Why does no one go about developing a full-featured UNIX OS?

>>58640376
>2016
>using deprecated UNIX

plan9 exists

>>58640376
What applications?

>>58640431
UNIX doesn't HAVE to be deprecated...

Someone just needs to bring it up to standards. Linux is basically UNIX, but with Communism and some other stupid crap.

Why can't we just go and take REGULAR UNIX and do the same thing, but without the Communism?

Make something that you see in stores... something that comes out as like 5 years in, 20% market share.

One OS that brings it all together the way it was supposed to be!

>>58640376
>Why
No one knows what you are talking about, and neither do you. Unix is dead, if the difference was that significant Linux wouldn't of killed it. If it really means a difference to you, which it doesn't because you obviously just read shit on Wikipedia.

>>58640376
Who the hell would buy it? The people who want a unix-like OS can get Linux (or FreeBSD, if they share your affinity for the cuck license) for free. Most of the applications they care about are free software, that they can compile and use anywhere. Why would they need your OS? Just because you spent a lot of dosh to get the good-boy single-Unix standard stamp?

>>58640469
Well, there'd need to be, mostly, alternative fully-featured Office Software and fully-featured Studio Software

I see no reason UNIX couldn't become fucking huge if they just built a GOOD (not subpar, like many existing alternatives) Word, Spreadsheet, and Slideshow software, as well as Photo Editing and Vector Graphics.

Get those 5 in, and you pretty much have what about 80% of the market NEEDS, and most of what about 50-60% of what they WANT.

From there, though, it's simple. People will start using it, and more and more of the other apps will be developed and/or ported.

The only things that most existing UNIX systems lack are:
>Complete Office Software
>Normal Studio Software
>A company that can sell it

That's really it!

File: 1.jpg (62KB, 584x560px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 584x560px

>There's Mac, which IS full-featured and "unix", but not 'UNIX'

spiderman thread

File: likeaboss.jpg (60KB, 500x368px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 500x368px

>>58640560

>>58640538
>>Get those 5 in, and you pretty much have what about 80% of the market NEEDS, and most of what about 50-60% of what they WANT.
We have LibreOffice, and its free. Not just as in speech but also as in beer. And it's at least that good. It still doesn't make much of a dent in the MS Office market because the businesses and institutions buying MS Office do so not because it's so great, but because it's what others use and what they've always used, so they go with the devil you know.

Your proposed applications suite would combine the disadvantages of LibreOffice (that is, it's not MS Office, and probably won't be 110% bug-for-bug compatible with it) with the disadvantages of MS Office (costs money, sounds like you want it to be closed-source)

There's no upside. Like that other anon said, if there was a market for what you want, it'd exist. The fact that the commercial Unix market has done nothing but decline into insignificance for 20 years should tell you something

File: thread.jpg (60KB, 544x400px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 544x400px

>>58640598

>>58640512
The difference is mostly the license.

If Linux wasn't GPL, I'd definitely want that. Linux is basically UNIX v 1.5, but minus a better license.*

>>58640537
This also brings up the license, but you're looking at it wrong*

*The licensing is important. It's what allows for Quality Control.

TBPH, I'm not even saying it has to be BSD licensed. I want something that follows standards, is complete, has the extra software with it that is needed, and has High Quality/Quality Control, as opposed to a bunch of people just kinda doing whatever.

Windows HAD Xenix, but they dropped it, when that's what they shoulda went with after XP.
They shoulda switched to the Xenix Kernel instead of NT.

Microsoft HAD the ability to provide a fully-serviced, fully standards-compliant system, but they didn't.

Windows Vista+ could've EASILY been built on a UNIX kernel.

>if they share your affinity for the cuck license
As such, I don't care about the BSD license. But I have a problem with GPL.

To go in the right direction, Computing needs to be Universal, Standards-Compliant, and Fully-Featured

>>58640620
Part of the issue, however, is that if they created the Suites to be cross-platform, they could EASILY drag users from MS Office.

>>58640678
>The difference is mostly the license.
>If Linux wasn't GPL, I'd definitely want that
Well I think you're an idiot, because the GPL is a Good Thing for software and the world. But if you don't like the GPL, there's FreeBSD. Go use that.

>I want something that follows standards, is complete, has the extra software with it that is needed, and has High Quality/Quality Control, as opposed to a bunch of people just kinda doing whatever.
Well they have that. And almost nobody bothers with it, because there isn't a point.

It sounds like you're saying that you just care about it being backed by a big company. But even the big companies in the modern Unix world don't control the ecosystem or dictate terms. Canonical pushed Upstart really hard. It didn't get much traction with anybody else, and then systemd came along and supplanted it. The whole modern world of Unix is people - individuals, projects, and companies alike - just kinda doing whatever. Each person, company, or project implements the things that they want. It what they build is useful, other people use it and it spreads. If it's not, it doesn't. This is both the very antithesis of a standards body, and the reason why the ecosystem is healthy. You really think some Standards Committee somewhere knows better than you what your DE should look like?

>Part of the issue, however, is that if they created the Suites to be cross-platform, they could EASILY drag users from MS Office.
LibreOffice, GIMP, etc are gross platform. Win, Lin, Mac, BSD, whatever. What you want in that department exists today. Right now. Go use it.

