Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ask Slashdot: Innovative Operating Systems/Distros In 2015?

Posted by Soulskill on from the whatever-runs-your-toaster dept.

iamacat writes: Back in 90s, we used Linux not only because of open source, but also for innovative features not found in commercial operating systems — better multitasking, network power features like slirp and masquerading, free developer tools for many languages. Nowadays OSX and Windows caught up in these areas and mainstream distros like Ubuntu dumbed down in default configuration. So where to go for active innovation like 3D/VR desktop, artificial intelligence, drag and drop ability to mash up UI of multiple apps or just drastically better performance? Something maybe rough around the edges but usable and exciting enough to use as daily desktop?

115 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. Uh huh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    better multitasking

    Then what specific OS?

    network power features like slirp and masquerading

    How were either of these unique to Linux?

    free developer tools for many languages.

    So no different than BSD?

    1. Re:Uh huh... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      What is this "Windows 94" of which you speak?

      Did I wake up in a parallel universe where Windows 95 never happened?

      Well then, color me lucky!

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re:Uh huh... by shaitand · · Score: 4, Interesting

      BSD is not a commercial OS and isn't in competition with Linux.

      Linux brought those things to the consumer desktop. In the 2000's it not only continued to gain functionality but actually gained polish. Today, Linux is at least as polished and pretty as Windows or OSX.

      The only people still using BSD (and honestly most of the "hardcore" distributions of Linux) are people who appreciate difficulty for it's own sake. Unlike windows and OSX you trade no functionality for the polished experience. You simply fall back to manual effort when you need more flexibility than the polished tools provide and most of the time the polished tools break none of it.

      If you have trouble with rpmbuild; yum -y local vs make; make install and therefore choose the old way and break package management thus finding yourself in a dependency hell a year later... that's because you are ignorant, perhaps willfully, and your outdated and unpolished system that gives you no added functionality is what you deserve.

      For myself... I used desktop linux in 98 and have used linux in the server rack since that time. It has taken many forms and flavors for me including LFS for awhile. That was great for learning how everything works under the hood. If you are using anything but a modern user friendly linux on even a 5 yr old desktop and spending more than 2-4 hours configuring and customizing the OS itself on setup (less than windows or OS X) then I have to question your life choices. Unless are learning, why waste time manually doing things the hard way when you can point and click your way to a solid and well configured launch platform for working on the new thing you are learning now? If there is some detail that matters which you can't point and click you way to, why not help improve the polish so you can move on? The point really extends to experienced users of windows and OS X (by which I really mean the latest and greatest edition of OS X in the same way windows is nothing but the latest and greatest NT) as well.

      The OS wars are over. You could make a very good argument that Linux won since it is by far the most heavily deployed OS overall. But really it's more that the war itself become obsolete because open software stacks won. Even if you are using windows outside of certain niche environments most of the software you are using is cross platform OSS and most of your experience takes place in the browser or at least the network. It really makes very little difference what OS you use because no OS actually won and therefore everything has to work everywhere.

      I switched from a linux desktop back to windows for years because working on third party systems constantly meant needing windows only apps and because windows got me from scratch to a working platform more quickly. Meanwhile I continued using linux as my first choice for... everything else. Now I've switched back to find Linux Mint actually provides a smoother, easier, and prettier experience these days on my brand new high end laptop supporting all the recently released hardware out of the box. It was so quick and easy I actually did spent a little time customizing frivolous things like window behavior, desktop effects, and widgets. I'm not sure I want any new innovation on my desktop. Just keep pace and let things grow more stable. Maybe fix the odd clipboard behavior and inconsistency? Middle click paste is a cool concept but not worth the hassle. Finally fix the quirks of kmixer?

      The only thing left was support for the vsphere client. The virtual F5 in my lab ties me to this and the lack of functionality in the web equivalent in newer versions also hampers me here requiring me to virtualize windows. The solution is I'll simply remove both vmware and F5 from my lab. Many enterprises still have these things but that isn't the direction of the future. The future is about the open equivalents that have caught up now on the core functionality you need from these things are easily deployed on any cloud stack giving greater flexibility and automatabil

    3. Re: Uh huh... by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Today, Linux is at least as polished and pretty as Windows or OSX.

      LMFAO.

    4. Re:Uh huh... by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

      BSD is not a commercial OS and isn't in competition with Linux.

      Tell us again what you know about the underpinnings of OSX?

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    5. Re:Uh huh... by mikeroySoft · · Score: 1

      What is this "Windows 95" of which you speak?

      Did I wake up in a parallel universe where Windows 94 never happened?

      I can only imagine how much better an extra year of bug fixes might have been... oh well.

      You going to watch the Super Blurnball match later?

    6. Re:Uh huh... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I am a PC-BSD user, but despite my love for the FreeBSD family, that's not what OS X is. The underpinnings of OS-X are the XNU kernel, which is a successor to NEXTSTEP's kernel. NEXTSTEP was based on a combination of Mach 2.5 and some BSD userland. OS-X uses something that's somewhat a successor to that combination - Mach 3.0 kernel along w/ userland taken from FreeBSD. The kernel however is NOT a FreeBSD kernel, which undercuts your argument somewhat. Also, a lot of things in OS-X don't run unchanged under FreeBSD: I can't take Quartz and hoist that on top of FreeBSD.

    7. Re:Uh huh... by illtud · · Score: 1


      The only thing left was support for the vsphere client

      When did you check this? This was a stopper for me for months, but last month a new vmware-client was released that works great for me on Fedora. JFYI.

    8. Re:Uh huh... by illtud · · Score: 1

      https://my.vmware.com/web/vmwa...

