just use what works for your tasks
haiku is damn close to a UNIX-like and Windows NT is pretty much a carbon copy of mach with a userspace personality that takes clear inspiration from the contemporary DEC os alongside UNIX (VAX/VMS) with similar ways of doing things like GDI vs X primitives or literally windows' UI itself vs motif or how COM is just another way to implement the small components interlocked through a bus technique that ken thompson made
I mean stuff like Amiga or the classic mac/copland, not tired-ass reiterations of DEC minicomputer OSes like DOS and TENEX, Windows and VMS, UNIX and literally all the other uncreative kernels floating around (Linux, BSD, hell even hobby OSes)
NT is not based on Mach at all. The only source I can find that says that is from a wikipedia article that cites some random book that says:>The technique that Windows NT uses is called a 'microkernel' and was influenced by the Mach microkernel developed at Carnegie Mellon University
Which isn't really saying anything other than NT was designed with microkernel principles, like Mach was. Which would mean that L4 and MINIX would be clones of Mach, even though they clearly aren't. Mach doesn't have an object system, ACLs, or IRQLs does it?>contemporary DEC OS
MICA was cancelled in 1988>UNIX (VAX/VMS)
VAX is an architecture. VMS is not UNIX-like so I don't know why you are grouping it in with UNIX.>GDI vs X primitives
Totally different ways of doing things. X is client-server architorture. X doesn't have brushes, GDI does. X didn't even support color.>Window's UI [you meant USER] Motif
Motif was released in 1989. By 1989 there had been 6 major releases of the Mac OS and 2 major releases of Windows.>COM
COM grew out of OLE (embedding documents within other documents) and DDE (the clipboard).>Classic Mac
I FUCKING HATE MEMORY PROTECTION AND THINGS WORKING>Copland
More like COPEland AMIRITE?
literally just Mach Unix-like
only 2 more weeks until Hurd is usable
>>21358>X is client-server architorture.
still based on primitives>VMS is not UNIX-like
still DECnigger minicomputer shit>NT is not based on Mach at all
dave cutler took so much inspiration from mach that if you read win internals 3.x you'd think you're reading something about osx>embedding documents within other documents
embed this embed that embed my ass what's with DECfags and embedding bullshit within other bullshit>I FUCKING HATE MEMORY PROTECTION AND THINGS WORKING>I LE NEEED THE MULTITASKERINOS AND MEMORYSAFEINATORS AND EL SCHEDULERIOS TO HECKIN WRITE A PLAIN TEXT DOCUMENT OR PLAY A FULLSCREEN GAME>More like COPEland AMIRITE?
better then glorified freebsd with objective-c graphics apis>Motif was released in 1989
with windows cairo's UI paradigm, literally windows 95 designers worked on it. don't believe me? look at CDE, and then windows 4>MICA was cancelled in 1988
and then reimplemented as OS/2, who's code was niggered to make Windows NT
>>21398>embed this embed that embed my ass what's with DECfags and embedding bullshit within other bullshit
What you are telling me that you DON'T want the ability to embed a SOLIDWORKS 3D CAD assembly in an Excel spreadsheet and then have your computer slow to a crawl as it tries to embed CAD software in a spreadsheet editor?>better then glorified freebsd with objective-c graphics apis
It's all fun and games until a background process locks up the entire computer because of a while loop.>CDE
CDE looks more like NeXTSTEP than it does Windows 95. >and then reimplemented as OS/2, who's code was niggered to make Windows NT
The versions of OS/2 that actually made it to market are unrelated to NT. The NT kernel shares no code with OS/2. If you read EDM/2 you would know this.
>>21465>What you are telling me that you DON'T want the ability to embed a SOLIDWORKS 3D CAD assembly in an Excel spreadsheet and then have your computer slow to a crawl as it tries to embed CAD software in a spreadsheet editor?
no, because that's fucking stupid, just as dumb as passing text around as a shitty IPC solution for "scripting" the way UNIXtards want you to>CDE looks more like NeXTSTEP than it does Windows 95.
