It's a research OS that is extremely outdated, yet UNIX weenies think it's perfect.
Because they are poorly designed and implemented. For example with Linux the OOM killer is annoying. It will kill any process it wants. Unfortunately, sometimes it kills something which crashes my system or kills X so all my applications also get killed to. There is absolutely no reason there couldn't be some sort of menu that let ME choose what I want to be killed? Why couldn't it kill stuff that doesn't essentially kill all my running programs? UNIX weenies will have some excuse on why this way is the way it should be and I should just change the way I use the machine or buy more memory to fix the problem.
What are some drawbacks to using a *nix OS?
Nicholas Moore
Evan Butler
It's hard to participate in a non-free technological ecosystem, that's for sure the biggest.
Jeremiah Hill
Could you kill yourself very fast?
Colton Diaz
tclsh
Daniel Morales
There's no such retarded problems in Net or Open BSD.
Xavier Williams
Except that Plan 9 was never relevant.
Kevin Bailey
...
Charles Hernandez
Due to idiots getting sucked into using an OS that wasn't meant for anything more advanced than a typewriter.
Asher Cox
I'm sure if you got the lisp fag in here he could write veritable book on the subject (or copy paste someone elses). Unfortunately all the major OSes are considered unix under his definition, so your not going to get very far if you try avoiding it.
there hasn't been a "new" OS of any consequence in half a century (DOS and UNIX). The primary component of an operating system, not it's permission model, or IPC system, or anything else, is the software it can run. Making a new OS from scratch makes you immediately shittier in this dimension, no matter how far you improve in any other.
all memory is allocated by the kernel. The kernel knows there are N MB of memory. It knows it needs K MB of memory to draw the menu. So when it hits N-K MB of used memory, it pauses and displays the menu. Linux doesn't do this because most people don't want it to behave this way. UNIX systems are designed to restart quickly. In general, instead of trying to correct errors, it's easier for everyone to restart. So that's what you do on UNIX - and on windows.
UNIX is designed to be written by larpers. The basic design model is "if you can avoid doing is, don't bother". This enrages lisp weenies, but makes your job as the implementer much easier. If, once you've written a unix clone, you still have a hankering for OS dev, then you could try LISP esotera, but I think that will satiate you well enough.
Nathan Bell
- don't emulate 70s mainframe, instead try to innovate. there are a ton of UNIX look-a-likes, why not make something more fresh?
- uniform GUI, like Haiku
- don't make too great sacrifises for portability's sake.
- don't try to support all architectures, just pick one, for example, AArch64 or x86-64
- make it more fault-tolerant. what if you could restart subsystems instead of crashing? See MINIX.
- have asynchronous I/O syscalls
- don't adhere to "everything is a file" if it doesn't make sense, like with efivars.
- have a sane filesystem layout and don't implement legacy cruft, see lists.busybox.net
- make the command-line shell support complex graphics, like TempleOS