There are very good kernels written in Ada, like Ironclad[1].
Besides, what's the point of this comment? What if people wanted to write a million more Unix-like kernels in C? Do you think this is bad? Why do you care? If you want, just write your own in whatever language you want, with whatever design you want.
> Why not Plan 9 in Zig, or Hare, or even D?
Because nobody to this point was interested in doing this. It's really that simple.
I agree. the GP's comment has a flavour of "people shouldn't like the things I don't like".
"Make your own kernel" is a thing-in-itself, and "runs on <X> hardware/VM" + "provides <Y>-like API for programs" are tangible, concrete goals to aim for, even if you personally don't like the <Y> API or the architectural choices it implies.
To give an analogy: https://www.nand2tetris.org/ is an amazing learning experience, even though games other than Tetris should and do exist
Personally, I like the AROS project, aiming to provide an operating system that implements the AmigaOS APIs and runs on many architectures, but lots of users are interested in running it on 680x0 Amigas and spiritually-related PowerPC devices: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AROS_Research_Operating_System
It's OK for programmers to write a thing just for the learning experience. If it gains adoptees, that's a happy accident.
> There are very good kernels written in Ada, like Ironclad[1].
Interesting. Thanks.
> Besides, what's the point of this comment? What if people wanted to write a million more Unix-like kernels in C? Do you think this is bad? Why do you care?
Because it seems to me that modern OS design is caught in a deep deep rut, and the "OS in 1000 lines" article that we are discussing is digging that rut even deeper.
Don't repeat the mistakes of the past. Make interesting new mistakes. It's more fun.
Ubuntu is supposed to be the most intuitive or friendly distro (very arguable), but it's a shame how bad and bloated it is.
I have been using steam in arch-based distros for a very long time and I have had no issues at all running most Windows games (see https://protondb.com). As someone else mentioned, the only real issue might be anti-cheats in competitive games.
Basic/minimal designs are fine, but just by looking at the brand logo the buyer isn't really showing that he supports free open source projects, at least right now. Perhaps adding some tech-specific designs, as the other user suggested, would help associate your brand with that. I wish you the best.
Thanks for the feedback! The plan is to have the brand synonymous with supporting FOSS projects, which will hopefully come over time. We're also looking into different designs that can show this more clearly, but we still want to keep our design ethos of keeping it more minimal and avoiding the current tropes of "engineer clothing"
Advocando pro diabolō, I disagree. Since the width just expands to the size of my screen, and I have a rather wide screen, I found this design (or lack thereof) sufficiently obnoxious that I added a touch of custom CSS.
Setting a static max-width, increasing margins, and playing with the font made the page much more readable for me.
Altho idiomatic that is perhaps slightly confusing because K&R 2nd ed uses the modern way of specifying parameters. I would prefer to say "pre ANSI C" or something of that kind.
You would be rewriting history if we changed that now. It has been referred to K&R style C since the ANSI standard. The second edition of the C Programming Language was ANSI. My copy of the second edition has "based on the draft-proposed ANSI C" on the cover, but later ones just have "ANSI C". I think mine is almost identical to the ANSI version.
Every copy of K&R that uses ANSI has ANSI written somewhere on the cover. I've seen the first edition, and the content is pretty similar if not identical, save for the ANSI changes. But it is all in the K&R style.
Isn't this kind of ironic?
reply