Spyke

Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.

View original on lemmy.world

33 replies

It powers servers, smartphones, a growing number of personal computers, and at least three gaming consoles (Deck, Machine, Legion Go S), with more coming.

3
lemmy.world

Windows was called obsolete (by me) years ago, and it's abandoned (by me) since mid 2024.

24

In 1987, Bill Gates predicted in an interview that in 3 years time, 80% of new office systems would be based on OS/2, an operating system from IBM.

The first release of Windows was in 1985, so that Computerworld interview was basically Bill Gates calling Windows obsolete.

1
piefed.zip

"was called obsolete" - by 1 person who happened to be the developer of a competing OS/kernel.

53
lemmy.zip

Tanenbaum also believed that the Intel x86 was on the way out, the very CPU that Linux was hard-coded to run on. On the other hand, Minix was ready to adopt the upcoming RISC tech, which Tanenbaum believed would drive the x86 into extinction.

A genuine Nostradamus, here.

9
jdrreply
lemmy.ml

And was Linus's teacher for Operating Systems in Helsinki

Write the book on Operating Systems that Torvalds said inspired him to make Linux.

18
piefed.zip

At university?

You mean docent I presume. Universities do not exactly have teachers.

Resident or visiting?

1
jdrreply

I think universities do have teachers, but that's beside the point.

Anyway I misremembered and it was just that Tanenbaum wrote the OS book that Torvalds had during undergrad.

7
sopuli.xyz

I mean, if it were for novelty and "cleverness" then it would be Plan-9 (or BeOS) the one who shoulda take over. At the end of the day both Linux.and Minix are both following the UNIX model which even at that time it already was "obsolete". But reality is often more pragmatic

20
lemmy.world

Honestly plan9 is neat but it suffers from being incredibly stringy and so does Linux / unix.

There's some new paradigms out there that probably need to be uncovered. Computers have way more processing capabilities then they did in the 90s

4

More processing power means new paradigms are less likely to be uncovered, I think. The deficiencies of current designs are obscured, and maybe moot, due to the raw power the processors. There isn’t any real pressure to improve kernel design.

All of the big current kernels (NT, Linux, XNU) are rooted in the i386 era. There’s certainly been a lot of changes in all of them but I don’t know if any have been completely re-architected.

Might have to wait for some kind of completely new processor before we see completely new kernels.

3
jdrreply

The point was microkernel vs monolith

6

It's a old design shoe horned to do modern things. That's fine but yeah.... Obviously something more modern would be nice.

1

And it captured our hearts along the way. I bet few of us knew it existed in '92.

6

How? Torvolds released the Linux kernel in 91, lol.

Oh, maybe because UNIXWare 1.0 (System V 4.2) came out in 1992, the first major release in years. :P 🖕

5
cy888reply
lemmy.world

Andy Tannembaum. Mi ix is microkernel. Linux is monolithic

2

I've been there with the MINIX debate back then. I've actually used MINIX on a job back then. Tannenbaum knows his stuff, but with that, he was completely off. I don't think that most people in the Linux scene nowadays have ever heard of him or his OS. So much for relevance.

1

Ah, OK, the Tannenbaum discussion. Yes, we had good laughs back then.

0

You reached the end