They do, take a look sometime on GitHub. There’s just not a lot of traction when the big players can run on so many other platforms. And often faster than the hobbies counter part.
All three big oses are also made by a staggering amount of people that all worked together. And even in the case of BSD/Linux/minux/ect, lot of people worked on it that made money off it. Temple OS is probably the only exception as it is well known and mostly(?) made by one person.
It’s an interesting field that is still being worked on.
Haiku os is another player everyone forgets about
There isn’t really a use-case for a fundamentally new OS. There isn’t a particular need that’s going unmet by the big three, and the existing base of applications and driver support on Linux/mac/windows is vast and extremely mature.
It’s like saying why hasn’t anyone invented a fundamentally new class of road vehicle that isn’t a car, truck, bus or motorbike, using entirely separate roads, infrastructure and fuel? Do we have a sudden shortage of inventors and engineers?
Well, no. No we don’t. I’m sure someone could come up with an absolutely delightful monowheel gyroflivver, and it would be all kinds of creative and neat.
But if it won’t fit in anyone’s garage, can’t share existing roads, needs a while network of clockwork-winding stations and can only carry your stuff in specially-shaped tow-pods you have to buy separately … then nobody’s going to use that to get to work, or go shopping, or wherever the hell do with cars I don’t have one idk - so only three people will ever buy one, and there’ll never be any infrastructure for them.
You better trademark-protect gyroflivver before anyone steal it.
Too late, I just mailed the patent office and fired up the forge
As a wannabe patent troll, I’m going to say you are to late. I’ll see you in court.
Man, this day just keeps getting better 🥹 I’ve always wanted to fight a patent troll!! Be careful on the tracks, I will be gyrating along on my gyroflivver
Already stole it from Asimov :D
People come up with “new” modes of transportation all the time. And all of them are shittier version of busses and trains. There are just a limited number of ways to effectively do a thing, and solutions will naturally move towards the same form.
That goes for transport, crabs, and computer kernels
Crabs?
Thanks.
More specifically: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation
While it’s possible that this is the case, we don’t actually know that because the people with the right skills aren’t spending a lot of time and resources on experimenting with new ideas and concepts unless there’s profit to be made from it.
Chances of coming up with an idea for a new kind of OS that will bring great return on investment in terms of profit and market share are very low, so entrepreneurs are spending their time thinking about more lucrative ventures.
If we lived in a post-scarcity Communist society where everyone is free to do what they feel is important and fulfilling to them, we’d be more likely to see new and novel ways of interfacing with computers (and technology in general).
But we don’t.
Edit: Also, operating systems are a lot of work.
Nice answer
There are plenty of desktop os other than of linux, windows and mac. You can even try them right in your browser here:
- ReactOS, an os specifically made to be compatible with windows apps: https://copy.sh/v86/?profile=reactos
- SerenityOS, an os written with focus on 90s UI: https://copy.sh/v86/?profile=serenity
- KolibriOS, an os written in assembly: https://copy.sh/v86/?profile=kolibrios
- 9Front, a fork of Plan9 os originally made by Bell Labs: https://copy.sh/v86/?profile=9front
- HaikuOS: a fork of BeOS, which was supposed to be the classic mac os successor: https://copy.sh/v86/?profile=haiku
- SolarOS, a real time hobby os: https://copy.sh/v86/?profile=solos
Yeah exactly. Toy OSs have only increased in scope, scale, and number. And the public is still completely unaware, because these toy OSs don’t solve day to day problems the way that Windows, Mac, and Linux did when they first came to market.
That’s a little disingenuous. Linux was a university project. But if a new Linux was made today? Why would you use that with the other mature options available?
Disingenuous how? You don’t think Linux solved a real day to day need of it’s first users?
Sure, from Torvald’s perspective, it was a project specifically to solve a small problem he had. He wanted to develop for a nix platform, but Minix wouldn’t work on his hardware, and the other *Nixs were out of reach.
And this was generally true in the market as well. Linux arrived just in time and was “good enough” to address a real gap, where Minix was limited in scope to basically just education, Hurd was in political development hell, and the other Nixs were targeted at massive servers and mainframes. Linux filled the “*Nix for the rest of us, inexpensively” niche, eventually growing in scope to displace its predecessors, despite their decades of additional professionalism and maturity.
