Anything truly new since '73?

Discussion of technology related topics including news, events, and announcements.

Anything truly new since '73?

Postby hadriankross » September 1st, 2015, 4:52 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix

Even if everyone is using it now, we can't really say that it's "new"...

MS is still Win2K. (OK, with Win10 (X? nah) it's probably Android a.k.a touchscreen-linux and 2k (or Win2k made to look like Android--meh). ARM would be more of a hardware discussion--see Wozniak et. al.) (DOS up to Win98 is still very similar--fundamentally not new--simply more proprietary; SSDD)

Mac is now simply Intel-Linux (<--so evil). (Wonder if AMD is any more altruistic now that it's absorbed ATI...) (I actually liked PowerPC and it's microkernel. Guess who else has a microkernel now.)

Linux is still UNIX with window-dressing--so at least more original.

--

Is there any example extant of a "new" operating system in the past 15 years? 30 years? 42?

Always liked Douglas Adams, but that's just creepy...

edit: always thought he was referring to John Lennon's birthdate.
Because I'm not your f*****g product tester.
hadriankross
 
Posts: 3
Joined: August 27th, 2015, 1:29 am

Re: Anything truly new since '73?

Postby Randicus Draco Albus » September 1st, 2015, 10:52 pm

Is there any example extant of a "new" operating system in the past 15 years? 30 years? 42?
Plan 9? Haiku?
Linux is still UNIX with window-dressing
More window-dressing than UNIX. Hence the description Unix-like.
Klingons are fun, but Romulans are the sexiest women in the galaxy.
User avatar
Randicus Draco Albus
 
Posts: 1497
Joined: September 22nd, 2011, 1:22 pm

Re: Anything truly new since '73?

Postby nodir » September 3rd, 2015, 9:18 pm

I guess it doesn't count as "truly" new, but the Hurd, though inspired by UNIX and UNIX-like, has some interesting ideas.
I understand or need none of them, just what i have heard
(same goes for plan9, again: only what i have heard, though it hasn't got much to do with UNIX).
Perhaps the same is valid for Solaris, Illumos, etc. I seldom hear anything from them.

There are more operating systems, of course. say Risc OS.
nodir
 
Posts: 307
Joined: June 16th, 2015, 10:10 pm

Re: Anything truly new since '73?

Postby cynwulf » October 2nd, 2015, 4:21 pm

It helps to get an old computer with an old operating system and actually try to use it and then have a rethink on that question...

A lot of operating systems are focused on keeping things as they are, examples: proprietary UNIX, Some Linux distributions, some of the 'BSDs, window to some extent. There are very few who are focused on throwing out 'the trash' and truly innovating - examples: Plan 9, GNU Hurd and DragonFlyBSD (that's all I can think of at the moment). Sometimes the "it [has to be/work like this" approach is 'constraining'.

systemd (*ducks for cover*) has caused much controversy, but in a way it's an attempt to break down the barriers and redefine Linux as something more distinct, or as an OS in it's own right, rather than just a kernel and lots of other random variable stuff just tacked on.

Linux the kernel has been a commercial success, GNU/Linux the operating system and the 'GNU userland' much less beyond it's use on enterprise servers, it's never moved out of the geek domain and onto desktops and never likely to. Canonical Ltd probably (?) learned this the hard way and 10 years and several failed ventures later they are still pushing a Linux desktop OS in a market where GNU/Linux is minuscule and insignificant and where phones and tablets have started to dominate anyway. The 'Linux on the desktop' dream is not only dead - it's irrelevant and always has been.

This is why, the Red Hat backed, systemd project is, when all is said and done, a commercial venture. Other Linux distributions are adopting it (and of course testing it as they do with a lot of other software already), but it's Red Hat who fund it's development and it's Red Hat who want to put it into use in their commercial products after all.

But because Red Hat are funding it and backing it and will likely do so indefinitely, this does make it attractive to others as something which will be supported and long lasting in the long run. Linux distros, desktop environments and other software projects are jumping on board and if you can take off the ideologist's ("it just ain't POSIX!") hat and step into a software developer's shoes for a moment, it's easy enough to see why.

So yes systemd + Linux could be seen as the new up and coming operating system. And yes that's a good thing or a bad thing depending on how you look at it. People just don't like change or some upstart coming onto the scene and changing things and forcing them to change how they work and that's understandable. If systemd had crept in more cautiously and not acting like a flock of noisy gulls swooping down and shitting on the old folks sitting on the promenade, it would have probably avoided most of the controversy and bad press it has received.
cynwulf
 
Posts: 2548
Joined: April 26th, 2011, 2:46 pm

Re: Anything truly new since '73?

