Everyone sleeps on the fact that's possible to build any operating system at all on top of the Linux kernel.It doesn't have to use a single line of traditional GNU or Unix userspace and it doesn't need to follow POSIX semantics. The kernel can be used purely for hw support.
>>109231316>anon discovers microcontrollers
>>109231316>Everyone sleeps on the factim pretty sure thats a fact basically everyone is well aware of anon, except you until recently it seems.
>>109231326>>109231330All of the problems I see people attaching to 'Linux' are just problems attached to userspace.
>>109231316I GPL'ed
>>109231342because the term "linux" is used as a synecdoche by many
>has a lust provoking image>has a irrelevant, time wasting question>but it doesn't get 150 replies in 30 minutesNANI? How could this be?!>it talks about technology in a reasonable wayOhhh... I get it now. Lets give this thread what it needs.Ahem..>>109231316LOL LMAO, Android is a broken piece of shit and it's built on top of the Linux kernel. You cannot name a single goood operating system that was made on top of Linux that actually works and respects ur freedumbz. Windows and Mac work and people have been able to port Loonix tools over to it and enjoy the best of both worlds. Blackbox runs on Windows and so does X11. Mac can do the same thing. Why bother?
>>109231811>urI see !
>>109231316You could do that anytime.The biggest issues will still be reverse engineering binary blobs, cracking tivoization and finding a way to replace Steam and its' games.
>>109231811>You cannot name a single goood operating system that was made on top of Linux that actually works and respects ur freedumbz.GNU
I tried making my own Linux. Made some directories like /bin and added a static busybox and then got lazy and gave up because there is no point when I'm already using Gentoo. It's already powerful enough. I don't need more.
>>109231316I use the GNU operating system on top of the linux kernel. The kernel is dispencible and can be changed to a BSD or HURD kernels. But all in all I use the GNU operating system.
>>109231316yeah you can make it run a java application as your desktop environment if you wanted to, it's just slow as hell and can't have browser without using natives
>>109231330>im pretty sure thats a fact basically everyone is well aware of anon, except you until recently it seems.This. OP, this thread is an embarrassment.
>>109234264Better than 99% of the threads in the catalogue rn.>>109231316Yes. This is the coolest project in that vein that I've seen in years: https://v-os.dev/
>>109231316>Tipped $0what a faggot
In my opinion, neither GNU nor Linux are appealing in their own right.This was true even when they were first implemented.Unix was designed in the 70s and deprecated by its own authors in the 80s. Linux wasn't implemented until the 90s and by that time everyone knew there were better ways to do systems than Unix, which has also been extended into higher complexity over revisions too.The only reason it's used is legacy knowledge and code, not because it's a good design. Schools still teach it and programmers still use it.Don't get me wrong, it's a very good first system / epoch of a new generation of systems, but when was the last time your first iteration was the best.Bell did it better themselves with Plan 9, Andy did it better with Minix, RIM did it better with QNX, etc. etc. so if I'm going to ditch the userland and don't need to follow POSIX semantics, why would I choose Linux. It doesn't seem like anyone ever agreed it was good or useful beyond being a free unix implementation. It has no merits on its own, then or now.
>>109231364many retards yes
>>109236033>Bell did it better themselves with Plan 9, Andy did it better with Minix, RIM did it better with QNXSure worked out well for them right?
>>109236093I assume you meant to be sarcastic but the true answer is yes.Minix runs on the majority of computers. RIM dominated the business world and still has entrenchment across industrial automation.Bell is the only one that didn't have a success story and that's because they were legally obligated not to due to their monopoly issues with the government.Contrast this to Linux which has been in actual competition for twice as long and still sees no dominance, still requires heavy development and support from big companies just to be questionably viable as a piratical application. That's embarrassing. Even if we ignore what OP is talking about and say we must focus on POSIX systems, Linux is the worst of those, even if we consider just the free ones on top of that. Truly worthless beyond hobby or academia. A job security system or something to study and extend for fun, not something to actually build an appliance around.
>>109236138>Minix runs on the majority of computersOnly by virtue of its license. Not because its better than anything else.
>>109236138>still sees no dominanceLinux is run on the majority of servers in the world.