That niche is now filled, the gap no longer exists. A “New Linux” wouldn’t displace Linux, because the original already suits the needs we have well enough. This is precisely why the BSDs and Solaris were “too little, too late”. They were in many ways better than Linux, but the problems they solve compared to Linux are tiny and highly debatable. Linux addressed a huge, day to day need of people who were motivated to help.
I think we’re talking past each other. I suspect Linux wasn’t much better than some of the “toy” OSs produced today, but there was a niche to be filled, which it did. So, if something that was as full-featured as Linux was when it took off was to be made today, it would languish because the niche has been filled. They aren’t ignored because they aren’t as good as Linux was back then, but because they aren’t as good as Linux is today.
these toy OSs don’t solve day to day problems the way that Windows, Mac, and Linux did when they first came to market.
Yes, this is the exact point I made in my first post. And in depth in my response.
Here you go, have fun…
Define “operating system”. It’s important to know that Linux is only the kernel and…
I’d like to interject for a moment…
What you’re referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linux”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
When this copypasta was first put together, this may have been more true. GNU was a big project, Linux was just starting out. But Linux has grown to be much larger than GNU. 30+ million SLOC from one estimate. GNU can’t get naming rights with some shell utilities and libraries that can be replaced. Why not add Systemd in the name? That seems pretty important. Or we can just stick to calling it Linux, because that’s not a mouthful and sounds nice.
There also, to be honest, been a concerted effort to GNU because they represt libre software as a movement for liberty for users as compared to the open source software movement which gets coopted by corporations WAY more.
deleted by creator
Oookkaaaayyy, you need to get back to your corner!
It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is
Adding to some of the other comments - I think this is a hard area for a new OS to take hold currently. It’s taken almost 35 years for Linux to get to where it is today - which is STILL a niche on the desktop, despite server dominance. (I say this as someone who has been Linux-only since 2007 (edit: not 2023 lol WTH was I thinking) at home)
With that in mind, if I were contemplating a choice between making a new OS or devoting my efforts to improving one of the others (to be clear I don’t have the skills for this to be an actual choice), I don’t know what might drive me to create a new one.
I would say that none of the current operating systems were developed by individuals.
Linux, the original kernel was written mostly by Linus. But that was extremely basic by today’s terms. There are hundreds (or more) contributors to the modern kernel. Security alone could not be a single person’s job now, I’d argue.
Windows. Well, I don’t think one person wrote that. 1.0 was already when MS was a business with multiple developers. The modern Windows OS has a full size kernel also like Linux and likewise one person would not be able to write something so monolithic.
macOS I don’t know much about, but it’s built on top of an existing *ix kernel and again one person didn’t make the current version.
So individuals would struggle to make a modern secure network aware operating system.
As others have stated, there’s really no reason to. The Linux kernel is free and open-source and is quite modularized. So you can take what you want from that to build your own micro to macro kernel, and then add tools you write yourself or curate afterwards. Would it truly be a new OS? Debatable, but then again, to make something secure enough for the modern era from scratch? I don’t know how many people would want to even try now.
My man just gonna forget about BSD like that?
I didn’t think BSD was ever made by just one person though?
I think he was more remarking that you said “built on top of an existing *ix” instead of saying it was built off of BSD
Perhaps. To be honest, I wasn’t even sure how much it is related to any BSD release now. So I just went with a generic *ix to play it safe.
I do think it qualifies as actual Unix, though.
Yes, if I recall correctly the Darwin kernel does implement the POSIX standard.
MacOS XNU Kernel is based upon Carnegie Mellon’s Mach Kernel which incorporated large portions of the 4.3BSD Kernel.
Because it’s pointless.
- There’s no real need / use case for a new OS. Existing ones cover about everything;
- Operating systems nowadays are way more complex than they were, you can’t just pick and write a successful one in a few months, you’ve to support very complex protocols, hardware and lots of different architectures - even for Linux it’s hard to keep up with all the ARM CPUs;
- Contrary to popular belief (what the Linux people on Lemmy think) the success of an OS nowadays is tied to ecosystems and applications. Building the OS doesn’t lead to anything if you can’t get companies like Adobe, Microsoft, Autodesk, Google etc. to write the software that people use for it.
No need for the weird jab at Linux people. .
That’s got a lot better recently with everyone moving to web anyway though
Proton was the last piece of the puzzle needed for full parity imo
Web is nice and welcomed yes, but it isn’t native performance nor a native Adobe application.
I think Adobe is looking at a web based Photoshop aren’t they?