If you're hung up about the GPL again, well, there's still OpenOffice. And its entire dev team left to go work on the copyleft fork, which is now both better and more widely used, while OO is essentially completely dead. There might be a lesson for you in that story, that devs doing whatever gets more done than a company with a Standards Specification.

>>58640376
OS X is UNIX.

>>58640376
It's called FreeBSD.

>>58640892
TrueOS is a nice version.

File: 1458673530451.jpg (31KB, 372x527px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 372x527px

>>58640471
Communism is good.

>>58640376
There are a bunch, nobody uses them.

OP, look up Fuchsia. It's a new operating system Google is creating.

>>58640788
>GIMP
Well, this one in particular is completely trash. It in no way matches Photoshop or Illustrator, and it's slower and more clunky than even MS Paint.

Point is, if there was something that was actually comparable, it'd work.

>LibreOffice
>OpenOffice
True, these are/were actually pretty good, and I know of a FEW companies that use them.

>It sounds like you're saying that you just care about it being backed by a big company.
Indirectly, I suppose that IS correct, though not in spirit. I'm concerned with some organization overseeing it so that it has everything it needs, and you DON'T have to rely on a fuckton of third parties. Special-built browser for the system, in case you want it, custom utilities to try to beat competitors in making the system run better, actual Anti-Virus Software that is backed by the developers and always kept up-to-date.

Does it have to be a "Big Company" that backs it? No, not really, but it should come with a nice guarantee and have some sense of comfort that a bug will be patched, you know, within like a day or so and drivers come out promptly, not "<6 Months Later> HEY! Here's the new driver! And just in time! The NEW version of the hardware is almost gonna come out! So, we'll get to that right before it's deprecated!"

>>58640804
Yes, but it's still extremely incompatible with a bunch of hardware, which that and Cocoa are pretty much the main reasons I don't want it.
DESU, if it could run a different DE and install it on a FrankenBox made from like 15 different companies' hardware (some of which is a bit obscure/unusual), I'd actually consider buying it. But... then again, Apple are slave-drivers... so maybe not.

It's "unix", in that it has the main UNIX features, but it's not 'UNIX', in that it's built for everything.

Remember, Apple is a Hardware company, not actually a Software company. If they realized their hardware is shit and stopped pushing it, Mac could EASILY become VERY popular.

For some reason you didn't even mentioned the BSDs or OpenSolaris.
The BSDs (I suggest OpenBSD, but NetBSD might also work for you) are free and are as close to UNIX as it gets in this modern world.
I personally don't like FreeBSD though.

File: Fag_6b8dd2_69562.png (108KB, 600x610px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 600x610px

>>58640376
> commercial UNIX OS for home use

Nope, there's money in that.

If there was a business there, then RedHat would be doing it.

But RedHat knows that the only feasible business is providing service and support for enterprises. Hence the "E" in name "RHEL". They're not going to make any money selling Linux to home users for $20 a pop, or whatever people are willing to pay for something they can download for free anyway. (Pic related.) Home users simply don't value service and support like enterprises do.

a minimal kernel project by C would be good, like an exokernel

>>58641039
>tfw Steve wanted to put Mac OS X on Sony VAIOs and it never happened

>>58640376

>no one

Because it's not up to anyone moron, it's up to the people who own the UNIX trademark.

>>58640376
Nobody fucking cares who isn't already using a nix-like OS.

>>58640598
>like a boss
>spideman meems

Dated, The picture

>>58640944
TrueOS is realy nice but it's just FreeBSD + drm-next-4.7 and openrc.
FreeBSD with drm-next a little better.

>>58641132
Well anyone can make a UNIX OS as long as they make it compliant to the standard and pay the fee (iirc it's $15k per architecture). IBM, HPE, Apple, Fujitsu, and more have all done so

>>58640892
>>58640944
>>58641041
Yeah, I kinda plan to get either FreeBSD or TrueOS as my main after college.

BTW, how is TrueOS with drivers and stuff?
Same as FreeBSD?
Because I like the design of TrueOS more.

>>58640964
Heheheh.... no.

>>58641015
Seems interesting. I'll keep an eye on that. Any info on when it's supposed to come out?

>>58641063
>They're not going to make any money selling Linux to home users for $20 a pop
They could, IF:
>they can download for free anyway.
was not the case.
My view on licensing is as follows:
>Drivers
Free, most likely Open-Source
>Kernel
MAYBE free, MAYBE Open-Source
>Shell
Same as Kernel
>Required UNIX services (cat, man, ls, etc.)
Probably free, but probably NOT Open-Source
>WM
Compatible with other WMs, but probably packaged with the upper layers of the OS and likely not free, and almost definitely not Open-Source
>DE
Closed-Source/Proprietary Paid
>Several BASE programs that run on the OS, such as a built-in AV program, a Lite version of Office and Studio Software, a defragger, stuff like that. GUI overlays to UNIX services
Closed-Source/Proprietary Paid, AND built into the OS package

