| 1 |
On Montag, 11. August 2008, b.n. wrote: |
| 2 |
> Volker Armin Hemmann ha scritto: |
| 3 |
> > there are many shells. sh, bash, bsh. korn, csh, zsh, dash, tcsh, .... |
| 4 |
> > why make a new one, if you can do incredible stuff with zsh? A shell is |
| 5 |
> > not so easy to create. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I understand. I wondered if *conceptually new* shells were |
| 8 |
> present.That's why I thought about the Powershell, as an example. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
look up zsh. You can do stuff with that shell that make the powershell look |
| 11 |
like a child's toy. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> > A new kernel is not so hard to do. The problem are the drivers - and all |
| 15 |
> > the quirks. It is one thing to write a little task scheduler for your |
| 16 |
> > little pet project, but if it crashs constantly it becomes a bitch to |
| 17 |
> > fight through all the errata. But at the beginning a simple kernel is |
| 18 |
> > much easier to do than stuff that runs on it (simple is the important |
| 19 |
> > work. A non-simple kernel is very hard). |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Well, I've never done kernel programming, but I have always been under |
| 22 |
> the impression it is among the hardest programming stuff you can do, |
| 23 |
> even if only for the hardware knowledge and debugging troubles it gives... |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
a 'real' kernel is hard, but a little hobbyist kernel is not that hard to do. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> > Another thing are libcs. A libc is a bitch. Luckily there is a whole |
| 29 |
> > bunch to choose from. glibc, bsd's libc, uclibc, dietlibc, ... so why |
| 30 |
> > re-invent the wheel? |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> For libc, yes, I agree. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> But projects like Haiku and ReactOS created also most of userland from |
| 36 |
> scratch, not only the kernels. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
reactos tries to copy windows - so it will be using the windows userland. |
| 39 |
haiku tries to be beos - it is will be able to run beos apps. Also some posix- |
| 40 |
apps run on it. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
> They had the advantage of taking |
| 44 |
> inspiration from existing OSes but they actually did the implementation. |
| 45 |
> Also, SkyOS or Syllable did it, AFAIK. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
and how many apps run on skyos or syllabe? |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> So I can rephrase my question as those two: |
| 51 |
> Why didn't those projects use the Linux kernel? |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
because they wanted to do something different. |
Archives