We can't go back now and replace UNIX because we've too much invested in it and there's work to be done.
We can't go back now and replace UNIX because we've too much invested in it and there's work to be done.
Which appears just to be the same old idea of UNIX and mainframes revamped in new package, stuck in C and in a kernel model that has hardly changed.
EDIT: To clarify.
Many use GNU/Linux in the same way as they would be using UNIX SYSTEM V, there is hardly any change.
Add to it that besides new filesystems, adoption of mainframe virtualization and sandboxes concepts, there is hardly anything new happening in OS research in regards to Linux.
What I currently care about is OS research that tries to mimick the Xerox PARC experiences, use of micro-kernels, use of safe systems programming languages and so forth.
Better in other OS that are already researching alternative systems programming languages.
Unikernels are just the logical continuation of exokernels, except designed to run under a bare metal hypervisor. Though still excellent to see libOS taken to its limits, I find the task of actually turning a full workstation operating system into a secure multi-tenant distributed cluster system to be more versatile, as you could then tailor it to both general-purpose and special tasks, libOS being firmly in the latter - deploying applications.
Singularity was great, though it seems to have stagnated.
The compilation of .NET to native code on Windows Phone 8.x with MDIL, and its successor .NET Native, can be traced back to Bartok. The Singularity's AOT compiler toolchain for Sing#.
Microsoft research then went on to Drawbridge, Midori (still classified) and now IronClad.
Then as programming languages that grew out of it there the M# which was mentioned around two years ago and not much more, and Dafny being used by IronClad.
Why? When was the last time there was a Linux crash due to it not using a "safe" language? How many people did it effect? Is Linux actually measurably any the worse for using an "unsafe" language?
Would Linux be measurably any better for use of a micro-kernel?
Is anybody going to spend the man-decades (or man-centuries) necessary to re-write Linux using micro-kernels or safe languages, just to wind up at the same level of functionality? No. Ain't nobody got time for that.
So unless you can point to concrete, measurable benefits that are going to come from switching to micro-kernels or Rust or whatever, Linux is going to continue on its way. (I agree that the advantages of micro-kernels are a valid research subject. But you need more than Tannenbaum's "that's the right way to do it". You need a compelling reason where it can do something that people care about that Linux can't do, or where it can do it with much fewer resources (either hardware or programmers), or something of that sort. Merely 10% improvement, say, isn't going to cut it, because you'd have to re-write all of Linux to get that improvement, and it's not worth it.)
The demand for microkernel-like features is there, and Linux will progressively be refactored into a hybrid kernel with a standard set of "servers" you plug on top to augment it (systemd appears to be taking the role of the servers in question). Whether this architecture will end up desirable or an awkward worst-of-both-worlds combination remains unclear.
Micro-kernels are used in many embedded scenarios nowadays. Even your phone or car infotainment system might be running one, e.g. L4, QNX.
GNU/Linux being a UNIX clone will never change. Using a micro-kernel or any other language instead of C simply doesn't work out in UNIX culture.
I remember in the 90s how awesome it seemed to get a *nix system for free with a book.
Around 1996 they made a pivot. They invested heavily to recreate themselves as a company who sold services based on Windows NT. This was a desperate move, but it worked - by the late 90s they had reinvented themselves as a services business. One of the stories of the late 90s was the way that IBM had reinvented themselves.
Then, shrewdly, they invested heavily in Linux. At a time, FreeBSD was still a much better platform. But Linux had the GPL behind it. The GPL forces people to release changes. This sabotaged the commercial software market, which IBM had already lost. IBM could continue to charge for services and retain their hardware monopoly. This has hurt competitors who had strong footholds in software but who who were less strong in services (Sun, Oracle).
Well, it locked up the PS/2 hardware with patents, so nobody could clone it. So non-PS/2 hardware was a lot cheaper, because there were a hundred companies trying to sell it. But that cheaper hardware didn't run OS/2 (at least initially).
But when Microsoft was able to keep pace (more or less) with Windows, nobody wanted the PS/2, because Windows on commodity hardware was good enough, and less expensive.
> Well, it locked up the PS/2 hardware with patents, so nobody could clone it.
The "IBM Compatible" was already well-established though. PS2 architecture plays were an attempt for them to get relevant again, and it didn't work. The main technology that they had was EISA, and there wasn't much edge from having that. > cheaper hardware didn't run OS/2
I don't think that's quite right. A mate had a PS2 that was bundled with OS/2 4 in 1996. We found that the OS/2 install disks that were bundled with his PS2 wouldn't install to other systems. But I never had trouble getting shrinkwrapped os/2 running on commodity ISA or VESA bus hardware - 2.0, 2.1, 3, 4. I ran it as my main desktop for five years. You did have a poor experience if you didn't have a well-supported video card, and almost nothing was well-supported.That's being very objective. Technical merits can only get you so far. One should never be too attached to them.