In other words, the lower levels of the system are what keep everything working together, so a program built for ABC OS will still run on DEF OS and XYZ OS. But, the stuff that's built for the SPECIFIC instance f the OS is what differentiates it in the Market.
>We all use the same drivers
>Most of us have 1 of about 4 kernels
>Several of us share 1 of 10 CLI Shells that all work the same, but some are faster, some offer a few pre-defined features, etc., etc.
>There are about 4 main WMs that are used. Some of our systems support others better, such as for games vs speed, setting us apart
>But what really grabs OUR customers is what we added ON TOP of all that!
>>We have excellent integrated AV with a basically flawless web browser that's all ours!
>>Our system supports many Liter versions of software you already use, so if you don't need the advanced features, our built-ins will do the trick!
>>We have a specialized DE that will support so many user preferences, but it takes a bit longer to get used to.
>>Our DE is simple, sleek, and fast. It may not have all the bells and whistles, but it's PERFECT for your Small Business or Power Users!

That kinda thing

>>58641039
>I'm concerned with some organization overseeing it
>DON'T have to rely on a fuckton of third parties. >Special-built browser for the system
>custom utilities to try to beat competitors
>Anti-Virus Software that is backed by the developers

You can't afford to do that by selling boxed copies to normies. The only way to get it done for less than a gorillion dollars is to dispense with the everything-under-one-roof organization and let the devs just do whatever, which you don't want.

Remember that normies don't give half a rat's ass about Unix. They neither know nor care what's under the hood of their computer. They may well not even know what an operating system is. If they know anything at all they know that Windows comes free with their machine and your OS doesn't, and who are you anyway?

You also can't afford to do that by selling to enterprises. The ones who are okay with single-vendor lock-in are already locked in. Mostly to Microsoft, but also to places like Oracle. The rest wouldn't pick your OS over Linux, because why would they?

>Does it have to be a "Big Company" that backs it? No, not really, but it should come with a nice guarantee and have some sense of comfort that a bug will be patched, you know, within like a day or so
Kek. Ask anyone in IT and they'll tell you stories about how a big vendor that they have a million-dollar support contract with doesn't bother fixing bugs or even acknowledging reports of them.

> if it could run a different DE and install it on a FrankenBox made from like 15 different companies' hardware (some of which is a bit obscure/unusual), I'd actually consider buying it.
So much for all that shit about wanting everything supplied by one organization for that warm fuzzy safe feeling, huh? Because that's exactly why Apple controls things so tightly. Apple is the closest thing to the single-vendor control you want.

>>58641262
If it's free then it's also open source.

>>58641242
See >>58641174
It's just FreeBSD 12 (-Current or head branch for developer and prealpha tester) + drm-next-4.7 + OpenRC.
You can get same with FreeBSD.

>>58641262
So if Microsoft made its proprietary OS such a clusterfuck, why would your organization's proprietary OS turn out as not a clusterfuck?

>>58640376
Because Unix tends to be a pain in the ass. I know, I have to manage a bunch of Solaris machines.

>>58640804
OS X is UNIX, but it isn't Unix.

File: 1459301946459.png (1MB, 1300x4704px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1300x4704px

>>58641262
Of course, this is in STARK contrast with the current situation:
Windows:
>Our system has a little bit of everything, but all of it will fuck you in the ass, REALLY hard if you try to do something we didn't plan!
Mac:
>We are BASICALLY what we should be, but we only LOOSELY follow the standards, creating a DE that is NOT compatible, and we DAMN SURE ain't gonna let you use whatever hardware you want! We make 90% of our money on hardware!
Linux:
>We have no specified team for any specific thing, but sometimes things get done, and when they do, it's USUALLY good, but you KNOW you ain't getting the whole shabang, no matter how much you're willing to pay!
FreeBSD/other BSDs:
>We're basically Linux, but MORE niche. Good amount faster, though, but you can guarantee it'll take at least somewhat longer for all our support to come out! On the other hand, we DO support the developers, which IS important!

And the biggest part of all of it:
>ALMOST NONE OF OUR SHIT IS COMPATIBLE WITHOUT EMULATORS! YEEEEYYYY!

>>58641359
No, that's not always the case.
Look at the hacks one needs to install on Windows to make it bearable:
Classic Shell
7+TTweaker
Freeware - Wiki it. It's proprietary that costs no money, unless you wanna donate.
Donations may get you features sooner, tho, by getting you access to BETA features and stuff.

>>58641465
That's pretty good. I think I'll try that when I get a new machine, then.
I like the look of Lumina a lot.

>>58641472
Because Microsoft doesn't give a rat's ass about quality. You shoulda seen some of the threads here by people who WORKED AT Microsoft.

They're FAR more interested in New Features than fixing old ones up. One guy said he got reprimanded for refactoring code.

Why in the fuck would I do that? You'd have to be idiotic.

>>58640964
wait is this a real picture?

>>58641547
>NONE OF OUR SHIT IS COMPATIBLE WITHOUT EMULATORS
If you think software will run across all OS as long as it's UNIX, you have no idea what UNIX is.

>>58640376
There is literally no point. The UNIX certification is something you need to pay a lot of money for, and it's just a dumb rubber stamp. Aside from OSX every other UNIX is comically behind BSD and Linux in terms of user environment and functionality. It isn't even close. So the badge is meaningless. And OSX? Mostly based on BSD, IIR.
tl;dr You're looking for BSD.

