Re: MISC-d Digest V00 #11

[Eugene Leitl <eugene.leitl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Samuel A. Falvo II writes:

 > QNX Neutrino has all the development tools that Linux has available
 > (especially since they're all GNU tools).  And since QNX 4.x and Neutrino

Might be, but they're not shipping it that way on the IOpener. And I'm
not interested in creating a pseudo-Linux manually around a single
point of failure: a closed-source nanokernel. The benefits are
entirely dwarfed by the risks.

 > are designed primarily to be turn-key operating systems, you don't
 > generally "just get"  a root shell with nothing else on it. 
 
Well, check out the IOpener list archives. This is kernel, a couple of
binaries, GUI and apps. Nothing else. So why bother?

 > The singular problem with QNX is the cost of licensing its use.

Which pretty much kills it. QNX is sure some hot shit, but as long as
they don't OpenSource it it will always remain a niche, however
healthy. Linux needs not to be always monolithic, check out L3/L4 and
Fiasco plus wrappers. The reason this stuff still languishes indicates
there is real reason for it. As soon as you've got trend towards much
finer grains, as artefacted by parallel hardware constraints, the
nanokernel is going to enter the Linux distro mainstream with a
vengeance.
 
 > The point to BeOS is its technical superiority over all other available PC
 > operating systems.  However, it was a project that was doomed to fail --

Technical superiority doesn't matter anymore. Availability of source
and distribution copyright decides everything these days, because on
the long run it also ensures technical superiority. Linux is highly
useful as is, even if it's architecture isn't exactly modern. So what,
you can always slap a wrapper around a realtime nanokernel.

 > with the exception of Windows and QNX, no one in their right mind would
 > release a new operating system under closed source.  Windows can do it

It would be actually interesting to see whether Windows would still
die and smell horribly in a couple of years even if they would
opensource it now (which they won't).

 > because they have the volume.  QNX can do it because they charge so much
 > per copy of the OS so as to cover expenses.  Novell is surviving only

As far as I know, we have Win9x/2k, MacOS/Mach and Linux. Anything
else is utterly irrelevant in terms of users/installed base.

 > because they have a large installed base, and aren't doing TOO shabby in
 > volume either, though it could be better. BeOS did neither.  Not only did
 > Be not really advertise very well, there was little demand for it at the
 > time.  It's a combination of the Commodore effect with the right product
 > being at the wrong place/time.
 
Absolutely. That's why I have been ignoring it since it has been first 
vapourwared.

 > Furthermore, the new Amigas being designed are going to be based on open
 > standards.  While a proprietary motherboard will likely be used (after
 > all, how many people do YOU know of who are raking in the cash selling
 > CHRP PowerPC motherboards or Crusoe borads that fit the ATX
 > specification?), they will use industry standard expansion slots, such as
 > PCI, Firewire, and USB. 
 
All might be, but the name Amiga has blown all residual amount of
trust which was still assoc'd with it. I will not touch anything Amiga
with a ten-feet pole, anymore. Hardware mainstream is making pretty
good progress as it is: 1 GHz processors with full-speed on-die cache,
fast serial interfaces (USB2, FireWire) fat hard drives (75 GBytes
announced), dramatic gfx chips (GeForce 256). Life is
good. Proprietary solutions just can't compete.
 
 > The operating system that is going to be used will almost certainly be
 > POSIX compliant, so porting applications to it will be trivial.  An X
 > server is likely to be a given as well.  Even device drivers.  And yes,

So what's the difference to a vanilla Linux box, just a realtime
nanokernel? They've got no chance at all, even if they were entering
the market now.

 > you can be POSIX compliant and still wipe the floor with Linux.  POSIX
 > does not necessarily mean the OS has a Unix core.  For example, VMS now
 > has POSIX compatibility libraries, as does Windows NT.  QNX of course is
 > also POSIX compliant.  Since every OS and its grandmother is becoming
 > POSIX compliant, there must exist SOME kind of proprietary features that
 > distinguishes the OS from the others.  BeOS is object oriented (as much as
 > C++ will let you be).  QNX is small, lightweight, and incredibly fast. 

C++, yecch. Another reason why BeOS is not going to live long.

 > Windows NT leverages the existing base of Win32 software.  Linux is free
 > and open source.  Take your pick, or write your own (like I am). 

I'm a bozo, so I stick with Linux. It has kept me very happy all these 
years.
 
 > I wouldn't be so pessimistic about the Amiga based on old information
 > (though I myself am pessimistic nonetheless).  If you do your research,
 > you'll quickly realize that they have a lot of good ideas, and a lot of
 > potential.  Also consider that they are NOT targetting the desktop PC
 > market (though desktops will be made).  Doing so would be suicidal.  You
 > know this -- and so do they.  :)