Postby Randicus Draco Albus » October 2nd, 2015, 10:42 pm

spoon wrote:Sometimes the "it [has to be/work like this" approach is 'constraining'.
Depends on what a system is used for. For some systems it is a constraint. For other systems it is necessary.

systemd (*ducks for cover*) has caused much controversy, but in a way it's an attempt to break down the barriers and redefine Linux as something more distinct, or as an OS in it's own right, rather than just a kernel and lots of other random variable stuff just tacked on.
Whether one regards the change as good or bad, there is a big difference between innovation and complete change.

Linux the kernel has been a commercial success, GNU/Linux the operating system and the 'GNU userland' much less beyond it's use on enterprise servers
Were they ever meant to be commercial successes?

People just don't like change or some upstart coming onto the scene and changing things and forcing them to change how they work and that's understandable. If systemd had crept in more cautiously and not acting like a flock of noisy gulls swooping down and shitting on the old folks sitting on the promenade, it would have probably avoided most of the controversy and bad press it has received.
Resistance is due to much more than a dislike for change.
Klingons are fun, but Romulans are the sexiest women in the galaxy.
User avatar
Randicus Draco Albus
 
Posts: 1497
Joined: September 22nd, 2011, 1:22 pm

Re: Anything truly new since '73?

Postby fsmithred » October 3rd, 2015, 9:38 pm

New and Different...
http://kolibrios.org/en/
fsmithred
 
Posts: 358
Joined: February 11th, 2011, 4:14 am

Re: Anything truly new since '73?

Postby cynwulf » October 4th, 2015, 11:33 am

Randicus Draco Albus wrote:Depends on what a system is used for. For some systems it is a constraint. For other systems it is necessary.

True enough.
Randicus Draco Albus wrote:Whether one regards the change as good or bad, there is a big difference between innovation and complete change.

Not necessarily. Innovation often takes the form of completely new ideas and a fresh angle. It's not about keeping the same old things around for ever just because some people are used to them and afraid of change. If we kept software development in stasis, clinging onto old ideals for the old timers, then it's likely that nothing would have progressed at all.
Randicus Draco Albus wrote:Were they ever meant to be commercial successes?

Well what do you think they were meant to be exactly? Linus Torvalds seems to be happy with the commercial success of Linux, especially in Android and is happy to "live the good life" on Red Hat's and others' money. I'm sorry to burst some people's bubble, but it's not hippies like Richard M Stallman funding open source development, it's Red Hat, IBM, intel, HP, google and many more. Linux is effectively as corporate owned and controlled as it gets. At least Microsoft Windows has one owner, Linux has several of the big boys pulling the strings.
Randicus Draco Albus wrote:Resistance is due to much more than a dislike for change.

I'd be interested to know more and why you dislike systemd so vehemently?
cynwulf
 
Posts: 2548
Joined: April 26th, 2011, 2:46 pm

Re: Anything truly new since '73?

Postby tomazzi » October 4th, 2015, 10:10 pm

spoon wrote:Well what do you think they were meant to be exactly? Linus Torvalds seems to be happy with the commercial success of Linux, especially in Android and is happy to "live the good life" on Red Hat's and others' money. I'm sorry to burst some people's bubble, but it's not hippies like Richard M Stallman funding open source development, it's Red Hat, IBM, intel, HP, google and many more. Linux is effectively as corporate owned and controlled as it gets. At least Microsoft Windows has one owner, Linux has several of the big boys pulling the strings.


I'm not sure whether You are simply an uneducated troll or maybe just a troll ...
Yes, it's a fact, that most of kernel developers are employed by RedHat, IBM, Intel, etc - but those companies are competing on the market, so what's the reason for which they're funding the development of Linux?

The simplest answer here can be: because linux is just a kernel, and the competition has place somewhere else, like f.e. in the area of support services, clouds built on linux based systems, etc. Linux Itself is totally secondary thing, but trolls usually don't have a clue in this matter...

spoon wrote:I'd be interested to know more and why you dislike systemd so vehemently?

Systemd implements a really innovative idea of how the services could be managed. Unfortunately, it has numerous fundamental bugs, and what's worse - the main developers are ignorants, not willing to admit that they have made a mistake... (in fact, many mistakes - many of systemd features are simply lies).
tomazzi
 
Posts: 18
Joined: August 7th, 2013, 6:57 am

Re: Anything truly new since '73?

Postby Randicus Draco Albus » October 5th, 2015, 12:59 am

spoon wrote:It's not about keeping the same old things around for ever just because some people are used to them and afraid of change.
That fallacious argument is a favourite of systemd supporters. If the debate cannot be won with technical arguments that show the new idea to be better, simply yell that opponents are afraid of change enough times, until most people believe it.

If we kept software development in stasis, clinging onto old ideals for the old timers, then it's likely that nothing would have progressed at all.
The "old ideas" were never in stasis. They evolved, and continue to evolve, through continuous innovation. Is there any reason you believe change must be drastic and cannot be gradual?