    9. Re:Uh huh... by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Think of users born in the 90s, where are they supposed to have used Unix? (not Linux)

      In particular, commercial Unix on the desktop existed in the 20th century but not since, with OSX as an exception. But will you run DHCP and DNS etc. on an OSX machine or ssh -X into one and get a Finder window, I think not.
      It's too late to dumpster dive for Unix workstations (like when 15" CRTs were all over the place on the streets but now they're gone)

      Now there's BSD, its main draw is for making a $1000 file server with ZFS, after OpenSolaris came and showed you could do that but then died because Oracle. Nerds may even use OpenBSD. But most everyone uses debian (or sid), ubuntu and Mint. It's a pain to learn other ways to install software when linux already has apt-get and make (or tarballs with binaries in them), to deal with potential differences from GNU tools or to set up the prompt to something different than as a straight "$" or "%" when linux comes with "user@host /path/directory $" out of the box, and actually supports your physical hardware.

      Rant aside it's probably good times to run BSD now but I have the feeling you would do it at home because using linux isn't hard enough.

    10. Re:Uh huh... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see anything about managing an ESXi 5.1 server in the documentation for this client.

    11. Re:Uh huh... by illtud · · Score: 1

      Ah, sorry - misread you as asking for a working vmware view client, which was my problem. Isn't VMWare deprecating the vsphere client in favour of the web version? I'm not close enough to the administration to know whether there's missing functionality in the web version, but there's certainly functions in there that won't be supported in the windows client.

    12. Re:Uh huh... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "Isn't VMWare deprecating the vsphere client in favour of the web version? I'm not close enough to the administration to know whether there's missing functionality in the web version"

      Yes they are, in 5.5+ and it lacks essential functionality. Since they removed functionality from the cli to push vcenter and the same functionality is notably missing from the web client I think it is a deliberate strategy on their part. You definitely tickled my lazy bone with the suggestion of a client but why mess with vmware anymore? I can rebuild as an openstack configuration and use kvm (or other bits) for that piece. Haproxy/Keepalived takes care of the need for the F5's for my configuration and most configurations I've seen LTMs in and provides a more cloud friendly/portable solution.

  2. Do what? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 3, Informative

    Back in 90s, we used Linux not only because of open source, but also for innovative features not found in commercial operating systems — better multitasking, network power features like slirp and masquerading, free developer tools for many languages.

    None of what you mention was a unique feature of Linux or even pioneered by it. All of what you talk about were already part of Unix systems that existed prior or was software that existed before Linux even existed and was already cross-platform.

    1. Re:Do what? by pla · · Score: 2

      All of what you talk about were already part of Unix systems that existed prior

      Absolutely true. Now name a desktop OS that had those features at the time.

      Yes, technically I had a $15k HP-UX system sitting on my desk at work back then (though amusingly, my Windows PC sitting next to it had about 10x the horsepower for 1/10th the cost), but that doesn't really have much relevance to your average home power-user.

      I find it odd that almost every post so far has slammed the OP for romanticizing the dawn of Linux, but it did count as that much of a radical departure from the standard fare of the day. Even if it did nothing more (and it did a lot more) than bring some of the same tools to the desktop that Big Iron had had for decades, that alone completely changed the home PC landscape forever.

    2. Re:Do what? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Absolutely true. Now name a desktop OS that had those features at the time.

      Which is shifting the goalposts. The submission specifically said:

      but also for innovative features not found in commercial operating systems

    3. Re:Do what? by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      True, but he said innovative, not inventive. These are not synonyms. Innovative frequently involves invention, but literally all it means is bringing a technology to people as if for the first time. The iPod would be a very major example of innovation, for example, despite every feature (except ease of use) it had being bettered by contemporary Nomads.

      The early distributions did make useful Unix-like systems available to a mass audience. MINIX didn't do that. Coherent didn't do that. And SysV certainly never even tried to do that. RedHat et al deserve enormous credit for that. As does whatsisname, that guy who wrote the Linux kernel... Richard Stallman, right? ;-)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:Do what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I find it odd that almost every post so far has slammed the OP for romanticizing the dawn of Linux, but it did count as that much of a radical departure from the standard fare of the day. Even if it did nothing more (and it did a lot more) than bring some of the same tools to the desktop that Big Iron had had for decades, that alone completely changed the home PC landscape forever.

      Maybe if you were only ever using DOS or Windows 3.11. Those of us that that were using 386BSD laughed at how Linux users thought their desktop was innovative.

    5. Re:Do what? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Except they said "innovative features not found in commercial operating systems". But this is false since commercial Unixes DID have those features. And they were ported over to Linux after the fact.

    6. Re:Do what? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      I believe you can read the OP as meaning "commercial CONSUMER operating systems", which UNIX was not.

      Yes it was. BSD was available, for free, on desktop systems, before Linux. The only difference was that BSD required a floating point co-processor, while Linux did not. But plenty of desktops had 387s.

    7. Re:Do what? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Because NeXT didn't exist in the 90's.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    8. Re: Do what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I used Windows NT. Microsoft's development tools have always been either free or very easy to acquire legitimately for free to those who took the time to research availability.

      Granted, I used Linux briefly as a transparent proxy, but that became redundant and expensive compared to a cheap Linksys router.

      Personally, I think Linux probably had a larger impact on education than mere personal computing. Remember how much Borland's compilers cost? Delphi wouldn't have existed in a world where Turbo Pascal wasn't required by universities, and Linux gave students and researchers a way to explore C without resorting to BSD or expensive proprietary UNIX options.

    9. Re:Do what? by pla · · Score: 1

      Which is shifting the goalposts. The submission specifically said

      You have chosen to interpret the question in a way that favors your mockery of the OP.

      The very fact that you could come back to say "ha-HA, what about $OS, you ignorant fool???" demonstrates that subby clearly has a home-user-centric viewpoint.

      Yes, you can rationalize your 100% factually correct response by ignoring that; or, you can encourage someone to better appreciate our world by responding to the "real" question.

      When Grandma asks you who makes the best computers, do you answer "Cray", or "HP/Dell/Lenovo"?

    10. Re:Do what? by jeremyp · · Score: 3, Informative

      If we are talking about the early 90's there was Windows NT 3.1 and OS/2 as well as BSD, SCO Unix and Xenix. Plus there were still Unixes available for several higher end work stations like Sun and Silicon Graphics.

