Redox OS Planning A Server Version, Stable ABI & Better Performance

[pracedru]

Wow, an unironic "the ends justify the means" response.
This really is a cult.

Just to let you know, from the outside, what you sound like is "you're too stupid to think, let me think for you"
Meanwhile actual corporations are freely contributing to MIT/Apache projects. Has the irony not dawned on you yet? You literally sound more dystopic than actual corporations.

Here is a definition of cult from wikipedia, that covers the meaning well in my opinion:

Cult is a term, in most contexts pejorative, for a relatively small group which is typically led by a charismatic and self-appointed leader, who excessively controls its members, requiring unwavering devotion to a set of beliefs and practices which are considered deviant (outside the norms of society).

This phenomenon is all around you in society, where constructs are made with protections to ensure their stability. So what you are pointing out is not "outside the norms of society" at all. In fact it is very normal. No one is forcing you to use GPL software and you can easily live a life without it. So i would say that you are definitely entirely wrong about this.

[Vistaus]

RedoxOS was created for the sake of writing an OS in Rust. This is according to its official website. Not sure how many people will take it seriously.

Linux was initially created for the sake of having a free hobby kernel. Not sure how many people will take it seriously. [/s]

[Nth_man]

Linux was initially created for the sake of having a free hobby kernel. Not sure how many people will take it seriously. [/s]

"[In 1991, a computer science student named Linus Torvalds] investigated one of the key features of the 386: task-switching. [...] Linus describes his first experiments in this area on the 386 this way: “I was testing the task-switching capabilities, so what I did was: I just made two processes and made them write to the screen and had a timer that [told the CPU to switch tasks]. One process wrote ‘A,’ the other wrote ‘B,’ so I saw ‘AAAABBBB’ and so on.” [^10]

[Later, he turned that software] into a terminal emulator that would allow him to read Usenet newsgroups on the university system from his bedroom when he used his PC hooked up to a modem. Linus’s description of his work makes it sound disarmingly simple: “I changed those two processes to work like a terminal emulation package. You have one process that is reading from the keyboard and sending to the modem, and the other is reading from the modem and sending to the screen.” To do this, he had to write various drivers. [...] Later on, he decided to extend it further. “I wanted to download stuff,” he says. This meant interfacing his modified task-switching software to a disk drive: “So I had to write a disk driver,” Linus recalls. [^10]

When he had sorted out the disk driver, Linus needed a way of reading and writing files on the disk that was now accessible. This required what is called a file system, a set of rules about how data is organized on the disk. Linus sat down and wrote one, basing it on the Minix file system he had been using for several months. This was “in order to be able to write files and read files to upload them,” he explains. [^10]

That's how Linux got started. With my test programs turning into a terminal emulation package. [^9]

Linus was using Minix as a kind of scaffolding for his work on what became Linux. But there was a drawback to this approach. As Linus recalls, “I essentially had to reboot the machine just to read news with my fancy newsreader, and that was very inconvenient” because it took time and meant that Linus lost Minix’s other capabilities. He continues, “I decided... hey, I could try to make all the other features of Minix available” from within the “fancy newsreader” he had written. Linus says this evolution “was really very gradual. At some point I just noticed that hey, this is very close to being potentially useful instead of [needing] Minix.” [^10]

“Essentially when you have task-switching, you have a file system, you have device drivers... that’s Unix,” he explains. Linux –or rather some distant ancestor of Linux– had been born. [^10]

Linus Torvalds wrote: "So I shifted my thinking of it as a terminal emulator to thinking of it as an operating system. I think the transition occurred in the hypnosis of one of those marathon programming sessions. Day or night? I can't recall. One moment I'm in my {threadbare robe} hacking away on a terminal emulator with extra functions. The next moment I realize it's accumulating so many functions that it has metamorphosed into a new operating system in the works. [...]" [^9]

[^9]: Linus Torvalds in “Just for Fun: the Story of an Accidental revolutionary”.
[^10]: Glyn Moody (is a London-based writer who has been covering Linux almost since its inception. He has published major features on it in Wired, New Scientist, and Salon, and has written for The Economist and the Financial Times) in "Rebel Code: Linux and the Open Source Revolution".

[sarmad]

Linux was initially created for the sake of having a free hobby kernel. Not sure how many people will take it seriously. [/s]

You said it, a "free" kernel. That's a good enough selling point. On the other hand, being written in Rust isn't a selling point. What do I get as a user from it being written in Rust or any other language? That's an implementation detail that doesn't concern users.

[Ironmask]

You said it, a "free" kernel. That's a good enough selling point. On the other hand, being written in Rust isn't a selling point. What do I get as a user from it being written in Rust or any other language? That's an implementation detail that doesn't concern users.

Well, ease of development means more things can be done with less time.
Take the counter-point of QNX: BlackBerry wanted to make it a general-purpose OS and even commissioned people to make games for it. The games were horrible because the games development experience for QNX was horrible.
This has been the entire market strategy of Windows from day one, make things easier for developers and you get more software. Meanwhile, go back a decade to see how game developers would approach Linux, a lot of them wouldn't even try because it was so finnicky and non-standard, no two distros were alike. The situation has improved immensely, but it's a good example of what I'm talking about.

[ssokolow]

Wow, an unironic "the ends justify the means" response.
This really is a cult.

Just to let you know, from the outside, what you sound like is "you're too stupid to think, let me think for you"
Meanwhile actual corporations are freely contributing to MIT/Apache projects. Has the irony not dawned on you yet? You literally sound more dystopic than actual corporations.

It's basically the same dynamics found in Popper's paradox of tolerance in another guise:

“Less well known [than other paradoxes Popper discusses] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”

As Wikipedia summarizes it:

The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually ceased or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.

[ssokolow]

Again, I don't think you see the irony here. Ignoring your anti-social philosophy of forcing people to behave in a specific way, when given genuine freedom, corporations gladly contribute to open source projects if not create their own open source projects themselves. By forcing people to do what you want, you actively dissuade them from doing it, whereas giving them the option to do it, they do it. That's why MIT/Apache are such dominant licenses and why all corporations publish their software under those, because they don't have this psychotic antisocial paranoia about people "stealing" their work. Your cyber-communist philosophy is outright contradicted by reality and how people work in the real world. You live in a deranged fantasy land where everyone wants to take your code, make some amazing change to it, then not share it with you. Not only would such an event have no effect on you whatsoever, it doesn't even happen in real life.

That's a lot of words you're assuming apply to me.

[plonoma]

Redox stable ABI

Too soon! Way too soon!