Reinvent the OS cont

[kolla]

And UNIX is not as much "a product" as it is a set of standards, APIs and even a philosophy for how operating system components should work. Interoperability is at its center, and sure, anyone can deviatevin any directions they want, as long as they gather up around those standards and APIs that pretty much define UNIX - because it is the best for everyone, being different for the sake of being different has no merit whatsoever.

I have personally experience with Linux on m68k outperforming AmigaOS on basic things like disk and filesystem access, and networking, and on MacMini doing video playback outperforming that of MorphOS, and all I did was optimizing kernels and gcc parameters for the respective hardware, compiling everything myself instead of using generic Debian.

[kolla]

Yeah well, operating systems are not developed out of creativity, but out of necessity and productivity. Even AmigaOS - very little creative about it.

[kolla]

You forget one thing. Even if I release the source code, it means that the source requires continuous updating and maintaining to keep it working with the kernel. Now, which company wants to make this commitment, namely not only release source, but also employ engineers to continuously update the source whenever the kernel interface changes - i.e. with every release.

I can think of quite a few, most notably perhaps is Microsoft. But really, you are totally overstating this "problem", changes between releases are typically small, big changes in sub systems are announced and discussed to death long before they are actually implemented in a release.

Using the passive here means that you don't know who maintains it. It is like throwing source code over a wall and hoping somebody picks it up, and that this "somebody" has enough knowledge and experience to do a good job. That is a problem for professional software engineering.  

If you are lucky, you do not need further commitment. If you are not so lucky, your driver will stop working with the next kernel release and your investment is lost.

So your company wants to have drivers in the kernel, but you are too cheap and/lazy to actually maintain them? Well too bad, maybe you should find a different solution than a custom kernel driver, there are plenty of generic drivers and interfaces to use instead. That unmaintained code stops working is a good thing, good riddance.

[kolla]

Sorry for the delay. I just noticed that.

Oh, and these last few posts only reinforce my  opinion that some things should not be in the kernel.
And Thomas is 100% correct, the interface should be stable and completely documented for programmers.
If the core is changed regularly, what does it point to other than it had issues or simply wasn't what it could be.

Carve it down to its minimum, and move anything unnecessary to loadable modules.
It would have lots advantages, but Torvalds doesn't understand this.
And THAT makes me distrust his skill as a software engineer.

Copying an OS is easier than creating one.
Even with all the constant change, I don't see that much improvement in Linux.

Linux, for some strange reason, runs on just about anything, despite these so called flaws that you point out, flaws that btw you pretty much have made up in your fantasies.

Unless you show the world a better way yourself, you are in no position to question the software engineering skills of Torvalds, whos software projects reach world wide, affecting almost everyone's lives at these point.

[kolla]

So pointing out that someone is talking nonsense and displaying ignorance is considered personal attack? Just... wow!