>>1018105 (OP)
>I'm learning to make my own OS (for larping purposes, obviously) and was thinking about making a *nix.
Why would you want to make something that sucks? There's too much garbage software out there already.
>I've seen alot of hate for unices being too hard and having very limited software support, but past that, not much else. Why do people hate Unix and its various clones, decendants, and forks?
They suck because the quality of everything is bad. It's only "hard" in the sense that nothing has a consistent design (each "tool" and command's options need to be memorized separately instead of OS-wide rules) and it puts huge roadblocks between you and the hardware. It's very easy for x86 hardware to check for stack overflow (with segment limits) and extend the stack automatically like Multics, but UNIX doesn't use segments. There are so many times that UNIX is so misdesigned and broken that it would be easier to do something with no operating system at all than it is on UNIX, which sucks. Even system calls and file copying are broken. The point of an OS is to do the hard parts so they don't have to be repeated in every application, not to produce a piece of shit that everyone has to work around constantly. Lisp machines have one GC, metaobject system, and powerful error handling mechanism used for everything, which reduces the size of every program that runs on it. UNIX is millions of lines of code that makes everything that runs on more bloated. That's why they call UNIX the "un-operating system."
>>1018123
>Really, the only reason to make something that isn't *nix is for originality points, and that's fine and all, but be aware that almost nobody will use it.
UNIX weenies already have OSes they want to use and will never use OP's OS even if it was an exact Linux clone because they already have Linux and the rest of that bullshit. UNIX weenies want C and "ar" and "awk" and all that crap. They don't want "UNIX-like" that differs from UNIX any more than Plan 9 or Linux. The people who would be interested in a new OS are UNIX haters or at least aren't UNIX weenies and don't care if they have to type "copy" instead of "cp" or if it uses \ or > as a path separator instead of /.
>>1018130
Plan 9 is just UNIX with the bare minimum of changes needed to call it a different OS. It uses "tar" to copy directory hierarchies because the commands are slight modifications of the UNIX source code.
>>1018159
>It's a research OS
You're post is great except for this part. UNIX is not research. That's just bullshit to explain why everything sucks. If it is research, what were they "researching"? Nobody can ever answer this. Multics started as research and became a commercial OS before UNIX existed. Multics was so far ahead of UNIX that it already did things in the 60s that UNIX can't do now and will never be able to do. Poorly imitating parts of a successful and widely known commercial product doesn't make something research.
>>1018307
>The primary component of an operating system, not it's permission model, or IPC system, or anything else, is the software it can run. Making a new OS from scratch makes you immediately shittier in this dimension, no matter how far you improve in any other.
That's more of the "Bloatware is Proprietary" phenomenon. Because C is so unproductive, programs are also bloated, and because everything is poorly designed, there is a lot of duplicate code. These C flaws lead to massive multi-million line browsers to run pages that require hundreds of kilobytes of JavaScript that has to work around their bugs even though the web page doesn't even support some of the browsers that have those bugs, like autoconf for the web.
>>1018540
>- don't emulate 70s mainframe
The PDP-11 is a 16-bit 70s minicomputer. They're totally different classes of hardware, like a semi truck and a plastic tricycle.
>there are a ton of UNIX look-a-likes, why not make something more fresh?
This is good advice. There's a lot more than UNIX out there.
Subject: why Unix sucks
Some Andrew weenie, writing of Unix buffer-length bugs, says:
> The big ones are grep(1) and sort(1). Their "silent
> truncation" have introduced the most heinous of subtle bugs
> in shell script database programs. Bugs that don't show up
> until the system has been working perfectly for a long time,
> and when they do show up, their only clue might be that some
> inverted index doesn't have as many matches as were expected.
Unix encourages, by egregious example, the most
irresponsible programming style imaginable. No error
checking. No error messages. No conscience. If a student
here turned in code like that, I'd flunk his ass.
Unix software comes as close to real software as Teenage
Mutant Ninja Turtles comes to the classic Three Musketeers:
a childish, vulgar, totally unsatisfying imitation.