undefined | Better HN

0 pointspjmlp15d ago0 comments

Don't need to imagine, it did not take off, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MkLinux

> Reception was mixed, focusing on the difficult installation process and the significant performance costs of the Mach kernel. Reviewers noted its potential as a "Unix killer", but that it required users to abandon the user-friendly Macintosh experience for a pure Linux environment.

0 comments

kingstnap15d ago

1996 is not now. This comparision makes little to no sense.

I'm sure if Apple provided support for installing your own OS on their M series laptops it would be incredibly popular. And I don't need to guess at this using weird 1996 research on microkernels because Asahi Linux exists and clearly there is interest in it.

pjmlpOP15d ago

Indeed, Apple from 1996 would not released Tahoe, most likely.

We don't need research because QNX, L4 and many others on embedded space do exist as well.

mhurron15d ago

Do you forget what Apple in '96 was? Or are you saying that Tahoe is too polished for the Apple of '96?

Apple was not a bastion of quality in the 90's. They couldn't modernize the Mac OS, and that continued with little more than window dressing over what was released in the 80's. The Mac line up was a horrible mess of barely different models that needed a Ph.D to figure out what was different. The company was bleeding money and seriously close to bankruptcy.

The Apple of the mid 90's wishes it could release something like Tahoe.

1 more reply

ribosometronome15d ago

Apple circa 1996 would be charging for its updates and licensing out the software to Power Computing and UMAX. They were making a lot of "interesting" decisions.

1 more reply

officeplant15d ago

Rip Blackberry Phone + QNX, you were so promising for such a short time.

fsflover15d ago

> difficult installation process and the significant performance costs

So it was a failure in implementation.

pjmlpOP15d ago

And the Apple that delivered Tahoe will do better?

cromka15d ago

All they would need is to provide complete DTBs and some drivers, no need to write a new OS from scratch.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

kingstnap15d ago

1996 is not now. This comparision makes little to no sense.

pjmlpOP15d ago

Indeed, Apple from 1996 would not released Tahoe, most likely.

We don't need research because QNX, L4 and many others on embedded space do exist as well.

mhurron15d ago

Do you forget what Apple in '96 was? Or are you saying that Tahoe is too polished for the Apple of '96?

The Apple of the mid 90's wishes it could release something like Tahoe.

1 more reply

ribosometronome15d ago

Apple circa 1996 would be charging for its updates and licensing out the software to Power Computing and UMAX. They were making a lot of "interesting" decisions.

1 more reply

officeplant15d ago

Rip Blackberry Phone + QNX, you were so promising for such a short time.

fsflover15d ago

> difficult installation process and the significant performance costs

So it was a failure in implementation.

pjmlpOP15d ago

And the Apple that delivered Tahoe will do better?

cromka15d ago

All they would need is to provide complete DTBs and some drivers, no need to write a new OS from scratch.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse