Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Fri 28th Jan 2011 20:37 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes It's recently been a year since I started working on my pet OS project, and I often end up looking backwards at what I have done, wondering what made things difficult in the beginning. One of my conclusions is that while there's a lot of documentation on OS development from a technical point of view, more should be written about the project management aspect of it. Namely, how to go from a blurry "I want to code an OS" vision to either a precise vision of what you want to achieve, or the decision to stop following this path before you hit a wall. This article series aims at putting those interested in hobby OS development on the right track, while keeping this aspect of things in mind.
Thread beginning with comment 460151
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Linux
by cheemosabe on Sat 29th Jan 2011 13:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Linux"
cheemosabe
Member since:
2009-11-29

Plan9 started in the 80s whereas Linux started in 1991.


Your point being? Linux started as a Unix clone and never really got passed that. It didn't bring anything new other than the fact that it was opensource. Indeed it's a very advanced and well written clone, and a very useful one. Plan9 provided the next step before Linux even started, but nobody embraced it.

Linux advanced by adding (new technologies, good stuff, well written, but still adding). Plan9 was a fundamental change in design.

Edited 2011-01-29 13:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Linux
by tylerdurden on Sat 29th Jan 2011 17:55 in reply to "RE[4]: Linux"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

The point is that Plan 9 has nothing to do with Linux. So the implication that Plan 9's goal was to fix the issues with an OS which was not existing when the project got started is kind of silly.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Linux
by Alfman on Sat 29th Jan 2011 19:55 in reply to "RE[5]: Linux"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

"The point is that Plan 9 has nothing to do with Linux. So the implication that Plan 9's goal was to fix the issues with an OS which was not existing when the project got started is kind of silly."


Renox called me on my error when I used "Linux" instead of the more generic term "*nix".

However, my point about other (and even better) alternatives existing is still correct.

You need to learn more about Plan9 to see how it is better. Obviously Plan9 devs had the benefit of hindsight and could develop better interfaces. So did Linus for that matter, but he chose to do a Unix clone rather than try his hand on improving the model.

If it wasn't Linux today, who knows what would have taken it's place? All we know is that there were viable alternatives.

Microsoft's very existence is proof that connections and timing can outweigh technical merit. Sad, but ultimately true.

Reply Parent Score: 2