Are we stagnant?

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.

>>57801851
>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.

>>57802021
>If the foundations are solid

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

>>57802034
not true.

>>57802033
Reinventing the wheel is senseless.

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

>>57802034
airplanes have wheels.

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

>>57802068
>>57802059

>>57801851
>le "its old therefore its outdated and useless" meme

Viper kill yourself my man

>>57802083
>>57802068
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."

>>57802093
>wanting to use an OS based on decades-old code

You're just a luddite.

>>57801851
>on NT (1993)
They are basing all their OSes on OS/2.

>>57802127
Code doesn't go bad, you're just a retard

>>57801851
Mac OS is based on Mach and NeXT.

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

File: 1100320953266351717.jpg (77KB, 800x362px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 800x362px

>>57802068
This doesn't have wheels?

>>57802162
It has wheels

File: m.jpg (11KB, 251x242px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 251x242px

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

>>57802216
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 And carburettors have long since been replaced by EFI inside ICE vehicles.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

File: 1332309112434.gif (4KB, 401x433px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 401x433px

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

>>57802263
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.

>>57802248
Still using internal combustion engines and electric motors which are from the 19th century where are the new cars???

>>57802248
>There were electric cars before fueled cars, look it up son.

>>57802248
Yeah, because batteries and electric motors are sooooo new, right? </sarcasm>

>>57802263
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?).

>>57802321
Still using wooden doors from like 2000BC

/g/ 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

File: J-3-Piper-Cub-over-water.jpg (25KB, 400x220px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 400x220px

>>57802195

File: 24_09_2009_19_29_03_fsi_aircraft_1_large.jpg (138KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 640x480px

>>57802396

>>57801851
>Va11 Hall A
Based as fuck.

File: Xayqs3IS.jpg (321KB, 1971x1971px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 1971x1971px

>>57801851
>Where the fuck are the NEW operating systems?

>>57802263
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?

>>57802430
>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?

>>57802468
so this...is the power of...really making me think...woah

>>57802468
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

>>57802263
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.

>>57801851
>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

https://github.com/fuchsia-mirror/fuchsia

File: cnbc.png (945KB, 1197x644px) Image search: [Google]

945KB, 1197x644px

>>57803568
Good question fellow human.

>>57803508
>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?

>>57801851
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

>>57803740
I'm using hardware with components based on components designed 40 years ago, yes.

>>57803740
new hardware generally brings something to the table, reinventing the wheel does not

>>57801851
>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

>>57803787
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?

>>57803832
>what are breeds?

>>57803799
But isn't this reinventing the wheel by very nature?

>Buy Wheel 4.1
>Now with another spoke!

>>57802216
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

>>57802468
Human+ is the future, embrace it

>>57803908
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

>>57803908
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.

>>57802068
/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?

>>57803942
>>57803953
U mad?
I have a drivers lisence, got a car from my parents and i fucking never drive, why would i?

>>57803852
Why don't we have dogs with fricking USB ports and lazer beams on their heads? Think, McFly, think!

>>57804028
>>57804028
>i fucking never drive, why would i?

>>57803942
>guys banging the hot chicks by driving up to their door

>>57803837
>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 /g/ 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?

>>57802153
Only the point in so far as it's a literal truth. Linux is Unix-like. There would be no Linux without UNIX.

>>57801851
Have you looked at Plan9? It has some interesting ideas.

>>57804049
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.

>>57804108
Such as? Just asking, I don't know what benefits it has aside the pain when I ran it in a vm

>>57804136

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.

>>57801851
jesus fuck you are retarded

File: vlcsnap-2016-12-02-10h24m57s517.png (170KB, 640x386px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 640x386px

>>57802021
>reinvent the wheel
well, when it comes to modern OSs they are still wooden.

>>57804049
I'll never get over how /g/ is so conservative about technology. You would have thought they'd love a shitshow of competing ideas all trying to be the best.

/g/ - Incredibly Specific Technology

>>57804191
but if its not broken don't fix it lol

>>57804191

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

>>57804135
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.

>>57804135
>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

>>57804191
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.

>>57802357
/thread

>>57802357
plot twist: /g/ is one

>>57804310
>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

>>57804075
And no OSX either.

>>57804238
Gentoonium

>>57804308
>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.

>>57804344
>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.

>>57804401
>1%
Actually, Linux has 2% of the desktops.

>>57801851
Never change a running system.

>>57804452
Wow, that's a grown of 0.08% a year!