Chiseled Motif elements that are literally cited as coming from the Microsoft design teams at the time
All 3 are ugly as a nigger anyways, soulless corporate shit that gets torn into by Amiga or RISC-OS>It's all fun and games until a background process locks up the entire computer because of a while loop.
why the fuck are you running background processes in order to edit plain text, mr mcdumbfuck>The versions of OS/2 that actually made it to market are unrelated to NT. The NT kernel shares no code with OS/2. If you read EDM/2 you would know this.
because IBM fucking sued, this is like saying BSD4.4 isn't a UNIX because it doesn't share code with SysV
>>21467>why the fuck are you running background processes in order to edit plain text, mr mcdumbfuck
It's always some network bullshit.>because IBM fucking sued
OS/2 1.x, 2.x, Warp, etc. are an entirely different codebase than NT. NT (OS/2 3.0) was supposed to be a rewrite of OS/2 from the ground up. Totally different architecturally. OS/2 is a mix of 16-bit and 32-bit protected mode code. A lot of OS/2 is still 16-bit and the OS uses segmentation all over the place. It's also a monolithic kernel design based around how DOS worked. OS/2 was a dead end because it was written for 16-bit protected mode. Dave Cutler thought that the OS/2 design was retarded which is why he named the Mutex objects "Mutants" in NT for OS/2 compatibility because they have really stupid behavior. BSD4.4 behaves like UNIX, NT doesn't behave like OS/2 at all.
>>21472>It's always some network bullshit.
ya don't need a network to run a text editor, people used goddamn BASIC for editing text>OS/2 1.x, 2.x, Warp, etc. are an entirely different codebase than NT. NT (OS/2 3.0) was supposed to be a rewrite of OS/2 from the ground up. Totally different architecturally. OS/2 is a mix of 16-bit and 32-bit protected mode code. A lot of OS/2 is still 16-bit and the OS uses segmentation all over the place. It's also a monolithic kernel design based around how DOS worked. OS/2 was a dead end because it was written for 16-bit protected mode. Dave Cutler thought that the OS/2 design was retarded which is why he named the Mutex objects "Mutants" in NT for OS/2 compatibility because they have really stupid behavior. BSD4.4 behaves like UNIX, NT doesn't behave like OS/2 at all.
so IBM's fucking retarded, and OS/2 warp behaves more like win9x
Why do you keep bringing up a text editor when I talk about Classic Mac OS?
because why are you shilling multi user bloatware for mainframes for a usecase where it's you at a fucking desk writing text documents and opening one maybe two things at once
Mac OS has always been designed for network use. Heard of AppleShare?
doesn't mean it's designed for multi-user bahemoths with 2000 daemons and threads happening at the same time and some dynamism bullshit the way OSX is
The lack of preemptive multitasking, memory protection, and the use of resource forks were done because of the limitations of the 68000, specifically, the low amount of memory and the broken interrupt system that would only be fixed in the 68010
retard that's a unixlike>>21596
pixelated graphics is a limitation of graphics hardware yet people still make them when there's le RTX 4090 so why isn't there a popular more simplistic os that doesn't run 50,000 daemons and kernel threads (NO linux doesn't count it's still muh modern fully featured system) and provides simple multitasking or even singletasking
Unix is proprietary abandonware, GNU and Linux is maintained chadware that gets donations from proprietards all the time, they couldn't be any more different.
fucking nigger doesn't understand basic concepts
Linux is a UNIXlike in every sense of the word, it adheres to POSIX, it uses UNIX-style utilities (the GNU coreutils were literally made for UNIX-styke OSes), it acts like a UNIX (piping, bash scripting, the filestructure), it's usecase is like a UNIX (I don't need to explain this one), and it's developed by UNIX developers
I mean shit like LISP machines, AMIGA, or RISC-OS, stuff not from the lineage of the dichotomy of minicomputer OSes like TENEX/VMS/DOS/NTOS and UNIX/BSD/GNU
didn't read your cope post, just came back to remind you that unix is abandonware and noone uses it
GNU isn't an operating system. Hurd is an operating system (without any driver support). Linux is also an operating system. Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, OpenServer, UnixWare, and OS X (by virtue of paying TOG and using OSFMK) are all UNIX that are still supported.
and GNU coreutils are UNIX utilities, Hurd is a mach-like kernel, Mach is like BSD, BSD is like UNIX (and would certainly get certified as one, if OSX did, so would the BSDs), and Linux is a very UNIX-like kernel as well
Windoze and it's not even close
Hurd is an operating system that includes the GNU Mach microkernel and microkernel services (drivers). Calling Hurd a "kernel" is a FSFism that they invented so they can call GNU an operating system (and Linux not one), even though Hurd and Linux are an operating system while GNU is a bunch of userspace programs.
still didn't read your cope post
even though operating system is a term that encompasses kernel + a bunch of userspace programs and you're a retarded troon too troontarded to realize that Linux is a bunch of text files that do nothing unless you use GNU C Compiler from GNU Compiler Collection available in GNU operating systems that already bootstrapped Linux before you were born.
