Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by tcmart14 660 days ago
I disagree. There is already a project for a Rust OS, and its been around for years and I don't even know if it'll actually function on real hardware or just in VMs.[1] Or even enough to matter. There is already a project, where are the hundreds, if not thousands, of developers?

[1] https://www.redox-os.org/
2 comments
KAMSPioneer 660 days ago
But that's not the project discussed in the article.

Now I'm not saying I agree, but his premise was a Linux-compatible kernel, which Redox most definitely is not. Redox explicitly does not intend to be POSIX, has its own custom (in-house) filesystem, desktop environment, and is a microkernel as well. A better comparison for Redox would be Hurd, not Linux.

link
flohofwoe 660 days ago
This isn't a Linux kernel clone. The whole argument is that producing a "bug-by-bug compatible" Linux kernel clone should be much easier to pull off than a "research kernel" where you may get lost in exploring design dead ends.
link
AnimalMuppet 660 days ago
Much easier? How much easier?

Or, the original claim: How small a team, and how quickly?

Sure, the Linux development process was inefficient. There were a lot of false directions and dead ends and things that were OK ideas but were superseded by better ideas. If you know the destination, you can drive straight there without all the wandering around.

But, fine, how inefficient was the development process? 90% wandering around? It probably wasn't 99% wandering around. So you're going to need something like 10% of the man-hours that went into Linux.

You say Rust is more productive? How much more? Maybe a factor of two? OK, you need 5% of the man-hours that went into Linux, over the last 20+ years.

That's still not a small team and quickly, no matter how you slice it.

link