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

>>57804478
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

File: the same ass shit.png (206KB, 640x386px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 640x386px

>>57804225
>not broken don't fix it lol

they're all broken.

>>57804238
rubber

>>57804310
>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.

>>57804028
>U mad?
At you? No. At the general inability for people to follow rules? Yea.

>>57804526
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?

>>57804075
>There would be no Linux without UNIX.
That doesn't follow at all.

>>57804075
>>57804592
Troll detected. Go wank to traps

>>57804590
>why not a flying car?
I fucking hate this meme.

Airplanes nigga, since 1914. Helicopters since whenever helicopters.

>>57804607
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?

>>57804401
>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 /v/ 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 /g/ 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

>>57804430
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.

>>57804206
>>57802357

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

>>57804526

Yes we should make computers better. Then we should end world hunger, dismantle all the nukes, make an engine that runs on farts and happy thoughts, and use it to establish a colony on Kepler-452b.

Sarcasm aside, computers being largely unchanged for decades isn't because the engineers running the show are stupid. The idea that computers should be better than they are isn't a radical and unpopular idea, it's just that this stuff is hard. If you have any actual ideas about what we can do to improve computers than publish a paper about it.

>>57803451
Get sick with sore throat and can't use your pc great ideas

>>57804401
>Considering what the web is like these days, and even how hungry "low resource" distros are, I find that very hard to believe.

My main machine is 10 years old (Mac Pro 1,1) running El Capitan on 8x3GHz cores with 32GB RAM and a 3GB 7990- it handles everything I ever do on it (to include 3D modeling for games) with aplomb. I bought it in 2006. I assure you, it's quite possible to use 10 year old hardware for modern tasks with zero issues.

>>57804690
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_address_space_operating_system

>>57804709
Very this

>>57803863
No, it's innovating, not re-inventing. Innovation is improving upon a design, while inventing is coming up with a new design and throwing away the old one completely.

>>57802263
It would be running entirely in a java virtual machine

One thing I'm pretty shocked about is the maximum length of the path of a unix domain socket is 108. I mean, wtf? How hard would it be to make a new syscall that can take arbitrary length paths on them.

>>57804709
The issue is that to actually Make Computers Great Again means acting counter to the wishes of those who have the ability to make it happen.

A routine upgrade cycle every 5-10 years works out great for MS and Intel, so that's what will happen. We'll keep getting bloat on bloat because then you need to keep upgrading.

Even Linux is getting like this with how resource hungry the actively developed DEs are. God know why, when they don't benefit financially from it. And you can't blame these developers, not really, they're just playing by the rules.

The rules, it just so happens, that benefit the ones making them.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, everyone in the world instantly decides they want very light and quick computers, and also use barely any power. Or to put it another way, they begin buying computers the way they do household appliances, where energy efficiency is a major concern.

Would they all leap to some sort of ARM device running RISC-OS? I don't think so.

>>57804636
>You hate something you don't even understand.
Because it already exists. Explain how a flying family car is different from a 172. Why would flying cars somehow be more affordable than the aircraft we already have when they'd require the same engineering and manufacturing effort?? Not to mention the taxes/fees that would be involved to get ATC to handle all the extra traffic.
>How would you give everyone a private runway?
Helipad? Don't act like you aren't poking holes in your flying car fantasyland here.

>>57804910
Linux is pretty comfy without a resource heavy DE on even just 1GB of RAM desu

...it's the fucking INTERNET that's the problem.

Without Linux, UNIX would have been completely bankrupt already.

>>57805092
Most likely, I think freebsd would just be used instead.

>>57801851
Why do we still use electricity. Deprecate that piece of shit. Optics is where it's at.

>>57805074
>...it's the fucking INTERNET that's the problem.

This. I had a Raspberry Pi 1 with just 256MB of usable memory and processor that's about 400MHz in real-world speed set up as a "desktop" for a time. It was basically Openbox with XFCE's panel, and it didn't even break a sweat for normal tasks (AbiWord and GNUmeric were perfect for what I needed them to be, and were fine to use), I could even play some pretty high res video. Without the web it could be a pretty cool computer if you wanted to make sure your kids were working and not playing games or browsing porn.

Then I open up Firefox and it totally shat the bed. Dillo operated perfectly, but sadly Dillo has been left behind by the modern web.

>>57801851
>Cheerios is still basing it's cereal shape off it's (1941) shape.

Where the fuck are the new shapes?

>>57805907
Nobody wants to eat a box of cheericubes.