      In technical terms the Windows NT kernel compares very favourably with Linux which was pretty agricultural by the standards of the times. Taking just the example of the thread support, Linux threads were a fiasco for many years.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    11. Re:Do what? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Because NeXT didn't exist in the 90's.

      Hint: "commercial CONSUMER operating systems"

      We had some NeXT machines where I worked in the 90s. From what I remember, they were both staggeringly slow (due to sticking a 24-bit display on a slow CPU) and staggeringly expensive. I think they were mostly used for viewing pr0n at more than 8 bits per pixel.

    12. Re:Do what? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Hint: "commercial CONSUMER operating systems"

      Which is not what the submission says. You added that qualification.

    13. Re:Do what? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      You have chosen to interpret the question in a way that favors your mockery of the OP.

      No, I simply read plain English.

    14. Re:Do what? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, technically I had a $15k HP-UX system sitting on my desk at work back then (though amusingly, my Windows PC sitting next to it had about 10x the horsepower for 1/10th the cost), but that doesn't really have much relevance to your average home power-user.

      Also, who the shit wants to run HP-SUX? I got paid to figure out how to set up IPSEC on it once, holy crap. The documentation was literally backwards.

      Didn't Linux do a lot of those fancy networking tricks before most commercial Unixes? Stuff like packet mangling and IP masquerading? And the free dev tools may have been available for other platforms, but there's a big difference. Most of the time, the official compiler would shit all over gcc. I worked for a company that had the sunspro compiler suite, and of course I got gcc, and anything that would build with sun's compiler would just crap all over a gcc build. Since a lot of the early work on gcc aimed at x86, you didn't get as much benefit from using some vendor's compiler on a PC Unix as you did on those more expensive platforms. So yeah, I had the GNU suite on my Sun machines, but the PC running Linux really changed the industry.

      To be fair, BSD had new stuff, too. But the community was less friendly, the documentation less penetrable (use the source? I wasn't there yet) and the license apparently attracted less contributions.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:Do what? by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 3, Informative

      But BSD was locked in a court battle with AT&T at the time over UNIX code copyright.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    16. Re:Do what? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Which is not what the submission says. You added that qualification.

      Did you not read this thread before responding? Did you not even read the GP post that the post I responded to was responding to? The one that I directly quoted that from?

      Oh, no, of course you didn't.

    17. Re:Do what? by Holi · · Score: 1

      Umm SCO was most definitely a commercial desktop Unix in the 90's

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    18. Re:Do what? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Hint: "commercial CONSUMER operating systems"

      Which is not what the submission says. You added that qualification.

      While you are correct, from the context of the submission, it's rather obvious that commercial "consomer" OS is what they meant. But please do continue to keep posting how incorrect this is, technically, rather than posting anything helpful.

      I still have a 20k user license of AIX from that time period sitting in my closet. But it sure as hell wasn't something that yoru typical home user was going to have. I don't recall what all I had at home at that time, but Slackware was the first Linux distro I had.

    19. Re:Do what? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      You have chosen to interpret the question in a way that favors your mockery of the OP.

      No, I simply read plain English.

      First of all, there's no such thing. English is not a dead language like Latin, it evolves. Do you read modern "plain English"? American "plain English"? Shakespearean? You never specified. Second, this was a question posted on /. and not a description in a technical manual. There's a difference.

    20. Re: Do what? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      I remember the Borland Compilers as being relatively inexpensive. Far more so than the others for the PC at the time.

      "Resorting to BSD?" What is this crap? You're spinning up a bunch of crap made up history now.

    21. Re:Do what? by Mondragon · · Score: 2

      Absolutely true. Now name a desktop OS that had those features at the time.

      Linux is barely even a desktop OS *now*, the idea that you would compare it to desktop OSes in the 90s is amusing at best.

    22. Re:Do what? by dissy · · Score: 1

      Disclaimer: I'm not arguing GPs point. Or Ps point. Or your point. Oh wait you are P.
      Better Disclaimer: I have no point, best not to read further. If you would like your time returned, please send a stamped self addressed envelope to my gmail account, and I'll send you the GNU date source code. Please allow 4 to 6 weeks for delivery.

      When Grandma asks you who makes the best computers, do you answer "Cray", or "HP/Dell/Lenovo"?

      Well if MY grandma, passed over 15 years ago now, asked me who makes the best computers, I'd probably answer Cray too.

      And then send her off to God for the best tech support ever.

      I bet he could get that damn tulip module to compile first try too!

      But I'm just that kind of jerk I guess ;}

      In all seriousness... well some... or a little at least... well I tried. OK that isn't true. But if someone elses grandma, not passed over 15 years ago now, asked me that I'd actually have no idea what to answer.
      I think HP has pissed me off the least lately, but that isn't to be taken as they don't very much suck. Dell sort of sucks the opposite of HP for me.
      Lenovo on the low end is just disasterly. And yes I greatly fear for my beloved xSeries future in their hands :{

      On the other hand, I say this as someone who has one of those $15k HP-UX machines in my basement, along with an equally expensive SGI o2, a Next cube and two Next slabs, and numerous Sparc desktops.

      Come to think of it, I'm significantly less qualified to answer here than you are :P

    23. Re: Do what? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I remember the Borland Compilers as being relatively inexpensive. Far more so than the others for the PC at the time.

      That, in fact, is the only reason they became so popular. They were a little wonky and nonstandard, but they were cheap as hell. They were cheaper than basically any other paid-for development system on the market — yes, I said system, remember they came with an editor, too :) They were cheaper than the development systems for the mac, too, which I remember being frequently touted as a benefit of the PC platform back when the dominant software was all DOS-based and the mac was all graphics, all the time and making PC users jealous.

      That, of course, and Delphi, which is still around. I don't know who decided that object pascal was a good idea, but if that product had been a C product (ISTR they had something similar for C later, but ironically not as good as Delphi... memory hazy) Borland itself might still be around, too.

      Now if I could just remember who it is I know that used to work for Borland (I grew up in Santa Cruz county, and occasionally dove into Borland's dumpster) maybe I could get some of these details sorted.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. Is this a joke? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Back in the 1990's, you had to roll your own kernel and modules. If you were lucky, all the hardware worked. Most of the time it didn't. Nothing worked out of the box. Today's kids have it too easy. Now get off my lawn!

