On Montag, 11. August 2008, b.n. wrote: > Volker Armin Hemmann ha scritto: > > there are many shells. sh, bash, bsh. korn, csh, zsh, dash, tcsh, .... > > why make a new one, if you can do incredible stuff with zsh? A shell is > > not so easy to create. > > I understand. I wondered if *conceptually new* shells were > present.That's why I thought about the Powershell, as an example.
look up zsh. You can do stuff with that shell that make the powershell look like a child's toy. > > > A new kernel is not so hard to do. The problem are the drivers - and all > > the quirks. It is one thing to write a little task scheduler for your > > little pet project, but if it crashs constantly it becomes a bitch to > > fight through all the errata. But at the beginning a simple kernel is > > much easier to do than stuff that runs on it (simple is the important > > work. A non-simple kernel is very hard). > > Well, I've never done kernel programming, but I have always been under > the impression it is among the hardest programming stuff you can do, > even if only for the hardware knowledge and debugging troubles it gives... a 'real' kernel is hard, but a little hobbyist kernel is not that hard to do. > > > Another thing are libcs. A libc is a bitch. Luckily there is a whole > > bunch to choose from. glibc, bsd's libc, uclibc, dietlibc, ... so why > > re-invent the wheel? > > For libc, yes, I agree. > > > But projects like Haiku and ReactOS created also most of userland from > scratch, not only the kernels. reactos tries to copy windows - so it will be using the windows userland. haiku tries to be beos - it is will be able to run beos apps. Also some posix- apps run on it. > They had the advantage of taking > inspiration from existing OSes but they actually did the implementation. > Also, SkyOS or Syllable did it, AFAIK. and how many apps run on skyos or syllabe? > > So I can rephrase my question as those two: > Why didn't those projects use the Linux kernel? because they wanted to do something different.