>>109236146That's a baseless claim.The fact the system is viable for this application and this is exemplified as a working solution for over a decade dismisses your attempt to discredit them. It's not even a good attempt, it comes across as dishonest.>>109236159I'd have to see statistics but this is getting into appeal to popularity regardless.It's not important that it have marketshare, it matters if the system is actually good.From what I understand most important insutrial computing is handled by contracting IBM's mainframe systems, for appliances that actually have high enough value for them to be deemed critical to society. Does that count as 1 entity versus 10 startups running apache for their business that lasts 2 months, sure, we can skew the view that way, but why would you other than for argument.Again, even if we talk about Unix systems, it's the proprietary ones people are using. AIX, HP-UX, et al.If licensing and costs are concerns you would still pick a SunOS or BSD derived system if you wanted something reliable and cohesive.There's no real reason I can think of to choose Linux. It's been embarrassing seeing commercial products from big companies like Google try to utilize Linux and seeing it be unstable and unreliable. How many decades have people been developing Unix and Unix software and still not a single person can manage to do it well. Not big or small.
>>109236212>That's a baseless claim.lmao fuck off. You think intel would use it if it was fucking gpl? Nice bait.
>>109236263You're not making sense and driving further from the point, I guess on purpose.What difference does the license make and how does it influence the merit of the operating system and its use here.The matter of fact is that Intel chose Minux, and Intel uses Minux, meaning it works for this. That's not a theory, it's been in practice for more than 10 years.You're not going to erase that from history somehow by bringing up the existence of the GPL. That is a total non sequitur.Imagine for a second they choose something besides Minix, and it was their own design with their own proprietary license. I would still say it's better than Linux because the proof is there. The license doesn't change the technology.>Nice bait.This is projection. You're trying to goad me into a response, read your own post, it starts with "fuck off". You want to get involved with this. Not because of the topic, but for attention.
>>109236307>and its useThat's what the license determines. Are you retarded?
>>109236307>acting like intel didn't choose minix specifically because they could get a kernel for nothing and not have to give up any source changesHoly disingenuous.
>>109236322The license allowed it to be used this way so what point are you trying to make.Again, if they made their own system their own license would obviously allow them to use it in the same way.What are you trying to propose or convey. What does the GPL have to do with this.How does it relate to the topic of operating system technical merit because this seems like a legal argument that doesn't actually change the qualities of the system or how effective it is in practice. We both seem to agree the system has been effective in widespread practice over a long time. I have no clue what you're trying to say in response to that. Something about a hypothetical world where this wasn't the case.>>109236346Same as above.Why are you acting like the system doesn't have technical merit. It seems like you're saying it has a good license that they are able to use, and thus it somehow discredits the technical side.Obviously that makes no sense.I guess an ironic joke since you said "disingenuous"?Feel free to try and explain.
>>109236359>Again, if they made their own system their own license would obviously allow them to use it in the same way.Exactly. Proving that there was no technical reason to use minix. If intel had some special need they would have made their own.
>>109236402That's backwards and/or circular logic.The reality is tha Intel chose Minix and Minix has worked in practice.What are you trying to argue, that in a parallel universe where they didn't use Minix I wouldn't be able to use it as an example?You're trying to discredit the technical merit of the system by proposing a hypothetical when we have a real case study.Instead of trying to convince me the system is bad because of the license or because of the economical market, you should try to attack it technically. That's how you will be able to convince me.Saying "what if Intel used another system" makes no sense to me. The GPL allows for commercial use and Linux has existed just as long, they could have used it if it was viable. And they could have come up with their own system if that was viable. The reality, not the hypothesis, is that they went with Minix and Minix worked. What are trying to argue against, that fact?
>>109231316Why isn't it a microkernel?
>>109236447Assuming intel chose minix because it was technically better is just conjecture with no reasoning behind it.
>>109236460Regardless of if I actually beleive or implied that, its not the crux either way.Why they choose it is equally as irrelevant as the license.Does the system work for this application, yes or no. The answer is yes. Why they choose it does not influence the technical merits of the system, no different than any other external things you're trying to impose on it.Minix is a system that is proven to work for this if you need something of that importance and scale. Intels decision to use it doesn't change that for you or me or even themselves, the system's ability to function isn't influenced by their business team.
