
Unix turns 40: The past, present and future of a revolutionary OS - davidw
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9133570
======
asciilifeform
Why does no one question why we remain stuck with a 40-year-old state of the
art?

[http://www.eng.uwaterloo.ca/~ejones/writing/systemsresearch....](http://www.eng.uwaterloo.ca/~ejones/writing/systemsresearch.html)

~~~
sp332
We're not "stuck" with it. There have been hundreds if not thousands of OS's
written since then. Unix is still around because it's still useful. Just like
the Sistine Chapel is still around because it's still beautiful. Experts come
and clean it up and keep it nice :)

~~~
asciilifeform
> There have been hundreds if not thousands of OS's written since then

With a handful of exceptions, they were all Unix clones. Among the exceptions,
almost all have kept the worst limitations of the Unix family.

~~~
bad_user
_Among the exceptions, almost all have kept the worst limitations of the Unix
family._

Is there some analysis on this issue available? What limitations have been
kept?

The only operating system that was supposed to be an improvement over Unix
(that I know about) is Plan 9, but over time many ideas from Plan 9 have been
ported to Unix. Unix today is not what it was 40 years ago ... the only legacy
that's truly staying is the philosophy, which for better or worse, it works.

Of course, Unix could be better. But let's be serious, what do you suppose we
should do? Reinvent everything every 5 years?

~~~
asciilifeform
> What limitations have been kept?

For example: multiple address spaces.

The disk/RAM dichotomy is an atrocity, along with everything it entails (i.e.
files.) There is no reason for the machine to expose multiple address spaces.
The act of program installation and loading into memory, for example, should
be one and the same. Think "Palm Pilot." RAM is in practice simply a cache of
disk, and for some reason we are stuck "driving stick" and moving things into
and out of it by hand. Why can't we treat it the same as L0/L1 cache?

> what do you suppose we should do?

How about this:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_(computer_science)>

and, while we're at it, this:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genera_(operating_system)>

And, in general, (not) these:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/6gpwh/ask_reddi...](http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/6gpwh/ask_reddit_what_atrocities_in_the_software_world/c03so2j)

------
bayareaguy
Here is a better link to the article:

[http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=print...](http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=printArticleBasic&taxonomyName=Operating+Systems&articleId=9133570&taxonomyId=89)

