[sennight]

Odd, you purportedly know the difference between an OS and a distro - but that doesn't stop you from generating the above nonsense list. Just look at the last 5 items... seriously - all these Illumos derivatives are distinct operating systems in competition with one another? And to a degree that is no different from Netware vs OS/2?! Be serous, that list only further proves my point about the total lack of distinguishing difference in the present offerings - relative to the pre-linux environment.

> So just because you might exist in a Linux-only...

Obnoxiously presumptuous.

[hnlmorg]

> but that doesn't stop you from generating the above nonsense list.

lol it's not nonsense. Every item I've listed offers something unique.

> Just look at the last 5 items... seriously - all these Illumos derivatives are distinct operating systems in competition with one another?

Actually the differences in the Illumos derivatives are quite fundamental:

- Nexentra is aimed at being an enterprise storage solution with Debian user land. That's massively unlike Illumos

- Smart OS is designed to be a smarter virtualisation and containerisation host OS. It even bundles Linux's KVM virtualization. It's not intended to be run as a desktop platform

- OpenIndiana and Illumos are probably the most similar, however OpenIndiana aims to be more true to OpenSolaris while Illumos aims to be more of a hybrid upstream. So while they're both multi-paradigm (like how Debian can be a desktop or server OS) there are some major differences in their commit tree.

Honest question: how close are you to the Illumos projects? Or are you just an outsider looking in and making assumptions about equivalence based on your experience with Linux? I ask because Illumos forks are much more akin to BSD forks than they are Linux distros.

> Be serous, that list only further proves my point about the total lack of distinguishing difference in the present offerings - relative to the pre-linux environment.

Even if you want to pare down the list to upstreams, you still have half a dozen BSDs (I really hope you at least have enough experience with BSD to realise these aren't just respins like Linux distros), Illumos, Minix, and Darwin. Verses your point in the 90s which was basically non-free BSD, non-free SysV, non-free QNX, non-free Minix etc....you still have those options now PLUS the ones I've listed.

This is the problem with your argument. You're assuming the old choices have gone away, which they haven't...well, apart from SCO and Minix is now free. And in addition we have dozens of interesting new platforms, some of which I've exampled, too.

There's no way on Earth we have less choice now than in the 90s. We might have the industry largely standardising on a subset but that's an entirely different argument and it's only representative of the lowest common denominator doing common problems. However if you look slightly outside of the status quo and you'd see there is a lot of variety still happening in the industry. I know this first hand too -- as I've said in my previous post, I've worked in plenty of places that weren't just Linux shops :)

[sennight]

> Every item I've listed offers something unique.

You then go on to characterize components grafted in from another OS as "unique". That is a laughably low bar, making every potential permutation of existing operating system components distinct offerings in competition for mindshare.

> Honest question...

Honest answer: you are running code I've written. I've been using ZFS in production for as long as one possibly can. My home file server has been SmartOS for many years, before that it was FreeBSD.

> I really hope you at least have enough experience with BSD to realise...

I'm keenly aware of their differences and commonality, having tracked the introduction of a terminal mode bug all they way back to a time when "Melbourne getty" was a thing.

> There's no way on Earth we have less choice now than in the 90s.

Well, I suppose that if you are including abandonware and dead product offerings in the list of competing operating systems...

> We might have the industry largely standardising on...

It seems like you are trying really hard to avoid using the more appropriate word for what has happened: "consolidating".

[hnlmorg]

> You then go on to characterize components grafted in from another OS as "unique". That is a laughably low bar, making every potential permutation of existing operating system components distinct offerings in competition for mindshare.

That's literally no different to how Unix evolved. You talk about diversity in the 90s when most of the platforms were being trolled by SCO for containing the same code base. Don't you see the hypocrisy of your argument there?

> Honest answer: you are running code I've written. I've been using ZFS in production for as long as one possibly can. My home file server has been SmartOS for many years, before that it was FreeBSD.

Then it seems very strange that you don't acknowledge the differences in current platforms while proclaiming that Unix was more diversified in the 90s (if it was that clear cut SCO wouldn't have been trolling everyone).

> Well, I suppose that if you are including abandonware and dead product offerings in the list of competing operating systems...

You're overstating things once again. :)

> It seems like you are trying really hard to avoid using the more appropriate word for what has happened: "consolidating".

No. Consolidating means the removal of options. Those options still exist they're just not as commonly used. Thus term I used of "standardisation" is more apt.

Look, I do understand the rose tinted glasses you're wearing. There are aspects of 90s era systems administration and development that I miss too. But I still feel you're way off the mark with your opinions here. In some places you are exaggerating a nuanced point to such an extent that as much as I'd love to cheer on for the "good old days of computing", your comments simply don't represent my experiences then nor now.

[sennight]

> That's literally no different to how Unix evolved.

Uh, that is exactly my point. You know that you were just arguing that they were unique operating systems, right? You don't see how the comparison totally undermines that position?

> ...while proclaiming that Unix was more diversified in the 90s...

I'll never understand why anyone bothers fabricating strawmen in thread based mediums - I never made that claim, and that is plainly obvious to anybody who has the ability to scroll up. I have a hard time believing that you could, in good faith, read "there were way more operating systems in use then" and honestly think "oh, he is obviously only talking about Unix!"

> No. Consolidating means the removal of options.

Yes... you remember what the option was selecting from? I'll save you the trouble of manipulating your scroll wheel: "The industry is totally different now. There's much more competition... the bar for a production-quality kernel is a lot higher..."

You still wanna keep saying that stuff from before, about options?

[hnlmorg]

> Uh, that is exactly my point. You know that you were just arguing that they were unique operating systems, right? You don't see how the comparison totally undermines that position?

I never said they were unique operating systems. I said we have more choice now than we ever with regards to Unix-like systems and I said they were distinct platforms, code bases, even upstreams. All of which is true. I have no interest in entering a philosophical question of what changes constitute a "unique operating system" however we can at least have a technical discussion about choice and build of the Unix-ecosystem.

> > ...while proclaiming that Unix was more diversified in the 90s...

> I'll never understand why anyone bothers fabricating strawmen in thread based mediums - I never made that claim, and that is plainly obvious to anybody who has the ability to scroll up.

All these comments you make of strawman arguments and now I can see that the original reason for our disagreement was that you replied arguing a different point to me from the outset!

I was only ever talking about Unix-like platforms (given we're talking about Linux ABI) and you misunderstood that post to think we were talking about operating systems in the broader sense. In fact the language I used should have made the scope explicit so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here that you weren't intentionally just pulling an asshole move of subtly changing the scope to win a different argument (which is the very definition of a straw man -- since we're already arguing about who's trying to pull a straw man)

> I have a hard time believing that you could, in good faith, read "there were way more operating systems in use then" and honestly think "oh, he is obviously only talking about Unix!"

I was though. You were the one who replied to my point where I was only talking about Unix so good faith would dictate you continue with the same scope and context as the conversation started out with. So yes, I did assume you were still only talking about Unix. Because that's what the conversation was about prior to you joining it.

-----

If we are to discuss your point then I agree there are fewer operating systems in general. And I agree that is a great loss. I'm also happy to talk at lengths about that too..... but I don't really see what relevance that has within a discussion about whether yet another POSIX kernel will "become the next Linux" because even if Kerla was to "become the next Linux" it still wouldn't satisfy your argument about diversity. So why make it in the first place?

Like I said before, I'm using a lot of good faith here assuming your misunderstanding was a genuine one and that you weren't intentionally trying to derail the conversation.