Re: [tlug] Peeling onions.

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

>>>>> "Uva" == Uva Coder <uva.coder@example.com> writes:

    Uva> I wonder what other possibilities are available if GNU was
    Uva> dropped and we started with new compilers and used
    Uva> different tools/utilities?

Could you be more specific?  My take is that Linux has never used the
latest features of GCC, in fact Linux often broke because GCC
implemented some optimization based on assumptions that the kernel
violates.  So I don't really think that which C compiler is used
matters.

On the other hand, while you clearly can write operating systems in
C++, Modula-3, and Lisp, where are you going to get the
reasonable-quality implementations except from GNU?

So I don't see the toolchain as mattering that much, nor is it really
replaceable.  Note that all the *BSDs gave up long ago.  I just got a
flyer for RHEL on Opteron, they're selling some fancy compiler suite
with it---and the UI is 100% drip-in compatible with GCC.

    Uva> It seems to me that the GNU way of doing things restricts
    Uva> Linux kernel development to some extent.

I don't see how.  I think it's Linus who is the bottleneck.  Just
compare the HURD with any of the actually useful OSS kernels; you'll
see that "the GNU way" kills kernels.

Nor do I see the BSDs innovating the way Bell Labs has done, first
with Unix then with Plan 9.  (And lots of other goodies in between.)

My feeling is that what restricts innovation in the Linux kernel is
that there's too much fun and money to be had exploiting what's there.
Cf.  http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html.

-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.