>>109236480>The answer is yes.It could be yes for any number of other systems. What are you even trying to prove?
>>109236499>It could be yes for any number of other systems. That's true, as you keep bringing up. But so what.I listed real examples to support my post, would you have rather I used hypothetical potential examples. Because to me that sounds stupid when I have real examples from the real world to use instead of arbitrary speculation based on nothing.>What are you even trying to prove?I'm not trying to prove anything. Someone is arguing with me saying that Minix doesn't have merit because ... I don't know what their argument is something about the GPL and "what if". I really don't know what they're on about.
>>109236528You haven't given any examples of minix's merit. Just a single example of its use by intel for dubious reasons.
>>109236542>you haven't given an example>you've only given a single exampleFirst off, I listed several systems, you're focused on one. That's not a single example. And if it was 1 example is a given example.Second, you're free to accept or reject them as you wish but your attempts to convince me are not working.If you want to say that Intel's use of Minix isn't sufficient enough utilization to prove the merits of the system, that's your right to conclude.If it's not obvious, I disagree and if you ask me I would say if it's good enough for that it is certainly good enough for my applications of similar scope.This carries for the other examples, the examples beyond the single one I mentioned. Such as RIM.I guess we can play the same game and say blackberry wasn't big enough of a proof to say the system has merits despite not being a POSIX system in design.Your reasons are the dubious ones.It seems like you dislike the system for superfluous legal/ideological reasons, not technical ones.
>>109236576>convince meHave you forgotten your own posts? Are you a bot? You claimed that minix is better than unix/linux and gave nothing to back that shit claim up.
>>109236643>You claimed that minix is better than unix/linux and gave nothing to back that shit claim up.And I still believe that.You're trying to convince me that Minix has no merit and it's not even clear what your argument is. It has something to do with licenses, not operating systems.Obviously I disagree. Maybe that's a compelling argument for you, but I'm telling you honestly that it's not a compelling argument to me.I've evaluated Minix and there are aspects about it that I think are good, and those concepts are shared across multiple systems like it. None of this has to do with licensing, but that's the topic you choose to talk about. It makes no sense.In addition to that, Intel is large enough and their application of Minix widespread and diverse enough, that it adds credence to this for me. If it doesn't for you then that's your prerogative but again your opinion on something tangential doesn't influence my opinion on something primary.
>>109236681>I've evaluated Minix and there are aspects about it that I think are goodYeah then enumerate them. There is nowhere that minix can run that linux can't.
>>109231811dubs of justice
>>109236692This is a fundamentally incorrect assumption.MInix runs on almost every single Intel computer built after 2005 by default.we need year of the minix desktop
>>109236692>Yeah then enumerate them.I think you have things backwards.I'm the Anon that thinks Minix is good, you're trying to convince me that it's bad.Why I think it's good, doesn't apply to why you think it's bad / doesn't change your perspective.>There is nowhere that minix can run that linux can't.I don't know what you're bringing this up for. Equal platform support doesn't really mean much, they're 2 different systems entirely regardless of where they run on.
>>109236704ok
>>109236719>can't even explain why he likes minix after "evaluating" itlmao alright faggot I'm out. If you reply to me you're a double faggot.
>>109236759Why do you want to know the features I like about Minix if you've already come to the conclusion you don't like Minix.Shouldn't you be trying to promote the merits of Linux and convince me to use Linux?Telling me that you don't understand why Minix is good doesn't mean I don't understand why it's good.
>>109236759minix is self-healing compared to linux which dies whenever you OOM because firefox eats all of ur ram and ur swap + systemd stop job for 38 minutes 27 seconds
>>109236759it looks better than any modenr linux desktopy
>>109236080not really, its just language.Most non autistic people have no problem interpreting their meaning
i sleep on your mother
>>109231316>Everyone sleeps on the factthe idea of /g/eets discovering the existence of dreambox receivers almost 3 decades too late is super funny. not gonna lie.and going on a tangent, but i still get slightly sad that yank baidu stole the Gemini name from a much worthier project.
>>109231342Kinda. The kernel is also shit, tho
