Are we stagnant?

>Windows is still basing all its OSs on NT (1993)
>Mac OS-X (2001) is based on BSD (1977)
>Linux (1991) is based on UNIX (1971)
>Even our fucking smart phones are running OSs based on 70s OSs

Where the fuck are the NEW operating systems?

Other urls found in this thread:

github.com/fuchsia-mirror/fuchsia
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

x86 is from the 70s as well.

The real answer is "why innovate when you can repeat, and everyone will buy it anyway?"

Intel and Microsoft pretty much own computing, so why do they need to go back to the drawing board to out-perform a competitor that doesn't exist?

If the foundations are solid then there's no need to reinvent the wheel. If you're interested in different OSs then there's haiku or redox.

>Where the fuck are the NEW operating systems?
what about the wheel??? I'm so tired about how old the wheel is, people should get NEW wheels.

>If the foundations are solid

Except they're not. A new hole is found nearly every minute.

not true.

Reinventing the wheel is senseless.

Going above the wheel is essential. That's why we have airplanes now.

airplanes have wheels.

Why do we still use toilet paper and soap when they were invented centuries ago?

...

>le "its old therefore its outdated and useless" meme

Viper kill yourself my man

They also have signs written in words.
>writing is over 3000 year olds

Checkmate, OP.

That's a poor argument. If you stick two pieces of wood on the sides of your car, it wont start flying. A plane is not just "a thing with wheels."

>wanting to use an OS based on decades-old code

You're just a luddite.

>on NT (1993)
They are basing all their OSes on OS/2.

Code doesn't go bad, you're just a retard

Mac OS is based on Mach and NeXT.

Linux isn't based on Unix, that was the point.

This doesn't have wheels?

It has wheels

>All cars are based on cars from a century ago. Where the fuck are the NEW cars?

We have electric cars now. And carburettors have long since been replaced by EFI inside ICE vehicles.

this is sort of like complaining that math still works

If we could use the technological know how of today, to design a new operating system to fill op's wants and needs, how different would it be?

The answer is SOLUS

We wouldn't constantly be paging and logging to hard disc so that server admins can keep track on the system on a PC with one user. I can say that much.

It would likely be built around something much more secure that privilege levels, which have a new elevation bug found almost every day.

Still using internal combustion engines and electric motors which are from the 19th century where are the new cars???

>There were electric cars before fueled cars, look it up son.

Yeah, because batteries and electric motors are sooooo new, right?

Not very different on a regular architecture. Although taking into account multicore processors, there could be a different approach. But the things is, computer science theory has not changed, so don't expect quantum leaps (see what I did there?).

Still using wooden doors from like 2000BC

Sup Forums really needs to make up their mind on the whole "old is good" or "old is bad" issue.

>you're using a 10 year old computer lol u poorfag get with the times luddite
>what's wrong with this 30 year old operating system it juts werks don't need to fix what ain't broken

...

...

>Va11 Hall A
Based as fuck.

>Where the fuck are the NEW operating systems?

OP just want's his own thread. It's been satisfied now.

Besides, you're just probably thinking of desktop environments. Do you even know or care what OSes actually do?

>based on commodore 64

:^D

>Homo sapiens (200000 years ago) is based on hominids (15 million years ago)
woah dude where the fuck is the NEW humanity?

so this...is the power of...really making me think...woah

If the government didn't outlaw engineering a new race of humans we would have done it by now.

BeOS/Haiku
AROS/AmigaOS/MorphOS
there are more

speech recognition system to login and to do elevated commands

it will be single user system that won't do anything if the voice is not of his owner

Microsoft tried to develop new OS called Singularity 10 years ago, but people were too happy with Vista so nobody wanted to switch.

>We are all still carbon based lifeforms here on earth, are we stagnant?

Where the fuck are the NEW lifeforms?

Fuschia is a fairly modern attempt at a new OS, it just got its source released this year and it boasts a new kernel + userspace

github.com/fuchsia-mirror/fuchsia

Good question fellow human.

