable for the desktop but not for the power-hungry server market.

Then you'll wish for the day that Haiku was on your hard drive, because then UNIX will truly be dead.

Oh, come on ^^ Aren't you burying it a bit fast ? Look at the current state of Haiku, it's not desirable for anyone else than BeOS fans, and afaik there are no plans to change this.

My point is that, IMHO, UNIX is the tried and true but been there and done that architecture that people only come crying to when all other options have failed. It is the least user-friendly OS that has ever been conceived.

User-friendliness is about UI, and that of Haiku is not nearly close to KDE for that matter. It's for devs that UNIX apis are terrible, and they use extra layers like QT anyway.

The sooner it dies the better. Same goes for Solaris and the parts of Linux that date back to the original GNU projects such as GCC. I hope that more streamlined approaches dominate the world someday and UNIX is the second-biggest obstacle to that occurring.

This is just ridiculous. A compiler is a compiler, no matter how you see it. It has a well-defined purpose, so there's not much room for improvisation. GCC compiles well-optimised code from many languages to a very wide range of binary targets, so it's a good compiler, there's nothing else to say about it ;)

Reply Parent Score: 4