Randicus Draco Albus wrote:Were they ever meant to be commercial successes?

Well what do you think they were meant to be exactly?
I thought their purpose was to provide an alternative to corporate control by making systems that allowed people (developers) to freely create, exchange and modify software. But I could be wrong.

Open source was never intended to prevent companies like Red Hat from making money by using open source to provide services.

Linus Torvalds seems to be happy with the commercial success of Linux, especially in Android and is happy to "live the good life" on Red Hat's and others' money.
That proves Red Hat and other companies that make money using open source to sell services are willing to invest money in the kernel that is key to their businesses. That does not make the Linux kernel and open source software (much of which is created by volunteers in their spare time) commercial ventures.

I'm sorry to burst some people's bubble, but it's not hippies like Richard M Stallman funding open source development, it's Red Hat, IBM, intel, HP, google and many more.
It is not a matter of funding, but of control. If you make a product or provide a service I can use to make money, it is in my interest to fund you. Where there is a problem is if the funds I give you are conditional upon you doing what I want you to do. The latter is the problem with Linux. Corporations are no longer simply reaping the benefits of Linux. They are now controlling development. So
Linux is effectively as corporate owned and controlled as it gets.
is true.

Randicus Draco Albus wrote:Resistance is due to much more than a dislike for change.

I'd be interested to know more and why you dislike systemd so vehemently?
There is nothing in that statement that indicates my feeling toward systemd. You assume I dislike it, and vehemently, simply because I pointed out that the opposition to systemd is not because of resistance to change. Among other things, this tells me you have not done any research into what systemd is, what its creators claim and why many people do not like it.
Klingons are fun, but Romulans are the sexiest women in the galaxy.
User avatar
Randicus Draco Albus
 
Posts: 1497
Joined: September 22nd, 2011, 1:22 pm

Re: Anything truly new since '73?

Postby cynwulf » October 5th, 2015, 9:48 am

tomazzi wrote:I'm not sure whether You are simply an uneducated troll or maybe just a troll ...

And merry christmas to you too... :lol:

tomazzi wrote:Yes, it's a fact, that most of kernel developers are employed by RedHat, IBM, Intel, etc - but those companies are competing on the market, so what's the reason for which they're funding the development of Linux?

I was in fact talking about the kernel... which is why I said "Linux".

You might need to read up more on who funds/sponsors/controls what. e.g. gnome, X.org, etc.
tomazzi wrote:Systemd implements a really innovative idea of how the services could be managed. Unfortunately, it has numerous fundamental bugs, and what's worse - the main developers are ignorants, not willing to admit that they have made a mistake... (in fact, many mistakes - many of systemd features are simply lies).

You may be astonished. But I agree completely.

You don't need to convince me systemd is a turd. Though I stopped using Debian well before the jessie release and the technical committee's vote on the default init system, I would not return to Debian or recommend it to others - systemd is the primary reason for that. "ubuntification"/"ubuntuisation" is the secondary (but was the primary).

So perhaps go easy on the 'troll' thing eh?
Randicus Draco Albus wrote:That fallacious argument is a favourite of systemd supporters. If the debate cannot be won with technical arguments that show the new idea to be better, simply yell that opponents are afraid of change enough times, until most people believe it.

Except I'm far from a "systemd supporter". I, as with yourself, just don't think systemd can be stopped at this stage. It's too far gone, and systemd is just a symptom of a greater problem with GNU/Linux as a whole.

Also it's fallacious if it's the only argument. But when combined as "one" of the arguments against systemd - it's true enough. There are systems administrators who do not want to relearn how to do everything they've done in a certain way for the last 20 - 30 years because someone decided all of that was crap. My position is and always has been clear: I'm with those people. I understand sysvinit, and rc scripts in BSD style init in particular - I do not understand nor want to understand 'unit files' and associated cruft. My last solution to a systemd problem (when installing the jessie release out of curiosity) was to remove systemd, which provided no tangible benefits that I could see. After that - everything worked as before (except that I couldn't install and desktop like KDE or gnome without pulling systemd back in again and using systemd-shim).

I also don't agree with the apologist argument that "sysvinit needed to go/be replaced, but systemd wasn't it". sysvinit worked for 30 years - it did not need replacing. If systemd was needed, then so is a new kernel. Linux probably needs to go and be replaced by a micro-kernel - well because...

Service supervision can be and has been implemented separately if people can be bothered to read up on it and find it. The rest of the claims about systemd are smoke and mirrors and of doubtful value anyway.

In reality it's immature and I can accept that, but when it is mature, if it ever is, it will pretty much replace most of the operating system which is not the kernel. Again this gives one corporation - Red Hat - far too much control and responsibility for too much code and vital parts of a GNU/Linux distribution. It kills diversity and limits freedom of choice. Yet Stallman has remained silent and Torvalds is ok with it.