>happy with Vista

I have trouble believing that.

I hope everyone mocking OP is still using hardware that's at least 15 years old, and on XP.

After all, why have new things?

Humankind is 3000 years old.
Does that make us obsolete?

what improvements and new paradigms are out there that you think warrant designing an entirely new platform from the ground up to accomplish? progress for the sake of progress isn't progress at all, it's pointless masturbation that ultimately gimps utility by reducing compatibility when it doesn't need to

all those operating systems and any "new" ones will be implementing the same ideas and algorithms originating in '60s mainframe platforms anyway

I'm using hardware with components based on components designed 40 years ago, yes.

new hardware generally brings something to the table, reinventing the wheel does not

>English language
>over 300 years old
Where's the innovation?!!
syt bha jenenuvuoiu hsun huecashentaiek ouno.

>Dogs
>Several million years old
WHAT GIVES MAN, EVOLUTION NEEDS TO UP ITS GAME ON DOG DEVELOPMENT

Except this is the thinking that's given us an industry where "computer" is basically just an Intel hardware running Microsoft software.

To say that's fine is to wish for stagnation. We might as well not even bother with anything if we're not going to bother with something new.

Or are you fine with Windows+x86 forever?

>what are breeds?

But isn't this reinventing the wheel by very nature?

>Buy Wheel 4.1
>Now with another spoke!

That is a fair point tho: cars look boring, requires driving skills (open to human error) and are dependant on limited fuel. I think we could build something better if we started from scratch
>The_Car_Built_for_Homer.png

Human+ is the future, embrace it

I fucking hate reading such opinion, no matter if these are your legit opinions or not.

It's always these little basement-cellar dwellers that have no balls and are mirin the guys banging the hot chicks by driving up to their door and impressing them.

>hurr durr driving is such a security nightmare!
>herpderfpdep human error dangerous !!!1

driving on public roads requires basically no skills at all. all you have to do is following the fucking rules which people might just do if we had real fucking enforcement.

/thread

OP you asked for something new but didn't say what would be different. Why do we need new OSs that current ones can't do?

U mad?
I have a drivers lisence, got a car from my parents and i fucking never drive, why would i?

Why don't we have dogs with fricking USB ports and lazer beams on their heads? Think, McFly, think!

>i fucking never drive, why would i?

>guys banging the hot chicks by driving up to their door

>Except this is the thinking that's given us an industry where "computer" is basically just an Intel hardware running Microsoft software.
so? why does Sup Forums jerk off so much to the idea of computing reverting back to the absolute clusterfuck of competing platforms with barely any software it was in the '80s? that wasn't "innovation", it was a bullshit practice that died for a reason, because being able to run something 2% faster doesn't matter for shit when there's nothing to run at all and your hardware is massively more expensive than it has to be

>We might as well not even bother with anything if we're not going to bother with something new.
???

>Or are you fine with Windows+x86 forever?
why would I not be satisfied with Windows and Linux if there are no problems they can't currently solve?

you're just trying to weasel your way into a consensus with this mindless appeal to novelty when you've given literally zero reasons other than "b-but it's new"

so I'll ask you again, what major problems do we need to solve that requires an entirely new platform designed from the ground up to solve them properly that isn't some idealistic bullshit?

Only the point in so far as it's a literal truth. Linux is Unix-like. There would be no Linux without UNIX.

Have you looked at Plan9? It has some interesting ideas.

Because it makes you subservient.

Every single time Microsoft bring out an OS it's worse than the one before, but who cares? You have to buy it anyway to have a working PC, so enjoy your worse product that there are no alternatives for.

Oh, and it turns out your current PC isn't good enough so remember to buy a new Intel® processor as well, and new hardware that conforms to Intel standards, and is Microsoft Certified™.

And then do the same thing in 5 years when Microsoft decide they want more money from you.

How powerless does that make you feel?

>that isn't some idealistic bullshit?

If you have to manipulate the argument then you have already lost. Don't even try to argue that, because the argument itself is not valid, says me.