Linux is literally nothing without GNU.
wrong. that is not the definition of operating system. thats the normie definition used by nocoders and rms because he is butthurt over being a lisp fizzbuzzer who cant write an os. what you are describing is a distribution. calling GNU an OS is like calling Microsoft an OS. nonsensical. GNU is a corporation (actually just redhat) that makes software. Operating System developers (RMS is not one) define OS as:
A major function of the operating system is to hide all this complexity and
give the programmer a more convenient set of instructions to work with. For
example, read block from file is conceptually much simpler than having to worry
about the details of moving disk heads, waiting for them to settle down, and so on.
On top of the operating system is the rest of the system software. Here we
find the command interpreter (shell), window systems, compilers, editors, and
similar application-independent programs. It is important to realize that these
programs are definitely not part of the operating system, even though they are typically supplied preinstalled by the computer manufacturer, or in a package with
the operating system if it is installed after purchase. This is a crucial, but subtle,
point. The operating system is (usually) that portion of the software that runs in
kernel mode or supervisor mode. (OS Design & Implementation, Andy Tanenbaum)
The essence of an operating system lies in the services it provides to applications.
An application accesses operating system services by making system calls. In source
code, a system call appears to be a conventional function invocation. At runtime, however, a system call and a conventional function call differ. Instead of transferring control to another function, a system call transfers control to the operating system, which
performs the requested service for the application. (XINU Book, AT&T Bell Labs)
>>21752>Linux doesnt provide me with a usable system without userland
NO SHIT. operating systems dont do anything without userland software. thats the purpose of an operating system. In DOS, you cant do anything without command.com, it will just prompt you for the location of command.com. but that doesnt make command.com anymore part of the OS than edit.com or 4dos. command.com doesnt perform duties of an OS like a driver like himem.sys would.
>>21755>calling GNU an OS is like calling Microsoft an OS
most of posix THE PORTABLE OPERATING SYSTEM INTERFACE is usually implemented in userland and all of it can be. z/OS is posix certified ffs>The essence of an operating system lies in the services it provides to applications.
literally what glibc and coreutils do
>>21755>>21756>>21761>words words words
didn't read, the OS that I'm usin is GNU+Linux
what about non VMS-like non UNIX-like OSes, for example, amiga
shit no one cares about
I like dragonfly which takes inspiration from amiga>>21292
doas plan9 count as not unix?
>>21784>I like dragonfly which takes inspiration from amiga
DBSD could probably get certified as single unix specification if someone paid for it, though>doas plan9 count as not unix
sort of, it's a different enough paradigm from unix to not be boring, but it's still a belllabserald so not 100%
POSIX is an API. POSIX does not define system calls or the structure of the operating system. Cygwin implements a POSIX API from userspace on Windows. Cygwin is not an operating system. WINE implements the Win32 API on Linux. WINE is not an operating system. "POSIX" is a backronym created by, you guessed it, Richard Stallman, who we established is a lisp fizzbuzzer who can't write an operating system. GNU's UNIX utility programs are also NOT POSIX compliant by default (find, grep, du, df, make, info [incompatible man] etc.) and are in general non-portable. Microsoft did a better job at ensuring POSIX standards compliance for NT's POSIX subsystem than GNU does.>literally what glibc and coreutils do<Fourth, an operating system is not a library of functions or methods. Almost all application programs use library functions, and the software found in libraries can offer significant convenience and functionality. Some operating systems even employ an op-timization that allows code from a library to be loaded in memory and shared among all applications. Despite the close relationship, library software remains independent of the underlying operating system. (The XINU Approach, AT&T Bell Labs)>>21761
marge what the fuck's an info my mac doesnt have it is it an actual commad
info(1) is GNU's incompatible "extension" of man(1) that only is compatible with GNU.