>>58641539
It is a BSD descendant, and BSDs are debatably Unix.

>>58641348
>Remember that normies don't give half a rat's ass about Unix. They neither know nor care what's under the hood of their computer. They may well not even know what an operating system is. If they know anything at all they know that Windows comes free with their machine and your OS doesn't, and who are you anyway?
You have a fair point here, but that's why you need to make things like the install free and probably sell some systems yourself with your own system. It's just the raw OS might only cost, you know, $20-50 or something.

>Apple is the closest thing to the single-vendor control you want.
I never said single-vendor control. I said the OS is managed properly by an organization that is committed to Standards.

Apple isn't committed to the most important front-end UNIX standard of Compatibility.

>Kek. Ask anyone in IT and they'll tell you stories about how a big vendor that they have a million-dollar support contract with doesn't bother fixing bugs or even acknowledging reports of them.
That is a problem...

Maybe you're right. Maybe it's just that current companies don't give a shit...

It's really sad...
But why is no one else trying to fix that?

>>58640512
Wikipedia is a great source. I wouldnt found a company on an open source mark up sheet but I dont discount the source.

>>58641547
>a DE that is NOT compatible
Normies use whatever fucking GUI you give them. They don't give a shit.
Everyone else has their own very specific ideas on what does or does not make for a good interface.
These two things together mean that you will never have a "universal" desktop environment. Try to make one and you'll attract some users... and a lot of other ones will stay where they are because they don't like your DE at all. Remember that xkcd strip about 14 competing standards?

>ALMOST NONE OF OUR SHIT IS COMPATIBLE WITHOUT EMULATORS!
Well one this is only a problem with proprietary software. So why you'd want to try and solve it by writing a proprietary OS, I'm not sure, that doesn't make much sense at all to me.

Of course with free (in the Stallman sense) software, things most certainly are cross-platform. On Unix, you can just recompile. For other OSes, devs doing whatever means that if one of them thinks a Windows port or whatever is a good idea, it can happen. There isn't an organizational management that has to be convinced of why its a good idea.

>Freeware
you gonna get interjected for a moment.

>Because Microsoft doesn't give a rat's ass about quality.
Well yeah, quality doesn't make them as much money as lock-in does. Why would your company be any different? Developers are expensive, you have every financial incentive to use as few of them as possible to maintain your revenue streams. Every company that makes money selling proprietary software has that incentive.

File: 1205p.png (136KB, 1029x866px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1029x866px

>>58640376
>There's Mac, which IS full-featured and "unix", but not 'UNIX'. It fails to be compatible like real UNIX should be.
oh, I see, so you're an idiot

>>58641736
Yeah OP got it backwards, see >>58641539

>>58640376
>Why does no one go about developing a full-featured UNIX OS?
We do have macOS

>>58641608
>It's just the raw OS might only cost, you know, $20-50 or something.
Linux is free as in beer. It supports most common hardware today. Even pretty non-technical people can install it these days, if they care to. It's very simple. The only reason it doesn't happen more often is that most of them don't care to.

If they won't bother when it's free, why would they bother when it's $20-$50?

>I never said single-vendor control. I said the OS is managed properly by an organization that is committed to Standards.
There was an effort to do this in the Linux world, it was called Linux Standard Base. And it flopped.
>The goal of the LSB is to develop and promote a set of open standards that will increase compatibility among Linux distributions and enable software applications to run on any compliant system even in binary form.
>While the LSB is a standard and without a competitor, it is followed only by few Linux distributions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Standard_Base

>Apple isn't committed to the most important front-end UNIX standard of Compatibility.
Every proprietary-software company has an incentive to behave that way. Why make your product compatible with your competitors, ask the MBAs. That just hurts you and helps them, either directly or by making you spend extra time working on implementing things in a compatible way.

>But why is no one else trying to fix that?
Well Microsoft and Apple and company don't give a shit because they'd make less money that way, see above. The people who do give a shit are working on Linux, the BSDs, and other free-as-in-speech software. Because that's where they're free to appeal to technical excellence and practicality in making their decisions about what to build and how to build it, instead of having to kowtow to the Accounting and Marketing departments.

>Unix is dead

This is what skiddies actually believe.

>>58641063
did you make that for this post

>>58641663
>So why you'd want to try and solve it by writing a proprietary OS, I'm not sure, that doesn't make much sense at all to me.
If everyone followed a standard for System Calls, though, like all the Standard UNIX Interfaces, it wouldn't be an issue.

Basically, full POSIX compliance across all systems and all the other Interfaces necessary would create a situation where MOST, /if not all (excluding some very specific)/, software would run on most, /if not all/, systems.

>Why would your company be any different?
>Developers are expensive, you have every financial incentive to use as few of them as possible to maintain your revenue streams.
Because money is only an Exchange Medium. The purpose of building something big is to change things. Yeah, it's certainly nice to make a profit off of it, and by no means should that be excluded, but the purpose of money is to be spent.

