Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rust-Written Redox OS 0.8 Released With i686 Support, Audio & Multi-Display Working

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by timofonic View Post
    It's stupid they support 32bit hardware in a modern operating system aimed at innovation, they are wasting efforts instead improving essential hardware support such as USB.

    I had high hopes in RedoxOS, but it seems it will end as ReactOS. An eternal experiment, to say the least.
    ReactOS is a whole different beast. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by cooperate View Post
      It’s MIT licensed, so it’s not going anywhere.
      Copyleft licensed projects get picked by corporations a lot easier and faster than those licenced under copyright licenses such as GPL which don't allow you to breathe unless explicitly allowed.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by birdie View Post

        Copyleft licensed projects get picked by corporations a lot easier and faster than those licenced under copyright licenses such as GPL which don't allow you to breathe unless explicitly allowed.
        I agree with you, but you got them reversed: GPL is a copyleft license and MIT is a copyright one

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by cb88 View Post

          The problem with that... is it because just another almost unix that would be incompatible enough to be annoying.

          And a better Unix was already written as Plan9... so frankly you gotta either do better than Plan9 or you aren't truely trying to one up unix you are just riding on its coat tails.
          Interestingly, there does seem to be quite a bit of Plan9 in Redox, concept-wise.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by JackLilhammers View Post

            I agree with you, but you got them reversed: GPL is a copyleft license and MIT is a copyright one
            Not quite, both are copyright licenses. Copyleft is just a term the FSF invented for twisting copyright to their needs. MIT on the other hand is called a permissive license.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by Waethorn View Post

              The better OS's are always the ones that never got finished. Plan9, CP/M, Longhorn....

              Practically every excuse was backwards compatibility - at the cost of real innovation.

              Ditto for IA-64.
              Radical innovation always comes at the price of losing the broad and rich support of the incumbent systems. Lacking in hardware support (unless you can use the drivers of the incumbent system), far smaller software catalog, less of the nice to haves that the incumbents added after the structural things were fleshed out.

              Most of the time, going with the new comer is taking a step back in time. The newer system is there where the incumbents were several years ago. Most people will ask themselves why they should take a step back. Possible future benefits of the radical innovation doesn't help them right now.​

              Comment


              • #27
                I absolutely do not understand the popularity of Rust. Some reasons why I wouldn't use Rust:

                1. Memory safety. This is supposedly the big reason why we should use Rust. The CHERI memory-protection features historically allow memory-unsafe programming languages such as C and C++ to be adapted to provide strong, compatible, and efficient protection against many currently widely exploited vulnerabilities.

                2. Performance, Rust is slow as a snail in real programs compared to C:​ https://ehnree.github.io/documents/papers/rustvsc.pdf
                Generally speaking, C still dominates Rust by a relatively wide margin in terms of execution time. Consequently, there is definitely a performance cost associated with using Rust instead of C.
                https://renato.athaydes.com/posts/re...sp-part-2.html
                Last, but not least, notice how Common Lisp is the fastest language of all, beating even Rust, on the smaller runs (and notice that this is no hello-world, it loads over 70,000 words into a hash-table, then encodes 1,000 phone numbers using those words - all of that in a mere 59ms, well ahead of Rust, somehow, which needs 89ms!).

                3. Ease of use: https://ehnree.github.io/documents/papers/rustvsc.pdf
                However, there are still some annoyances about Rust that can, at times, make implementing a simple algorithm difficult.

                What's the point of Rust?

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by Classical View Post
                  I absolutely do not understand the popularity of Rust.
                  ... snip...
                  What's the point of Rust?
                  From one perspective, Rust language has a much smaller ecosystem and it is currently not as "general purpose" as other established languages.

                  On the other hand, I would say that one-size-fits-all philosophy is dangerous.

                  It is good to have new languages like Rust to cover some special set of use-cases (like type safety and memory safety). Somebody, somewhere, may need exactly those features that Rust offers.

                  You may like the "other" language or not, you may like the "other" OS or not. It doesn't matter. The truth is that some amount of experimentation and divergence is always required.

                  Complaining that not everyone is working on mainstream projects is ridiculous.

                  So, kudos to the developers of Redox and Rust, if for nothing else, then just for being brave.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by Classical View Post
                    I absolutely do not understand the popularity of Rust. Some reasons why I wouldn't use Rust. What's the point of Rust?
                    "I absolutely do not understand the popularity of cancer research. Some reasons why I would not cure cancer. What is the point of curing cancer?"

                    Not a single person cares about what you think about Rust. The results of the language already speak for itself.
                    Spend less time yelling angrily at clouds and more time doing something useful with your life.
                    No one should waste time arguing about the usefulness of Rust here or anywhere else.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by timofonic View Post
                      It's stupid they support 32bit hardware in a modern operating system aimed at innovation, they are wasting efforts instead improving essential hardware support such as USB.
                      Less common architectures (regardless of age) are still useful for testing and validating code. For example, if you have a function that works on amd64 but not i386, then it is probably broken and needs fixing. All the many quirks that different platforms provide are great at exposing bugs.

                      Yes, you might question priorities such as supporting USB or a "modern" architecture like aarch64, but ultimately their decision to look into safety and size correctness rather than features is actually fairly admirable.

                      And lets be honest. If they implemented USB, most will still turn around and say... "its useless because the Steam DRM Platform doesn't run on it". So why would they prioritize "desktop usage" anyway when there are more important things in computing?
                      Last edited by kpedersen; 24 November 2022, 09:42 AM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X