POSIX system calls are both part of the C programming environment and the UN*X operating system. The distinction between language library and operating system doesn't hold up, especially when you get to systems implemented in languages with runtimes like CL/Movitz or Ada/GNAT.
The result of calling system("clear") is clearly a feature UN*X/BSD/GNU.>Cygwin is not an operating system
Cygwin is a compatibility layer because it sits on top of Windows and its builtin compatibility subsystems, not because it doesn't emulate a REAL operating system.
VOS is an operating system based on Kerningham and Plauger's Software Tools book that was never implemented natively. Why is it then that you think the only REAL operating systems are those that can be implemented with context switching?
>>21818>POSIX system calls are both part of the C programming environment
POSIX does not define system calls. POSIX defines unistd.h which may or may not be implemented as system calls. There is no reason that gethostname needs to be implemented as a system call for example. Windows POSIX Subsystem implements it all from userspace, same with Cygwin.>The result of calling system("clear") is clearly a feature UN*X/BSD/GNU.
system("clear") is part of UNIX/BSD/GNU systems. But is not a function of the OS. Is Google Chrome part of the OS because system("google-chrome") starts google chrome? Why is clear part of the OS and google chrome isn't? Because POSIX says so? POSIX also says that df should display in 512-byte blocks. GNU doesn't do that. Why can't the GNU definition of operating system be expanded to it's logical conclusion and say that Microsoft Word, Steam, and FNAC are all parts of the operating system? And you shouldn't be clearing the screen by calling system("clear"). Use portable ANSI sequences.>VOS
1. All operating systems have software drivers that interface with hardware.
2. VOS doesn't have drivers.
3. Therefore, VOS isn't an operating system. QED
>>21830>All operating systems have software drivers that interface with hardware.
not MS-DOS half the time, it relies on the BIOS
is MS-DOS not an OS?
The MS-DOS BIOS (not to be confused with the ROM BIOS) is contained in IO.SYS. IO.SYS contains the device specific drivers. The MS-DOS kernel is contained within MSDOS.SYS. Note how the drivers are separated from the kernel. This is why referring to the collection of drives + the kernel as the operating system is correct. GNU is stuck referring to Hurd as "a collection of microkernel services (drivers) that run on the GNU Mach kernel" because they won't call it what is is: an operating system. DOS does provide abstraction in the form of device files like CON, AUX, COM, and NUL.
The ROM BIOS should be considered part of the operating system. This is because CP/M consisted of 3 parts:
1. Basic Input/Output System (BIOS)
2. Basic Disk Operating System (BDOS)
3. Console Command Processor (CCP).
1 and 2 are part of the operating system while 3 is the shell. The BIOS only exists in ROM because RAM was expensive. Today, the BIOS is loaded into RAM at startup. The BIOS being considered part of the operating system makes sense when you look at the Macintosh which had a large 64K ROM that contained all of the drivers, the quickdraw routines, memory management, etc. The "System Software" on the floppy disk consisted primarily of resources (text, graphics, window definitions, dialog boxes, icons, keyboard layouts, etc.), not program code. The Mac OS is also interesting because it's so monolithic that you can say that the entire GUI is part of the operating system. I think the Amiga is this way as well.
>words words words to explain how abandonware is structured
I just ran emerge –sync && emerge -Duva @world && emerge –depclean right before going to sleep last night, it completed with 0 problems in less than 5 minutes and I just woke up to tell you than Gentoo just works
wrong thread UNIX-cuck
Linux isn't UNIX, 'gated btw
>>21900>my shitty look-a-like that uses the same commands, same display server, same compiler as berekly UNIX isn't UNIX because…. it just isn't okay?!
and i don't even know what gated means nor I care
Why aren't OSes as monolithic anymore?