Such as? Just asking, I don't know what benefits it has aside the pain when I ran it in a vm

Union dirs seem like a nice idea, as do per-user namespaces.

It has a slightly different idea of security accounts to unix, in which user and groups are the same primitive, and users can create sub-accounts of themselves..

That said, plan9 does take things a bit far for my taste in some ways - I don't care for the UI, for example.

jesus fuck you are retarded

>reinvent the wheel
well, when it comes to modern OSs they are still wooden.

I'll never get over how Sup Forums is so conservative about technology. You would have thought they'd love a shitshow of competing ideas all trying to be the best.

Sup Forums - Incredibly Specific Technology

but if its not broken don't fix it lol

So what do you suggest we make the wheel out of instead?

Not the person you're talking to but,

>What is MacOS
>What is Linux
>What is ARM x64
>What is AMD

Get with the times grandpa, it's not just Wintel anymore.

>Every single time Microsoft bring out an OS it's worse than the one before, but who cares? You have to buy it anyway to have a working PC, so enjoy your worse product that there are no alternatives for.
install GNU/Linux or BSD like everyone else, this will never change no matter how shiny the underlying code is

>Oh, and it turns out your current PC isn't good enough so remember to buy a new Intel® processor as well, and new hardware that conforms to Intel standards, and is Microsoft Certified™.
haha guys look at how smart and redpilled this guy is putting ™ and ® next to company names he so gets it!
why the fuck do you think a totally new OS would change this in any way?
and why then do you try to appeal to nostalgia when platform diversity encourages drastic levels of vendor lock-in that exasperate this problem even more?

>And then do the same thing in 5 years when Microsoft decide they want more money from you.
there are people here (myself included) that still use 10+ year old hardware without issue, it's not 1995 anymore

>How powerless does that make you feel?
it doesn't really because a computer is ultimately a tool for getting something done, not a lifestyle

>If you have to manipulate the argument then you have already lost.
how the fuck am I "manipulating the argument" by asking for a legitimate reason for your bullshit that isn't some retarded leftist ideological rant about "muh corporations"

get the fuck off the internet and go outside for a bit, jesus

In fact they're getting worse. They used to be a smooth circle, but are now covered in lumps and bumps. So we had to attach more horses to pull the cart.

Look at how a computer could do 99% of what current usages are on a tiny percentage of the hardware we have now.

>What is MacOS
x86
>What is Linux
A huge waste of time for everyone not running a server. Also x86.
>What is ARM x64
For mobile phones, not computers. And yes, I do know about Acorn, the company that died because they weren't compatible with Intel and Windows.
>What is AMD
Not even AMD knows that. Also X86.

> it's not just Wintel anymore.
Yes it is. Get out of your echo chambers and all offices and homes are still running on Windows with Intel processors.

/thread

plot twist: Sup Forums is one

>it's a proprietary bootlicker
if you can't take the heat you need to get the fuck out of the kitchen, you're seriously clueless.

don't (You) this retard anymore guys, he'll never get it

And no OSX either.

Gentoonium

>like everyone else

Linux hasn't even got 1% of share of the desktop.

>encourages drastic levels of vendor lock-in

Literally what you are defending.

>there are people here (myself included) that still use 10+ year old hardware without issue

Considering what the web is like these days, and even how hungry "low resource" distros are, I find that very hard to believe.

>it doesn't really because a computer is ultimately a tool for getting something done

That "something" which is decides by others. Want to do something other than code or shitpost. Then it's Windows and Intel. You can't say "I like the current Adobe OS, which runs on a chip designed by [whoever], plus it has a lot of good software, I'll go for that." It's Windows. So there you are making Microsoft richer and you didn't even have a choice.

>how the fuck am I "manipulating the argument" by asking for a legitimate reason for your bullshit that isn't some retarded leftist ideological rant about "muh corporations"

Sorry, I've already said your argument is invalid. Why did you even reply?

Is it because my stipulations are as worthless as yours? Yes. That was the point.