>>57805520
You can't entirely blame the internet on it, the Pi 1 was a ridiculously pathetic piece of hot garbage that couldn't even take on 1995-era shit in some benchmarks.

>>57806428
My point was that lots of other things worked that you wouldn't think would. That the only thing that really kicked its ass was the web.

>>57806603
Sure, I'll give you that. Office stuff isn't terribly computationally expensive though, but video can be. I'd imagine the Pi 1 had some hardware assistance for that, though, unlike with web browsing where I'd probably want to kill myself if I ventured off the textual web.

bring webos back
there's an offshoot of it called luneos slowly making progress

>>57807875
mah nigga

webos masterrace

Linux based Smartphone OS without Javabloatbullshit

>>57801851
>hardware is still using electricity

Like, cmon, it's 2016 haha stop building on 20th century inventions

File: 1462414526419.png (43KB, 791x526px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 791x526px

>tfw no need to upgrade for the rest of the decade

File: dark-abstract-space-wallpaper-3.jpg (389KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 1920x1200px

>>57801851
There's no real push for new operating systems or kernels built from scratch because

1) Too expensive. It would take a fuckton of R&D and a lot of time to build anything that has a snowball's chance in hell of even competing with fucking OpenBSD.

2) Lack of public interest. Face it, we're hobbyists. Normies only care about new features which are just new icing on the stale cake. Normies don't care that they can't have root or that they can't customize. They're too busy watching other humans fuck each other and posting pictures of the shit they bought with their maxed out credit cards.

3) Lack of compatibility. If you make a new OS, you'd have to port all most used apps and features from other operating systems like Windows, OS X, and GNU/Linux. Or build a massively complex compatibility layer that would probably be harder and more expensive to make than the whole OS. Then you have a constant, upward struggle with drivers. Then some neckbeards will port that shit to PPC and ARM and god knows what that you'll have to support too in some ways, or at least be careful not to make future releases incompatible with those architectures.

So that's why nobody is jumping out of their chairs and lining up to reinvent the wheel. It would fucking suck.

>>57802034
What does this even mean? If it's about security, any new OS made will also have this problem. All software is just as imperfect as its human creator(s). It's unavoidable. All you can do is patch and patch. It never ends.

>>57802069
Why do Indians shit in the streets when they have toilets?

>>57801851

'based on' doesn't imply there's no improvements.

>>57803616
This. Expect from my cursory glance it doesn't look POSIX compliant.

>>57801851
>what is TempleOS (2013)

File: 1459876719521.jpg (50KB, 625x353px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 625x353px

>>57808434
>POSIX compliant.
POSIX is a meme.

UNIX was always shit, but it was the majority marketshare back in the day, thus if your shit was compatible with UNIX, that made it more functional.

Trying to be UNIX compatible in 2016 when desktop/servers/phones are 99% Windows/Linux is retarded.

Well, Google's developing that new Fuschia thing.

Reminder that fellow /lonely/ /g/entoomen are free to join our little botnet club

https://discord.gg/B26NNqb

:33

yes if something is based on something else, it is impossible for it to change no matter how much time has passed and it must be exactly the same as the moment it was released.
windows 10 is exactly the same as nt. linux 4+ is exactly the same as version 1 of unix.
we must keep changing things for the sake of changing things... and throw out 99% of our software every year.

this is why you aren't in the position to make these kinds of decisions since you are too busy jerking it over maymay pixel art.

>>57808434
POSIX hasn''t mattered in literally 20 fucking years

>>57806856
but do you really need 4k res video on an older computer? usually they have low resolution screens like 1024x768 so that high resolution video would just waste resources.

>>57802216
the oldest platform is the econoline and the model suspension isnt anything modern at least they could have use hydro-pneumatic.

>>57809451
what the fuck is your stupid ass saying?

>>57802021
NT isn't solid at all anymore. The codebase is so bloated.

APPEAL TO NOVELTY

>>57801851
Weren't macintosh's operating system completely new before Mac OS X? Weren't they complete shit?

>>57811328
>The codebase is so bloated.
Yet no one besides microsoft has access to the code

>>57802012
There's literally no benefit to having a diverse assortment of desktop CPU architectures, and lots of demerits. It's not like a magical new upgraded version of x86 is going to do shit for performance, either.

>x86 is based on Datapoint 2200 (1970)
>arm is based on a much newer well thought out architecture (1985)
It's clear what must happen OP

>>57811968
http://slashdot.org/story/295025