    1. Re:Is this a joke? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Of course it's a joke. iamacat is just talking about things that could be done on almost any Unix system.

    2. Re:Is this a joke? by Defenestrar · · Score: 2

      And 3D UIs existed back then too - just watch a copy of Jurassic Park ;)

    3. Re:Is this a joke? by saider · · Score: 1

      And 3D UIs existed back then too - just watch a copy of Jurassic Park ;)

      Are you encouraging copyright infringement?

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    4. Re:Is this a joke? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Of course it's a joke. iamacat is just talking about things that could be done on almost any Unix system.

      The difference is that my Linux laptop cost about $1,000, whereas, if I remember correctly, the Sun workstation on my desk cost over $25,000.

      The options for home users were basically DOS and its clones, Windows 3 and a couple of similar simplistic GUIs, OS/2, and... Linux.

    5. Re:Is this a joke? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2

      Yes, it did. It's always funny when nerds think that was some sort of invention of the movie when it was a real thing.

    6. Re:Is this a joke? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Except the submission only said "not found in commercial operating systems". Nowhere in the sentence does it say either "desktop" or "consumer".

    7. Re:Is this a joke? by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      If you kids had any kind of good memory at all, you'd remember having to set the IRQ jumper on the card, then compile the kernel module with the right IRQ #defined.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    8. Re:Is this a joke? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Any pressed Blu-Ray or DVD is technically a copy. If not because it's bit-for-bit, then because it's stamped from a master.

    9. Re:Is this a joke? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      But downloading it over dial-up was terrible. That's why I tried out Debian first as a late 90's high-schooler. And that was a nightmare when you're barely a novice with computers and dealing with hardware that didn't have good specs at all.

    10. Re:Is this a joke? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      It's also funny when people post things that directly refute them: "File System Navigator (fsn; pronounced "fusion") is an experimental application to view a file system in 3D, made by SGI for IRIX systems. Even though it was never developed to a fully functional file manager. . ." Most anyone who worked with Unix back in those days would know that the 3D UI in the film was definitely not Unix. Most people were lucky to get a terminal when dealing with Unix.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    11. Re:Is this a joke? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Was the same even in the 2000's. Probably because more people using linux were using old systems from the 1990's though I suppose.

      I remember someone asking why I tried so many distros of linux and how could I enjoy that. My answer was more less, I had to try that many until I could fine one that worked. I recall trying to find something to work with my old Dell Dimension 4200 (a P3 800), and had to basically play matchmaker with my hardware, bios version, and linux distro until I could get one that worked. I recall fondly Xandros and Mepis. Ubuntu and Knoppix would work if the versions and lunar cycles aligned. Others would range from simply not supported (aka no boot) to partially supported in some hardware either was flaky, or a pita to use, like not detecting HD to mount etc... or all the features you wanted weren't supported in stable, but all in unstable, which would eventually break your system, prompting the whole process over again. Though as frustrating as it could be, at least you could learn something in trying to fix things. That said, the last time I used linux, was a modern (well it was probably a number of years ago now) version of Knoppix on a LiveCD (on that some old Dell), and it worked like a champ no problem...

    12. Re:Is this a joke? by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      Today's kids have it too easy.

      That's an illusion. While modern distributions require almost no effort, that ease of use comes at the traditional price: in the rare cases that things don't work, today's kids have no idea how to deal with it.

    13. Re:Is this a joke? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      I learned a lot about networking with Slackware on my maiv box, a 486-33 with 16M, and a few castoff 386sx systems with 2-4M in them. And old 3C509 ethernet cards and coaxial cabling. I remember bringing up a Samba server and setting up an 8 Mhz '286 machine on it with MS-DOS, that only had one boot floppy diskette and no hard drive. I installed Windows 3.11 on the "C:" drive that Samba fooled the DOS machine into thinking it had.

      I ditched Linux and switched to NetBSD by about 1998 though. Linux had gotten all Red Hatty and was starting to suck. The PCMCIA networking was an ugly kludge that loaded alongside the kernel, whereas NetBSD 'just worked' with PC Card networking built in the kernel. Switching to BSD was just the sensible thing for anybody running Slackware at the time to do.
       

    14. Re:Is this a joke? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      One way around downloading over dial-up was buying a Linux book with a CDROM in the back. That was my first introduction Linux AND Slackware. That didn't work very well on the Cyrix 6x86 CPU and motherboard I got for free, no matter how many times I rolled the kernel and modues. I eventually bought SuSE Linux from the computer store to get it working.

  4. different linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just because Ubuntu dumbed down doesn't mean you need to use it. Slakware is still out there. Arch, Gentoo, Debian, Fedora, etc. are all a bit rougher and all have a bit more "exciting stuff". Still, the submittor's main problem is that he needs to go into a StarTrek movie. Truly innovative ideas in operating systems, like Plan9 and Eros, end up with less "drag and drop ability to mash up UI of multiple apps" (whatever that means) than the mainstream. Most of the innovation is now best done on the level of the application anyway.

    1. Re:different linux? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Mint is like Ubuntu before they started turning it into a tablet OS composed of buzzwords.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  5. Hahah what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    better multitasking

    Than what? Windows? I'm pretty sure it didn't have better multitasking than a real Unix in the 90s.

    network power features like slirp and masquerading

    Slirp supported commercial Unixes like Solaris. IP masquerading could also be done on BSDs and other Unixes as well.

    free developer tools for many languages

    The GNU tools could be run on commercial Unixes even before Linux existed.

  6. What sort of hardware are you using? by Rei · · Score: 3, Funny

    They say that P-P-P-PowerOS is rather nice, but it only runs on specific laptops.