By Utility, if you can stockpile $1M or hire 10 more professional programmers, it'd make sense to hire 10 more programmers. Or, to be fair, maybe 8 on some occasions.
But, what do you get with just storing extra money, when you can instead be spending it to improve at least one aspect of whatever it is you're developing?

>>58641759
>>58641736
Ok, this was a mistake on my part.
UNIX, but not Unix.
Thank you for pointing that out.

I always associated the official UNIX with Full SUS and POSIX.

>>58641800
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Standard_Base
Will look into that article.

>instead of having to kowtow to the Accounting and Marketing departments.
Excellence should be the goal of the Organization, not just specific branches.

The purpose of developing things is the make it a part of the world.

>>58641919
>If everyone followed a standard for System Calls, though, like all the Standard UNIX Interfaces, it wouldn't be an issue.
Well in the FLOSS world they do, which is the reason why most stuff works on FreeBSD.

Microsoft might be headed that way. Though it's really only happening because of the migration of developers away from their platform. They're doing it out of weakness, not out of strength.

>Yeah, it's certainly nice to make a profit off of it, and by no means should that be excluded, but the purpose of money is to be spent.
Well shareholders expect profits. If you dispense with the shareholders and make a nonprofit, you still have to bring in enough money to pay enough devs to implement your plans. Competent kernel devs and filesystem people and security experts do not come cheap. And you won't get them to contribute out of the goodness of their heart if you're building a proprietary product. They'll do that for FLOSS, not for a project like you propose.

Basically if you make your OS proprietary, you'll have a hell of a time making enough money off of it to pay enough developers, and enough *good* developers, to make it competitive. VCs will see your project as "we wanna clone Mac OS", and aren't likely to be interested. Operating systems are a market thats mature and features big established players (MS, Apple, Linux) that you'll have a hard time matching, starting from scratch.

>LSB
Also:
>The crux of the issue is, I think, whether this whole game is worth the work: I am yet to hear about software distribution happening through LSB packages. There are only _8_ applications by 6 companies on the LSB certified applications list, of which only one is against LSB >= 4.
This for a standard that had been around for ten years. *nix as it is is as close to standardized as it needs to be in order to work well.
https://lwn.net/Articles/658809/

>The purpose of developing things is the make it a part of the world.
So why are you anti-GPL?

>>58642077
>So why are you anti-GPL?
Partially out of principle, but also because development goes in more than a 1-way street.
If you can't guarantee income, you can't put forward large R&D projects which may be only tangentially related to the business-end of your organization.

If you're a non-profit, you rely on much more difficult-to-maintain income methods, especially in a large, segmented organization.

You need to be able to pipe money from several different Business Units to a Monitor that then disperses funds to the right projects at the right times, some of which are designed to further increase funding from the Business Units by developing exclusively for Market purposes, and some which may or may not have monetary reward but is able to generate large Paradigm Shift scenarios.

In other words, you can certainly justify the money you ask for for support of an OS if all of it goes straight back into the OS. But, it'd be much more difficult to justify one year's OS funding if half of it goes into Medical Research or Aerospace. But, then it's equally as difficult to justify Aerospace funding when 10% will go to a Standards Organization, and 40% will go to Energy Research the next year.

You need Business Units for the purpose of funding a Pool that distributes money as it is required, as priority projects call for it.

e.g. We don't live in a Utilitarian World, so you need to be able to generate a range of Utility, even if the source of usable resources are far more limited than the number of sections they are expended on.

>>58640471
if it becomes successful it will just become the next microsoft windows. successful corporations always turn out the same.

>>58642214
The GPL doesn't prohibit commercial use or making money. Not legally, and not practically either - else Red Hat, Canonical, etc wouldn't exist.

And something like 80% of the kernel devs are paid, these days - not just Red Hat and Canonical but other tech companies that use Linux will pay them to work on bits and pieces that're important to them. Which then gets given to the whole world, thanks to the GPL.

Is it "all under one roof" like you want? Nope, exactly the opposite. But it's arguably better that way. That's what makes Linux responsive to the needs of the people who use it - there isn't some guy doing a marketing study or guessing what people might want, there's just people who use it deciding that something could be improved and improving it. If you're interested in making software that is continually improving and "made a part of the world", there's no better way to do it.

>>58640376
>It fails to be compatible like real UNIX should be.
What does that even mean? Have you ever even used a real "UNIX" that is actually authorized to use that trademark? They've always been mutually incompatible with each other, and if you care about sheer binary compatibility you probably wouldn't want to choose a Unix system in the first place.

>muh commie boogeyman

>>58640376
>what temple OS is

>>58640376
friendly reminder that commercial UNIX was absolute garbage:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unix-Haters_Handbook

>>58640431
>2017
>using deprecated plan9
Inferno exists

>>58640376
UNIX is garbage, that's why. All in all it's a crippled MULTICS and that has been left in the dust by OS research, missing a lot of capabilities even Windows partially has these days. There is no value in implementing a mediocre standard nobody likes to use anyway.
As modern OS dev goes, it's definitely not the right direction.

No idea why sperglords like OP

>>58646418
* like it.

File: 1484630349931.jpg (54KB, 566x480px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 566x480px

>>58640376
>>58640471
>>58640538
You are a fucking retard. Unix isn't a commercial OS, and it was never meant to be. It was literally called Programmer's Workbench (PWB) during development.