>LOOK AT ALL THIS CHOICE OF COLOR
>[Blue] [Blue] [Telephoe] [Blue]

And I'm the retarded one for pointing out that there's no choice at all.

>1%
Actually, Linux has 2% of the desktops.

Never change a running system.

Wow, that's a grown of 0.08% a year!

In 1,000 years it will have 80% of the desktop market!

Not with that attitude.

Besides, I wager that Windows 10 has inadvertently promoted Linux simply because of the le botnet and forced automatic updates.

Maybe not but there is an opportunity

>not broken don't fix it lol

they're all broken.

rubber

>Look at how a computer could do 99% of what current usages are on a tiny percentage of the hardware we have now.

yeah i know. everything should be faster now but instead things have become more bloated.

> it's not just Wintel anymore.

not really sure what you mean, but considering i need to install 20 intel drivers on a new install maybe i somehow do...


long story short, things need changed.

>U mad?
At you? No. At the general inability for people to follow rules? Yea.

Even Sir Clive complained about this at one point. He lamented that we're not further along as he hoped we would be in terms of what they were doing.

I know that Sinclair could be a little "why not a flying car?" at some points, but on the other hand, why not a flying car?

>There would be no Linux without UNIX.
That doesn't follow at all.

Troll detected. Go wank to traps

>why not a flying car?
I fucking hate this meme.

Airplanes nigga, since 1914. Helicopters since whenever helicopters.

You hate something you don't even understand.

When people say that, they mean literally a family saloon that flies, not an immensely expensive device most people could never hope of owning.

How would you give everyone a private runway?

>Linux hasn't even got 1% of share of the desktop.
who cares, that wasn't what I meant by "everyone else"

you want to get off microsoft's cock so bad? there's your out, stop believing Sup Forums memes

>Literally what you are defending.
the idea that a computer should be functional instead of a metaphorical fleshlight for hipsters and '90s kids who just want something cool and different

>Considering what the web is like these days, and even how hungry "low resource" distros are, I find that very hard to believe.
you really have no idea what the fuck you're talking about
just go into /tpg/ for fuck sake, there are tons of x200 users as an example, far more using whatever

hell I regularly shitpost here from win2k systems, shitty JS webapps are always going to be shit but they aren't the norm bikeshedders on Sup Forums think they are

>That "something" which is decides by others.
and I still don't understand why you think a shiny underlying code base in your OS that breaks compatibility with a lot of those "somethings" will change this in any way

>Want to do something other than code or shitpost. Then it's Windows and Intel.
>So there you are making Microsoft richer and you didn't even have a choice.
then pirate Windows or run pirated NT applications in Wine

if you want to deny microsoft and big proprietary vendors money so badly, there's your opportunity

>You can't say "I like the current Adobe OS, which runs on a chip designed by [whoever], plus it has a lot of good software, I'll go for that."
good grief, another pointless appeal to novelty

I also can't help but find it hilarious that you would whine about greedy microshit when you're basically implying you want to tri-boot just to be able to run photoshop, no vendor wants to maintain 40 ports of the same application to 40 different overpriced special snowflake platforms that all do the same shit using the same design paradigms

what the fuck are you even rambling about anymore?

Going back to single address space for the desktop would be a boon. It's already happening in the high performance server world.

The guarantees that a properly-managed MMU provide are just isolation between your process’s address space and the kernel’s address space: if your kernel or application is written in C and has an exploitable memory safety issue, the MMU won’t magically prevent exploitation. The type safety and memory safety of whatever code you end up running is always an issue and the best the MMU can do is limit the extent of the compromise. Indeed, unless the kernel (or hypervisor) is being exploited, a process under a traditional kernel running attacker-controlled code is as limited as a compromised single-address-space system in a hypervisor – except that kernels like Linux have a lot worse security record than hypervisors like Xen.

how about we avoid the fallacy of "it's new therefore it's good" or "it's old therefore it's bad" altogether and judge something based on its merits, usefulness, and general practicality?

Some old things are still good, some new things are actually bad

New for the sake of new is as bad as old for the sake of old