    --
    "Oh, goodness. Look at my wrist, I have to go." "But what about your clothes?" "I don't love these."
  7. lol by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    TFS must've been written by a Slav: no "a" in any of it... ;)

  8. Huh? by gstoddart · · Score: 1, Troll

    So where to go for active innovation like 3D/VR desktop, artificial intelligence, drag and drop ability to mash up UI of multiple apps

    Holy crap, I just got bingo!!

    rough around the edges but usable and exciting enough to use as daily desktop

    Exciting?? What the hell? You want 'exciting' plug a Windows box direct to the intertubes with no firewall.

    I heard some crazy guy has a "praise jeebus" operating system or something, but I'm pretty sure I have never once heard anybody say "gee, what I want is a desktop which is exciting to use".

    New features which serve a purpose are good, but this screams of asking for pointless and shiny because you seem think it should be there.

    Give me Tony Stark's Iron Man interface, and I'll be excited. Everything else is just pointless eye candy of people making something whiz bang which doesn't actually do anything.

    Otherwise we're just resurrecting the SGI "Hey, this is UNIX" interface from Jurassic Park. (And, yes, it was a real interface.)

    Now get off my damned lawn.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  9. You have to pick an area and focus by TheModelEskimo · · Score: 2

    There is so much innovation these days that it has transcended the separation-by-OS that used to handily signal where and what kind of changes you could expect. As an example, if you're looking for an experimental graphical terminal emulator it turns out you can use it in Windows and OS X, but not in Linux. But the point is, it's not available on one OS in particular and it's even a virtue now to be cross-platform. There's so much new tech out there and it all happens on a huge variety of platforms. So trying out new tech is just a matter of focusing (for example: system software, graphics software, hardware support, kernel-level new stuff, software in embedded systems, hardware sensors, etc.) and then deciding what the required resources are to dive in on that specific level. What OS or OSes would be best, what packages should you install, and so on.

    Going back to your examples, 3D/VR desktop work has been going on since the 80s at least, and AI before that, and "drastically better performance" has always been on peoples' minds. The GUI mashups even ring a bell, though everything is so scriptable these days that anyone who's doing a GUI mashup would probably be less frustrated just typing it into a reusable script. These aren't new topics, they change over time incrementally, and the only advice I can give is to make sure you are _really_ looking at the high-end tech that you think you are. If you are frustrated with a slow system, did it cost less than $10K? Because that's commodity-level pricing. If you are frustrated with the 3D effects you just enabled on your desktop, did you really research the state of the art? And so on.

    Also, just to nitpick--you say Ubuntu is dumbed-down in "default configuration" but Windows and OS X are dumbed down by default too, aren't they? That's why you have package managers, Ninite, the App Store, etc. Restore your purchases or download a set of things and you're out of the dumbzone.

  10. Ubuntu by LichtSpektren · · Score: 1

    The past couple of Ubuntu releases have been fairly "boring" stability releases, but 16.04 is looking to have some exciting new features: Mir (replacement for X.org), Snappy Core (replacement for .DEB packages, to compete with Docker), and Unity8 convergence. The goal is that somebody will be able to carry around an Ubuntu Phone that morphs from a touchscreen smartphone to a full-fledged desktop when it connects to a dumb terminal. If it's a hit, then I imagine in the future, it will also serve as a console for smart-homes ("Internet of Things"), cars, and VR projection.

    Maybe that doesn't excite anybody else, but for me, the idea of having a smartphone replace all of my electronics and not having to worry about file syncing, networking, etc. is awesome.

    1. Re:Ubuntu by LichtSpektren · · Score: 1

      A toilet I would understand, but how the hell do you drop a phone in the urinal? Do phones regularly fall out of your pocket with horizontal velocity?

    2. Re:Ubuntu by Raseri · · Score: 1

      And the thought of having a grand total of one point of failure for all of your data and electronics, including your car and your house? Is this also awesome?

      --
      Writhe your naked ass to the mindless groove.
    3. Re:Ubuntu by LichtSpektren · · Score: 1

      14.04 LTS will still be supported until 2019, by which point Xenial Xerus will have been out for three years. Do you think Canonical and the Ubuntu community won't have 16.04 usable after three years?

    4. Re:Ubuntu by LichtSpektren · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you're happy with Ubuntu GNOME. You'll be pleased to learn that Unity8 will not make it go away.

    5. Re:Ubuntu by LichtSpektren · · Score: 1

      Data: I have two separate automated backup routines, so nothing to fear there. Car/house: losing my phone would be about the same as losing my TV remote, which does not keep me up at night. Single point of failure for all my electronics: yes, that would be a bitch I suppose. But unless you're a complete dolt that destroys your phone more than once per year, I think having a single $1k phone-computer +accessories would be cheaper in the long run than having to replace my phone, computer, laptop, and tablet every time one of them gives up the ghost or their hardware goes obsolete.

  11. Re:OS X caught up??? by danbob999 · · Score: 2

    Stronger heritage of what? The OP was referring to innovative features.

  12. I know UNIX!!! by mrybczyn · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure you want this: http://www.menuetos.net/

  13. Subjects are stupid by Ahnahmoley · · Score: 1

    Slackware. It just keeps working

  14. The future is in the past! by TheCount22 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Take a look at Squeak ( http://squeak.org/ ). As it turns out most things in the future will have their roots in the discarded ideas of the past. As far as programming languages take a look at Erlang and Elixir (computer languages are the operating systems of the future). I expect the capability model and the actor model will get a lot more popular in the future. In the future computers will be networks, applications will be distributed applications.

    1. Re:The future is in the past! by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      In the future computers will be networks, applications will be distributed applications.

      I still remember when that was the future twenty years ago! We've gone so far ahead in time that the past is now the future!

    2. Re:The future is in the past! by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Take a look at Squeak "

      Too squeaky.

    3. Re:The future is in the past! by rwa2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, I don't know why it has been such slow going... back in the naughties I was working with distributed applications... We'd be setting up MOSIX clusters with transparent process migration (it's often faster to migrate the process to the data rather than get the data to the process) and distributed filesystems like CODA (which still aren't much of a commodity, they've just sorta migrated to "the cloud" with crap like Dropbox and Google Drive and MS OneDrive or whatever). I could walk up to any computer or device and access my desktop via VNC and keep working on whatever I was doing just as I had left it.