Every attempt at releasing a commercial Unix system has utterly and completely failed. Solaris just got thrown off the window. Unix was made for hackers, and hackers like open source, and that's how it's going to be. The only popular Unix variants are macOS (distorted beyond recognition so that it's easy to use for normies and not like Unix at all), and Linux and BSD which are open source.

>And then there's 9001 different versions of Linux
And they're all the same. You can pick any one you like and build yourself your system, or if you want a system premade for you install the variant of Ubuntu that comes with your DE of choice. The fact that you mention this only shows how you're a massive Unix beginner talking about shit you know nothing about. Take a fucking hint.

Also, stop typing Unix in full caps, it makes you look even more autistic when you've already got yourself fully covered in that regard.

http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/

Mac OS is literally fully certified, authentic UNIX. It is fully POSIX compliant

File: apple_unix_ad.jpg (401KB, 1976x1202px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 1976x1202px

>>58646568
See
>>58647186

OSX/MacOS renews their certifications every other version or so, it's always been real UNIX

>>58640376
> GPL relies on private ownership of ideas.
> Calls it communist.

How does your mind even function?

>>58647201
Sure, it might Unix on paper, but I believe that's not what OP was looking for (since macOS is already popular).

macOS doesn't give two shits about Unix philosophy and all of the carefully engineered tools and how you can pipe them to do whatever you want. It just hides everything behind a GUI so apart from a having a decent (that most normies never touch anyway) macOS behaves very similarly to Windows when it comes to the way of doing things.

>>58647248
apart from having a decent shell*

>>58640376
>There's Mac, which IS full-featured and "unix", but not 'UNIX'. It fails to be compatible like real UNIX should be.

that was vague. have you ever used unix or mac? they are identical in terms of functionality. all the unix utilities are there, plus the great UI/UX

>>58647248
There is no such thing as a GUI that fits any kind of these so called "UNIX philosophies", any commerical UNIX for home use is going to have a normal pretty UI on to top and if you don't like it you can boot into single-user mode or you can go get a UNIX not made for home use like Solaris or anything else on that list I posted.
>>58647278
It is certified fully compatible and compliant UNIX, he's just wrong

>>58647248
It may interest you to know two Chinky Redhat based operating systems are now Unix licensed. Do you think Lennart Poettering gives two shits about Unix philosophy?

>>58647444
There are no systems based on the Linux kernel that are UNIX certified, certified systems can be found at http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/

>>58647463
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspur_K-UX

>>58647578
>>58647463
Also EulerOS. Sorry champ

>>58641547

fake and gay

>>58647201

how quickly the ppc circle jerk died

>>58647648
I'd still circle jerk PPC had IBM and Apple not virtually killed it off.

>>58647648
It didn't die, it started forming a turtle shell.

If you're not in the circle, you don't even notice its existance.

>>58647979
POWER isn't going anywhere, but Freescale are the only ones still producing PPC processors and microcontrollers. It's on life support.

>>58640376
why does unix compliance matter to you? shouldn't we be able to come up with something better than a 40+ years old system?

>>58648056
Anon, I NEED the prntscrn key

>>58640431
>>58646256
>deprecations and depravations
9front exists.

>>58648026
POWER and PowerPC are two separate things. POWER's doing rather well, PowerPC doesn't see much use. (On a related note, a few months ago Android was ported to PowerPC to be used on some SBC for commercial aircraft, I don't remember what it's used to control)

>>58650004
literally gives me cancer in the anus just reading this

>>58650162
Found it
http://linuxgizmos.com/powerpc-gains-android-4-4-port-with-big-endian-support/
>eInfochips has ported Android 4.4 to the PowerPC architecture on behalf of an avionics customer that will use it for an HMI that monitors engine health.

File: 1467274476329.jpg (168KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1600x1067px

Wouldn't be hard actually.
>Fork OpenBSD
>Add a reasonable update procedure
>Close your source
>Start building your own UI (gotta avoid the GPL, so you have to BUY Qt as GTK is poisoned! )
>Hire retarded support workers
>GUI all the things
>Add "App Store"
>you're done

No point in starting over when you can just rob Theo de Raddt and friends of the most secure OS. Sell it for $25 for personal use and $500 for mass-scale commercial use. All software for OpenBSD and possibly GNU/Linux (with an emulator) would run. It would also be appealing to the power-user.

It would be called FishStick.

>>58650347
>rob
They chose to use a license that allows you to do so, it is not theft.

>There's Mac, which IS full-featured and "unix", but not 'UNIX'. It fails to be compatible like real UNIX should be.
They are certified UNIX retard
>hurr durr why does no one go about developing a full featured Windows 9X
this is how retard you sound

>>58650275
>Android for use in mission-critical stuff
>In an aircraft, no fucking less
We're fucked.

>>58650347
>OpenBSD
>the most secure OS

The *base OS* is kind of secure (it lacks MAC) but they don't audit ports so you're fucked once you try to actually use the system.

If anything, a commercial UNIX would be based on FreeBSD since it's all around good and dramatically less autistic.