Randicus Draco Albus wrote:The "old ideas" were never in stasis. They evolved, and continue to evolve, through continuous innovation. Is there any reason you believe change must be drastic and cannot be gradual?

I did not actually say that I thought change has to be drastic. I said that innovation can take a drastic form and it does not necessarily have to be bad.

If systemd had come about in a gradual form over a longer, it would still be crap code. This is because the people developing it are arrogant, ambitious and close minded types who believe that being on the Red Hat payroll means they can do nothing wrong. This is a typical example of corporate steam-rolling arrogance at it's worst. The worrying thing however is that people who should know better were dragged along with this, which is why I'm convinced that the situation for mainstream distributions is hopeless. Linux went commercial - this is the result.

You only have to read Poettering's documentation to understand what they're all about - Linux is crap and they're here to save it (because Apple and windows do it bettter). Yet the GNU/Linux distributions have for the most part leapt aboard - so honestly, what does that tell you?

Randicus Draco Albus wrote:I thought their purpose was to provide an alternative to corporate control by making systems that allowed people (developers) to freely create, exchange and modify software. But I could be wrong.

Yet corporations are pretty much in the driving seat. Free software is released under a large plethora of free licences, but there are basically two competing ideologies: copy left (GPL) and "copy center" (BSD-style). It was often said in certain circles that "copy center" or permissive licences were bad because corporation could take the code, modify it and release it as proprietary with just a credit to author(s) included.

GPL was supposed to stop all of this, but in fact the GPL has meant that corporations have simply taken control of the projects they can't use (and employed the developers) and steered them in a direction which fits a corporate agenda. Before you question this, just check which developers are on the payrolls of which corporations.

Is it a coincidence that while systemd is not an official Red Hat project, nearly all of the developers are employed by them and it has been included in fedora for a few years and was released into RHEL 7?

Not only is this corporate developed software in any other name - it's also "in a distribution near you". If that's not corporate control and influence, I don't know what is.

Randicus Draco Albus wrote:Open source was never intended to prevent companies like Red Hat from making money by using open source to provide services.

The problem here is that in the old world RMS/GNU view of this, this amounted to someone selling CDs or support. A monster like Red Hat was never really envisaged in this naive plan.

Red Hat employ a lot of people, contribute more patches to the kernel than anyone and are one of the major funders of the gnome project and now systemd. That gives them tremendous influence over quite a few distributions as well as their own. It's not "selling CDs and support". The code can be as open as you like, but there is still huge corporate influence and not just from Red Hat.

Randicus Draco Albus wrote:That proves Red Hat and other companies that make money using open source to sell services are willing to invest money in the kernel that is key to their businesses. That does not make the Linux kernel and open source software (much of which is created by volunteers in their spare time) commercial ventures.

If the kernel is "key to their business", then it's pretty important that they influence and control it as much as possible.

Or are you suggesting that it's just Canonical who do this kind of thing - i.e. "ubuntuising" Debian to suit their needs? How is one different from the other? Corporate control/influence is what it is. It's not different because it's the kernel or a distribution, it's not difference because it's Canonical instead of Red Hat.

What about Suse? What about MySQL? Who is in the driving seat there?

Look at the board of directors for the X.org foundation: http://www.x.org/wiki/BoardOfDirectors/

Randicus Draco Albus wrote:It is not a matter of funding, but of control. If you make a product or provide a service I can use to make money, it is in my interest to fund you. Where there is a problem is if the funds I give you are conditional upon you doing what I want you to do. The latter is the problem with Linux. Corporations are no longer simply reaping the benefits of Linux. They are now controlling development. So
Linux is effectively as corporate owned and controlled as it gets.
is true.

Absolutely agreed, but it's not just Linux, it's the wider free software eco system - irrespective of licences.

At least the BSDs have more centralised control - so while coporations can throw money at them it won't buy them a place on a board of directors or gain them any interest. For example, with hugely complex and bureaucratic systems like Debian has, corporate infiltration or infiltration by interested parties or lobby groups is not just possible it happened. Sadly reinventing the Microsoft/Apple square wheel, could be what kills GNU/Linux for the rest of us.

Randicus Draco Albus wrote:There is nothing in that statement that indicates my feeling toward systemd. You assume I dislike it, and vehemently, simply because I pointed out that the opposition to systemd is not because of resistance to change. Among other things, this tells me you have not done any research into what systemd is, what its creators claim and why many people do not like it.

I have done a lot of research as you well know and read your posts.

:)
cynwulf
 
Posts: 2548
Joined: April 26th, 2011, 2:46 pm

Next

Return to Technical Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

x