      In the mean time, it seems like everything was set back 10 years as everything got reinvented for mobile devices. Network speeds for mobile phones were roughly about 10 years behind desktop computing. Screen size and resolution was closer to about 20 years behind, which might explain why phone interfaces today look more like Windows 3.11 than ever.

      Perhaps the biggest difference is in price. Now that smartphones and computers are practically disposable, we've shifted from building highly reliable distributed systems to highly replaceable throwaway systems. Don't get too attached to the idea of a persistent remotely accessible virtual workspace, all your programs (I mean "apps") and interfaces you're accustomed to using will be thrown away during the next release cycle next week anyways.

    4. Re:The future is in the past! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Take a look at Squeak ( http://squeak.org/ ).

      I did take a look at Squeak. The interface is abysmal and the documentation is atrocious. The runtime is slower than I would ever have thought possible. I was really excited about it until I used it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  15. ninnle linux! by slashdice · · Score: 1

    Have you tried ninnle linux? It's pretty cutting-edge... and no system d shit!

    --
    Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
  16. Random bullshit generator by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

    drag and drop ability to mash up UI of multiple apps

    Iif you want one with a random bullshit generator, just choose whatever the OP runs.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  17. Re:OS X caught up??? by rwa2 · · Score: 1

    I think they just mean that it has multiple desktops by default.

    And maybe compositing so you can have have transparent terminals.

    That is all.

  18. try something that uses enlightenment by xanthos · · Score: 1

    "Something maybe rough around the edges but usable and exciting enough to use as daily desktop?"

    Yup, that's pretty much the definition of Enlightenment

    I love the Terminology terminal emulator and wish it was easier to install on non-Enlightenment distros.

    --
    Average Intelligence is a Scary Thing
    1. Re:try something that uses enlightenment by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      I enjoyed Enlightenment's experimetalness in 1999. But at a glance I don't see a lot of improvements in the past 16 years. Other than terminology, what've they been innovating lately?

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  19. Re:OS X caught up??? by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So you are saying that OS X is "innovative" because it consists largely of 1980's technology (NextStep, BSD, Smalltalk, OO dev tools)? Seems to me that that makes it about three decades behind the times.

  20. Windows 8! by postmortem · · Score: 3, Funny

    It is very exciting to use! You'd want to destroy keyboard, screen, or the computer itself after you use it for a bit.

  21. Re:desktop is dead, years ago guys... by doconnor · · Score: 1

    For a while I the server for my web app ran on a Palm Pre smart phone. because has significantly better performance then running it on my wireless router.

    I still run a web server on my phone from time to time to test the new version of the web app that I'm developing on my phone.

  22. Other Reasons by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Speaking for myself, I use Linux distros at home for these reasons:

    1. They're not Microsoft, Apple or Google.
    2. There is less "telemetry" from my Linux boxes to OS megacorps(see #1)
    3. Linux desktops have become reasonably reliable and stable, and yes, I've been using Unix/Linux since late 90s.
    4. I enjoy trying out different distros/software, configuring the software, seeing the different ways things work in different distros, etc
    5. Linux is fun!

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    1. Re:Other Reasons by hughbar · · Score: 1

      Yes agree. Been using since early 2000s, now on Linux Mint.

      Now back in university and Libre Office has trashed my footnotes because they want essays in 'Word format'. This is the kind of thing that slows/stops adoption, confusion with 'Microsoft' and 'standard'. That and, to be fair, I still use Windows for music projects.

      Meanwhile my desktop runs sweetly on an ancient clunker with about £80 and I'm 'thinking about' changing it this year. No upgrades etc. this, in itself, gives a much better eco-footprint, No, it's far from perfect, but it's pretty good. The 'innovation' is [hopefully] the shift in attitudes.

      --
      On y va, qui mal y pense!
  23. Is there no actual answer? by bbsguru · · Score: 1
    So, with all due respect to those who would rather nit pick perceptions or memories of the good old days..

    Is there no one with a suggestion for a new operating environment (or OS) to answer the OP's question?
    (No, I don't know of one either)

    1. Re:Is there no actual answer? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      I don't want any of that useless crap that the poster considers "innovation"

      Here's some real innovation:
      http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin...

    2. Re:Is there no actual answer? by Burz · · Score: 1

      Qubes is a very interesting Linux distro.
      However, its USP is security, instead of the 3D Web 4.0 synergistic paradigms the submitter is asking.

      I'll second that. Qubes is very innovative in the area of security.

  24. Funtoo Linux by corychristison · · Score: 2

    For anyone looking to get their hands dirty, I always recommend to try out Funtoo Linux.

    Try out various kernels (even BSD kernels), choice between 3 init systems, and all the customization you want.

    Seriously. Try it. www.funtoo.org

  25. Non-volatile memory architecture by Katatsumuri · · Score: 1

    Several companies announced resistive or whatever memory that is almost as fast as DRAM, while also non-volatile, cheap and big like flash. We need an architecture that takes full advantage of that. Keep the programs and data in place (instead of the usual RAM to/from disk joggling), optimize the I/O and CPU differently...

    HP announced some work in this direction with their "Machine", but for now I believe all they have is some slightly customized Linux distro.

    If I remember correctly, PalmOS had some good ideas in this direction.

    Whoever implements an efficient architecture for this, has a good chance to be a great thought leader for the next 30 years. There is really an opportunity for a new Linux-level (or even UNIX-level) innovation right now.

  26. Re:OS X caught up??? by danbob999 · · Score: 1

    How so? Linux was developed after BSD.

  27. Computer Technology innovation S-Curve by avandesande · · Score: 1

    Sorry, we are at the top of the s-curve. Forget about innovation and expect incremental enhancements.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  28. True Bleeding Edge Systems: AGC or RDOS by MountainLogic · · Score: 1

    Where else, but the Apollo Giudance Computer or Data General's RDOS. Oh wait, it does not have .NET or Node.JS so maybe it is not so innovative.

  29. 3D by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

    So where to go for active innovation like 3D/VR desktop

    The trash, where the 3D desktop concept belongs.