File: oreilly-unix-beard.png (120KB, 506x607px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 506x607px

>>58650802
Who the fuck audit ports anyway? They barely have enough manpower to maintain their own shit.

>>58650505
That was my first thought

>>58650998
But then it's not any more secure than any other BSDs or, God forbid, Linux. If a third-party program fucks your shit, it doesn't matter that the base OS is secure. At least Linux has Apparmor or SELinux that go a long way towards mitigating the damage, but OpenBSD devs have adamantly refused any form of MAC because... well, because God Emperor Theo de Raadt said so.

>>58647463
>>58647578
Had you ever been told this hard? I don't even give a crap about "muh piece of paper saying it's UNIX", but this was adorable.

File: 1479486834602.jpg (500KB, 666x900px) Image search: [Google]

500KB, 666x900px

>>58651109
>Linux has Apparmor or SELinux

>not using Akari for MAC on Linux
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/TOMOYO_Linux#AKARI

File: sparc64-x-fujitsus-new-generation-processor-for-unix-servers-3-1024.jpg (228KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 1024x768px

>>58640376
>tfw he isn't using Oracle Solaris on dedicated Sparc Unix Servers

File: 1437694578242.jpg (774KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

774KB, 1920x1080px

>>58651209
Is it still maintained?

File: Desktop_Setup.jpg (3MB, 2183x2894px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2183x2894px

>>58651442
>tfw he IS using Oracle Solaris on dedicated Sparc Unix Servers

FreeBSD is literally Unix but not bothering to pay for the name.

Is OP such a cuck that they want to pay for an operating system that already exists for free?

File: 1461773377079.jpg (831KB, 1200x1000px) Image search: [Google]

831KB, 1200x1000px

>>58651463
Yes. The last release was in mid-November.
http://akari.osdn.jp/index.html.en

TOMOYO 1.x requires kernel patching, TOMOYO 2.x is in the kernel mainline. AKARI is essentially the same stuff implemented as a loadable kernel module. They all support all 3.x and 4.x kernels. This being a corporate-sponsored project, there's backports to really old 2.6 stuff.
http://akari.osdn.jp/comparison.html

File: 1480518012237.gif (148KB, 340x340px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 340x340px

>>58651562
>Yes. The last release was in mid-November.
In 2015.

File: 1461172030115.jpg (168KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1280x720px

>>58651616
Oh snap. Oops.

File: 1280px-Unix_history-simple.png (169KB, 1280x814px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1280x814px

>>58651500
Better than linux, but Nah.

>>58641547
>creating a DE that is NOT compatible
Compatible with what? There is no DE standard in UNIX. They tried in the 90's (a couple of times) and it lasted for about 5 or 6 years.

>>58651155
>"There are no systems based on the Linux kernel that are UNIX certified"
>but here's several operating systems that are
>t-that's just a piece of paper!
grats on becoming even more of a dipshit faggot with that episode of easily the most blatant goalpost moving I've ever seen on /g/

>>58651500
Wow.

>>58651806
Nigga I am not the macfag. My point was that I personally, like most people, could not care less about a UNIX certificate, but it's still nice to see someone who gloats about it be wrong.
I would expect Red Hat to be the one paying for certification, though.

File: M5000_1__37432.1400618161.1280.1280.jpg (1MB, 1280x1165px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x1165px

>>58651675
But an actual non-shit free (as in free beer) Compiler. http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/server-storage/developerstudio/downloads/index.html

>>58651675
>OpenServer
>closed source
how ironic

>>58651500
>tfw lardlanders will have the privilege of falling for the Fujitsu meme
it hurts to live

File: rage.png (461KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

461KB, 720x480px

>>58640376
>complaining about having different versions of Linux to choose
You IDIOT.

People have 9001+1 different needs. Server=/=Desktop for example.

kys

>>58652115
>Server=/=Desktop for example.
could you actually think of anything beyond that
because most of those distros aren't even really that specialized, they're just slightly different by default in in some trivial way that can be implemented on any other distro with a few terminal commands

File: angry picard.png (25KB, 104x166px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 104x166px

>>58652155
>could you actually think of anything beyond that
Scientific Linux=/=Linux Lite=/=OpenMediaVault=/=JustShutTheFuckUp

>>58652192
what about any of these is actually unique and not just a bunch of useless clutter you can easily set up yourself in a real distribution

File: bill-gates-borg.jpg (37KB, 450x429px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 450x429px

>>58640376
FUCK OFF MICROSOFT

We know you are planning a takeover and need a flat, homogeneous Linux community for that.

File: 2016-05-17-171659_1280x720_scrot.png (267KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1280x720px

No anons, this poster >>58652298 is not an idiot. He is paid just to deny simple, obvious facts like distro maintenance and development. Or maybe promoting the idea that we leave all the development to 1 single corporation. Microsoft maybe?

Are you going to let him brainwash you?

>>58652404
I think it was microsoft marketing that created the Workstation/server dichotomy with licensing. When I had a Sun machine I only got Solaris, not Solaris Workstation or Solaris Server. It was a better time then.

>>58652441
>"it was all well when we had no choice"
>undercover support for only 1 distro
just stop

>>58652479
No, I had a choice and I chose Solaris. It was even open licensed with the CDDL. Worked well as a server and a workstation, no shitty false dichotomy.