Operating Systems aren't like DOS, CP/M, Classic Mac OS, etc. anymore because of memory protection and the concept of the operating system as providing a virtual machine. The virtual machine I am referring to is not like QEMU, KVM, Hyper-V, VirtualBox, VMWare, etc. but instead refers to the Popek and Goldberg virtualization requirements and multiprogramming. The "virtual machine monitor" manages processes. Processes think they have a computer to themselves and can't touch others memory. The 68k infamously had broken privilege levels (making the CPU non-virtualizable) that were only fixed with the 68010. This led to early OSes for 68k needing elaborate hardware (some computers included two 68k CPUs to remedy the broken privs (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23993870
)) to support a separation between the OS and the software. the 8086 didn't have real memory protection. So that's why everything was just run together in the same address space. They had to do it that way, and that always lends itself to a monolithic design because any microkernel design benefits are going to be pointless without a working separation between user and supervisor modes. So why not just dump everything into the operating system? It would save a lot of RAM. Almost all older OSes use interrupt/trap tables to implement system calls so it's easy to tell where the division between user code and OS code is. If you need a trap, it's OS code. Otherwise, it's not. Today, we have working memory protection, a lot of RAM, and fast CPUs. So we can afford to not tightly couple everything into the operating system.
why tf do we need memory protection and all this fancy computer soyence bullshit program address virtualization where you just end up hopping through syscall portals anyways and at this fucking pont full on KVM style hypervisors always on to do what the majority of people do on computers which is practically the same as what they did 20 years ago with DOS, people don't even fucking multitask, they just leave shit in the background wasting power when really it could just be paused to be started up later instead of executing despite being invisible
so you can keep your bullshit on for longer? these old OSes booted faster so you didn't have an incentive to uptimefag and use standby like you do now
This is a stupid post and you should feel stupid for having posted it. You go install DOS and install Dillo and WordPerfect and use it for a week. Tell me about your experience.
>>21962>You go install DOS and install Dillo and WordPerfect and use it for a week.
only so bad cause (((they))) shoved multi-user bloat down all our throats for a PC, which is a single user platform>ohhh but its hard for devs to prooograaam iiin!!!
Good. Gates the soydev troons>ur not gonna get a GUI word processor
retard singletasking GUIs exist, like DOS games.>but all ur video looks like bad!
single-user singletasking video drivers for modern GPUs.>but task switching!!!
Most of the time people use one thing, close it, then use another. Or leave other thing invisible. Why dafuq do we have to virtualize every fucking thing and juggle CPU time instead of just pausing thing 1 when the person works with thing
2 and shoving it in some paging zone with memory compression? So we can autoupdatefag? Auto updating is for troons, real chads turn the computer on just to update then turn it off again
So, tell me again, why do you need multiusershit for mainframes to edit a text document? >>21972
Nigger GNU is a Unix, Unixcucks should go die a slow and painful death.
Also fucktard Dillo is for UNIXes
>>21958>people don't even fucking multitask
are you retarded? multitasking isn't just the user running multiple jobs in the shell, it is the SYSTEM being able to run more than one service (say ntp server while running the user shell, or more frequently cron and syslogd and dhcpcd and alsa ….)
>>22007>I HAVE TO USE LE DAEMONS FOR BULLSHIT
I doubt you run an ntp server, no bullshit is in your cron, you don't need the heckin syslogerinos, and DOS has audio too and it's singletasking
all backgroundfagging does is waste energy, make your programs slower, and spy on you
>>22008>I doubt you run an ntp server
sister please, every relevant computer uses ntp to sync time
not a server, just sync to an NTP server as a manual command, autofag
Sister, please install DOS and use it if it is so great
Dillo is available for DOS princess
yes it's not a server, it's a client you retarded tranny>manual command
kill yourself retarded troon, literally noone but you is so disabled that he can't setup automatic ntp sync
>>22021>I HECKIN NEED AUTOFAGGOT SCHEDULED CRONSOY
no, kill yourself for not remembering to enter in a line when your computer's time is wrong, get better memory nigger
my computer's time is never wrong because I'm not troontarded
this shit updates itself
what sort of fucking tinkertroon distro you fags are using?!
yeah, thanks to ntp daemon, it does update automatically
fags use arch or gentoo and end up with semi-functional os'es
tinkertroons deserve the arbeidslagers since they value their time so little
works on my machine
then youre not a fag and this post is not destined to you
arch is not a tinkertroon distro, it's one of the most stable, just working distros
Why do you give so much of a shit about autofagging that you need to waste megabytes of RAM to go 'at least muh time is correcterino'>>22065
singletasking CHAD OS, joe biden>>22066>daemon
kill yourself unixnigger, DOS has a superior command line
discord emoji fail