  30. Re:OS X caught up??? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    To be fair to the submitter, in 1990s, it was Mac OS 7,8,9 back then. Apple didn't buy NeXT until 1996 and didn't release OS X until 1999. Even then I don't consider it comparable to OS 9 until Jaguar (10.2) in 2002.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  31. May never exist by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

    There are a lot of things that can be done in the open source arena but things like AI are too valuable for universities to give away and often require physical datacenters to train and use. Siri, Cortana etc. are not in my opinion likely to emerge through part time collaboration and unlike drivers, there isn't really an incentive for the big players such as Google to give it away. The good news is that most consumer facing AI/Digital Assistants will simply be a web service that someone could write a front end to. So it might not ever be truly built into the OS but it will be accessible through any platform. The real impediment to open operating systems is that there needs to be an incentive to develop a feature and currently if it doesn't make for a better server (e.g. file system, networking, super computer fabric, virtualization, webhosting etc) it probably won't get much attention from the community or industry.

  32. AI on the desktop by Squiggle · · Score: 1

    Regarding AI I'd take a look at the Mycroft project.

    https://mycroft.ai/

    Still getting started but have plans for AI on the desktop.

    --
    Complexity Happens
  33. nixos and urbit by drewm19801927 · · Score: 2

    NixOS has a package manager that I think has a real shot at achieving scalability and repeatability in package management. Once something works in NixOS it will keep working on it's own, since specific versions of dependencies are tracked and can coexist, whereas in mainstream distros shit breaks all the time. The current model of freezing everything once in a while and patching up some of the most obviously broken stuff simply isn't keeping up with the pace of software development IMHO. http://nixos.org/ For a real moonshot OS/language/decentralize_all_the_things project, check out Urbit: http://urbit.org/

  34. Minix 3? by tomxor · · Score: 1

    All the leading OS still don't deviate much from traditional kernel design approaches, the main "innovation" i'm interested in for a modern OS is provable reliability... by provable i don't mean empirical and observable reliability (e.g FreeBSD), i mean reliable by design: There are some pretty innovative concepts beyond the basic microkernel concepts in Minix 3, and unlike it's predecessors it's intended to be more than an educational tool.

  35. Cool concept by tomxor · · Score: 1

    ^modup

    A design for not making upgrades break and not freezing shit into obsolescence is neat.

  36. Really? by markdavis · · Score: 1

    >" Nowadays OSX [MacOS] and [MS-]Windows caught up in these areas"

    Oh really? Perhaps quite a bit in just THOSE few areas which you listed, but in nowhere NEAR all the areas for which many of us continue to choose Linux. It is nice that Linux forced other operating systems to suck less than they used to, however :)

    >"and mainstream distros like Ubuntu dumbed down in default configuration."

    So then use one of the other [superior and yet excellent] Linux distros. I, for one, have never selected to use Ubuntu on any of my systems (beyond testing).

  37. Re:MirageOS, Chrome OS by anchovy_chekov · · Score: 1

    MirageOS (https://mirage.io/) is the most interesting OS project I've seen in a long time, but it's hard to describe. Approximately, it's a framework and collection of libraries that compile applications written in OCaml into unikernels that run on top of Xen.

    So far as Linux goes, Chrome OS seems like the best engineered Linux userland at this point.

    I don't normally respond to ACs, but thank you for the clue on mirage.io. The unikernel idea is intriguing and - as per the OP's question - an innovative new OS model.

    Another interesting unikernel system is Ling - essentially Erlang running directly on a hypervisor.

    I can't help but think these will give containers and such a run for their money over the next few years.

  38. Windows 8.x / Server 2012 by nuckfuts · · Score: 1

    I find that Microsoft is really innovating in the user interface department these days.

    1. Re:Windows 8.x / Server 2012 by Vlijmen+Fileer · · Score: 1

      In the sense that getting things done takes more and more clicks and time?
      I find myself installing more and more Windows-unsuck tools again of the type that I really thought belonged firmly to the Windows 3 - Windows 98 past.

  39. Debian by Vlijmen+Fileer · · Score: 1

    Debian

  40. Re:-ENOENT by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 2, Insightful

    i agree with the first sentence and partially agree with the second.

    i feel like the excitement of linux desktop is disappearing. i.e. gnome looks amateurish but has well integrated apps. kde looks more professional, but feels like mess where barely anything works as it should. enlightenment is like going a decade back in time - what the hell is samsung doing with it? unity is too simplistic, cinnamon is the definition of "nothing exciting".

    in gnu/linux in general, package manager is nothing special anymore, win/mac have it too. stuff like cgroups, containers, fs snapshots are nothing to be excited about as an ordinary desktop user. there are no linux only killer apps.

    and stuff is complicated and buggy. i have yet to meet a fedora/centos person who has selinux/firewalld enabled and is able to get work done. also, good luck debugging your setup with systemctl and journald. in ubuntu, it's almost impossible to get a bug fixed. you either fix it youself or go upstream, then open bug report in debian and then in ubuntu. then you create fake accounts (to say it affects me too) to get some attention to the bug report and hope that in a year+ a new ubuntu version will have it fixed. and they're not stupid ui issues, but big stuff like server installer not working with usb keyboards, nfs not mounting with exec,dev,suid if -o users is present, etc..

    windows/mac still suck a lot more (believe me i've tried switching to osx), but they have a lot more 'killer' apps.

  41. Re:Things missed and things lost by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 1

    i used to hate systemd. then i was forced to use it while building a redhat based cluster. on the one hand, it's an excellent init system and i absolutely love it for that - it's like finally having Solaris SMF on linux. on the other, it's a horrible everything else. it stands like a wall between you and problem resolution when things don't work. it presents incomplete riddles instead of information about services that cannot start.

  42. Re:-ENOENT by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

    Rock solid I have yet to encounter. Every distro I tried has it's flaws.

  43. Qubes by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Probably the most 'innovative' in that its approach is very non-tradititional. Seems like a good idea at this time:

    https://www.qubes-os.org/

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Qubes by Burz · · Score: 1

      Qubes does integrate security context display into the window manager. That is, at least, some UI innovation the OP may be interested in. It also solves security problems with cut-and-paste between domains.