>>58652518
I like Solaris too, too bad it ended dead thanks to Oracle and its stupid license.

I chose having more distros and not 1 retarded, jack of all trades, unoptimized bloatware. I also chose to not let you having your paycheck today, shill.

There are no good operating systems, everything is just varying degrees of shit.

>>58652573
>I chose having more
So Linux or Linux or Linux...

NIce choices there fucktard orwellian illusionist.

Besides, we all know the truth: LainOS/LainWM was the best desktop experience to have an a UNIX-like.

In before:
>newfags who don't know LainOS.

>>58652650
lainwm on a beowulf cluster was Wired as shit

File: let-me-tell-you-about-fizzbuzz.jpg (52KB, 490x490px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 490x490px

>>58640560
>>58640598
>>58640640
This is now an ancient meme thread

>>58652635
You forgot Hurd, you fucking telemarketer.

>>58652635
A.) Linux is good.
B.) If you don't like it anyway, there's several BSDs to choose from.
And like >>58652663 mentioned, there's the Hurd. Which has been a dead project for two decades. Maybe it isn't needed?

linux is a fucking shit-show. It is currently the furthest you can get away from the unix philosophy. Shit like system-d is almost in every distro by default and fucking autists premote gentoo like gcc output makes me ejaculate. Need some kind of standardization something solid. Fuck debian stable. I want unix

File: shot0004.jpg (128KB, 1008x720px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1008x720px

>>58652650
>LainWM
Reminds me of Motif Window Manager. I bet we could make mwm look like Lain's father computer.

>>58652692
Hurd is finally 0.9 now ;^)

>>58652404
>I have no argument so I'll just call him a bogeyman shill and strawman my way to victory
nobody's advocating for that shit but faggot OP and maybe you, I'm calling you a retard because of your simplistic ass posts with shitty newfag reaction pics demonstrating that you're just another retard who has no fucking idea what he's actually talking about

hell, your delusion that GNU/Linux which is basically run by Red Hat and Canonical isn't already developed by large corporations continues to demonstrate this

not every distro has a purpose by virtue of its existing, accepting this simple reality does not make you a shill

>>58652701
FreeBSD is made by people who think like you for people who think like you. So why don't you go use it and be happy?

>>58652703
I have a huge hardon for the kind of room Lain had, and want one computer with the DE of Lains computer and all the else like UNIX terminals running on a beowulf cluster

>>58652769
Not that anon, but I do use FreeBSD.

>>58652692
>Linux is good.
It's still trying to be 2005 era Solaris. Instead of using good ideas they poorly try to reinvent the wheel
Zfs > btrfs
SMF > systemd and plain old outdated System V init
Zones > lxd cgroups/namespace hacked shit
having commercially supported hardware > trying to get Linux drivers to work.

I'm a pragmatist, I couldn't care less the ideology of a toejam eating hippy that wants to be called Doctor without putting in the work.

the list goes on.

>>58652769
because it supports nothing except hardware from 1994

>>58652703
>dialup.app

No thank you. We are civilized people here, and do not use fucking dialup like some 90s era cave men, or Indians (dot, not feather).

>>58652872
I have pfSense (which is really nothing but a web interface around FreeBSD) running just fine as my router, on a Z97 board and a Devil's Canyon Pentium. The NIC in it's expansion slot Just Werked too.

>>58652831
FreeBSD and Solaris/Illumos have a good relationship: they both work on ZFS and upstream it to openzfs, Solaris got direct inspiration for zones from jails and FreeBSD got direct inspiration for VIMAGE from Croosbow. Both also do full resource limitations on the container implimentation, and the containers run on bare-metal rather than in a vm like Docker.

I just wish FreeBSD would adopt OpenRC.

>>58652872
When is this meme going to be dropped? It's demonstrably true, and while it is true that FreeBSD is a bit behind on the very latest drivers for everything, that stems from the fact that most people prefer staying on -RELEASE rather than -CURRENT. If you want the latest and greatest, use - CURRENT. -RELEASE is for people who want the stability that FreeBSD is known for.

>>58652890
Actually I've just been messing around with emulation of old hardware and SLIP connections via a fake-dialup V.21 connection. But that's because I like fun little nostalgic stuff.

>>58652912
You should have a look at http://www.pcengines.ch/apu2c4.htm when you need to upgrade.

>>58652912
their AMD gpu driver support is terrible so that kind of rules out OpenCL and stuff like that for a lot of people. Plus you know , cant exactly run a desktop and watch Taiwanese Tapestries

>>58652927
>demonstrably true
Demonstrably untrue.

>>58652872
I'm running it on a 24-core Xeon system. They definitely didn't have those in '94. Are you certain you have any clue what you are talking about?

>>58652981
>muh hyperbole
oh yeah and a CPU is all you are ever going to need in a desktop, and good look with a cpu that isn't 4 years old
>haswell came out in 2013

File: 1432970650549.png (35KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 625x626px

>>58652981

>>58651500
Oracle just discarded the SPARC people

>>58652306
If that is the case, they should aim at Red Hat.

>>58653012
It's not a desktop faggot.