  44. Re:-ENOENT by unicornzvi · · Score: 1

    You have 2 choices.

    1) Spyware malware adware walled garden proprietary closed source horse shit 2) Linux and BSD. Open source, stable, fast, secure, cutting edge available as well as rock solid distros.

    Rock solid linux distro? Okay here's a challenge for you, what "rock solid" Linux distribution would you recommend I install on an HP Pavilion laptop with a Realtek RTL8723BE Wifi card? Because as far as I can tell that's basically not supported properly by any distribution.

  45. Re:-ENOENT by Spacelord · · Score: 1

    So you buy unsupported hardware with proprietary drivers, and it's somehow Linux's fault?

    I will never understand some people...

  46. Innovative OSes in 2015 by finchd · · Score: 2

    Nothing as far as a distro (or desktop environment) with 3D VR or AI comes to mind but there is innovation in OS going on. Not many have attempted to answer the OP, so here's my list. Others mentioned Qubes, Urbit, and Mirage.io, which reminded me of Nix OS and HaLVM.

    Both innovative and seems daily-driver ready:
    1. Qubes OS - https://www.qubes-os.org/ - Linux distro that runs a Xen hypervisor to contain every app (including Windows ones) away from the desktop environment
    2. Haiku OS - https://www.haiku-os.org/ - Tiny (under 200MB installed), Non-Linux that is binary-compatible with BeOS, nice understated GUI that is bland but usable
    3. ReactOS - http://reactos.org/ - Win32 compatible open source OS, very active development scene working toward full NT kernel ABI compatibility. Seems stable enough to be a daily driver but hardware support is lacking
    4. PC-BSD & freeBSD 10 - http://www.pcbsd.org/ http://www.freebsd.org/ - PC-BSD is a desktop distro of freeBSD 10 built for user-friendliness with automatic ZFS snapshoting and a nice graphical package manager, freeBSD 10 has a completely new package manager (pkg-ng replaces the 'pkg' binary)
    5. Nix OS - https://nixos.org/ - Linux distro with innovative package manager promising atomic upgrades & rollback.

    Innovative server-exclusive (ie no GUI):
    5. SmartOS - https://smartos.org/ - Solaris + KVM + Docker w/ full Dtrace support. Claims ZFS as an innovation? Joyent is running a cloud of it
    6. CoreOS - https://coreos.com/ - Linux distro exclusively for large Docker deployments. developing a suite of Go tools for datacenter management.

    Innovative, but not ready for desktop use:
    7. Redox OS - http://www.redox-os.org/ - OS written in Rust (rust-lang), which guarantees a lot of memory-safety, screenshots of desktop in 'News' section
    8. Contiki OS - http://www.contiki-os.org/ - Linux distro for IoT embedded devices that claims an innovative network stack
    9. Urbit - http://urbit.org/docs/user/int... - *nix distro with exclusively web-based userland, invite-only at the moment, doesn't seem like it will have a UI but that each user is the dev of their own interface
    10. Mirage.io - http://mirage.io/ - Develop each app and compile into a single-purpose kernel to be run on some hypervisor
    11. HaLVM - https://github.com/GaloisInc/H... - The Haskell Ligthweight Virtual Machine - which runs just the GHC on Xen, another 'build uni-purpose VMs' system

  47. Re:-ENOENT by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

    Linux offers not stupidness

    ahem. Systemd.

  48. Re:-ENOENT by Aaden42 · · Score: 1

    Apple still being somewhat BSD-ish has that going for them. Too bad they wall the garden and fuck it up.

    Serious, non-trolly question: Have you actually used OS X for more than few minutes and tried to do anything that ran into the garden’s walls? Yes, default config won’t run binaries from just anywhere. For the majority of users, this is a GoodThing(TM). Want to run something you got from this guy you know? Go in to System Preferences -> Security & Privacy, General. Click the lock, enter your password, and choose “Allow apps downloaded from:” Anwhere. Done. The walls to the garden just came a’tumblin’ down. You may now aim squarely at your foot and pull the trigger at will. You’ll get one “Are you sure?” prompt for each new binary you run. Click Open, and you’ll never be nagged for that binary again.

    Running unsigned kernel drivers or monkeying with OS-installed binaries takes a little more work in El Capitan. Run `csrutil disable` and reboot. The system is yours to alter and/or destroy without limitation once again.

    I’m sure I fit the profile of fanboi just a little, but I genuinely think Apple has struck a good balance on their desktop OS. The vast majority of users will have no idea how to disable these protections and therefore shouldn’t disable them. If you can’t figure out how to run arbitrary binaries you downloaded from the Internet, then you lack the knowledge to make informed consent about whether you should do so. If you know what you’re doing, flip two switches, and the OS won’t stand in your way.

  49. Re:The seL4 Microkernel by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

    While I agree that seL4 is innovative and exciting, its not an OS or a distro. Its a microkernel, where afterwards, you have to implement your own OS services, hopefully with an exceptionally secure design. (Or just use it as a base for your own unique embedded environment, which is overkill). If you only value your own design flexibility, you'll have an easier time implementing your dream OS in forth, rather than seL4. (If that OS requires multitasking, perhaps one could build a forth environment on top of the microkernel.)

    Its kind of pointless to be screwing around with seL4, if you're not some computer science guru, who wants to build an OS with security as top consideration on top of a vetted securely designed microkernel. Its like wanting to use a CNC milling machine to only cut metal pipes in two.

    Once you brought up GNU HURD, I then realized you were making an obscene joke. But it would sort of be exciting (not really innovative) in the sense of trying to actually make it do something without crashing. (I half-heartedly wonder if there was anything salvageable from HURD's original designs that would justify the effort to create a MACH emulation layer on top of seL4.)

    --
    There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
  50. GalliumOS by HaroldZoid · · Score: 1

    This is a rather new distro for ChromeOS devices. It aims to fix some of the common problems that standard Linux distributions have with these devices and improve performance.