But yes the Adobe suite is one of the last hurdles for parity, if I could afford it anyway that is
I think Adobe is looking at a web based Photoshop aren’t they?
Browsers have limitations and PS is a complex product. Consider this, Adobe made a native iOS version of Photoshop for the iPad and it has just a few select features that the desktop version offers, the performance isn’t that great as well… So, if Adobe can’t even create a native Photoshop clone for another OS (that centrally shares core code with the desktop version) what makes you think they would be able to deliver anything on a browser that would come even close?
I’m not sure whether that’s a matter of hardware limitations or company resources to port it though
Not to say web would receive more than mobile
On Wayland though… That’s the next bit IMO. Maybe the final one.
I’m running Wayland on my two Nvidia machines and it’s workable, I can get high performance in most games under wayland, though I believe that is through xwayland
Yeah I ran Wayland and Steam was working pretty well with it. But when I bought a HiDPI display (1440p), Steam looked like absolute garbage for some reason. Really blurry text and images, and parts of the UI kept flickering or going blank. I don’t know how to solve that. Especially since the only change was in the resolution of the display. Everything else was identical.
I’m using hidpi and have similar flickering, but it still works and the games look fine so I just ignore it
That’s the thing, the game looks like crap for me, low-res and blurry. It’s Rocket League.
I just saw that you could maybe disable Steam from using Wayland, and fall back to using X11 instead, when using the flatpak version (which I am). So presumably that would make it use XWayland? But I thought Steam was using that anyway. I don’t freaking know.
Maybe what I actually need to find is how to get HiDPI working for XWayland. 🤷♂️
Weird, I’ve just tried booting up rocket league and it looks fine to me. I’m not using the flatpak, using the nix package
I thought steam always used xwayland as well.
Is it only rocket league that has this problem or everything?
Could be your specific GPU unfortunately I’ve had a few Nvidia issues happen on one GPU but not another under an identical stack, they don’t seem to test their Linux drivers properly
Because it’s pointless.
This is like Marvel Movie brain except applied to OSs. This mindset suggests that the only conceivable rationale for an OS is that it’s tied to shiny brand names and commercial rationalizations.
Despite this insistence, numerous alternative OS’s do in fact exist and have been listed here. And the range of motivations extends beyond just having glossy icons for whatever the first 3 or 4 companies that pop in your head.
You have:
- experimentation and novelty/niche interest that don’t align with specific commercial interests (e.g. Menuet OS, TempleOS)
- user-oriented design philosophies with specific definitions of speed and useability (e.g. Haiku OS)
- study/teaching in academic context
- niche/emerging product categories (QNX)
If you are able to understand why people would have these kinds of interests, it’s the kind of thing that lights a fire in your mind, and for some people, sets them on a career, or opens up a major new interest, or leads to them having fun with projects that scratch their own itch, so to speak in ways that do lead to commercial applications (lest we forget that every FAANG has an origin story about how it started with tinkering in a garage). “Because it’s pointless” makes me feel like I’m witnessing that inner fire of curiosity and sense of possibility die in real time.
It doesn’t mean there’s no barrier to market penetration or no difficulty creating a kernel, but there’s so much more to the WHY of creating an OS than getting listed on Nasdaq.
You’re talking about a new kernel. Fedora is an OS. So is Ubuntu. As for the answer, it is money and time. If you’re open to paying a recurring donation, I’m pretty sure someone out there is working on a newer standard that is supposedly superior to POSIX and UNIX standard, they need someone to fund their OS research.
The Systems group at ETH Zürich where I studied had their own operating system, called Barrelfish because apparently making an OS is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel to these crazy people (this is meant positively, I hold them in high esteem). Side note they also made their own computer called Enzian. The combination of both is intended to allow them to do research off the beaten path with some different core design choices.
And we built our own student versions of barrelfish-like OSes during a course, if I recall correctly we only used their boot code to get the ARM cores on the Pandaboards up and running, then everything else was individual per group of four. We all had a lot of fun with our very individual memory management bugs, filesystem bugs, shell bugs, capability bugs and so on :-)
PS: There is also Redox OS where some people wrote an OS completely in Rust.
And those OSs you made in class are legitimate OSs. But they would need a lot of work to even have a chance of competing with Linux, Windows, or MacOS. Which is why it’s unlikely we’ll see a new consumer-level OS anytime soon.
Yeah if we narrow the question down to specifically consumer level OSes, then the best chance would be if some really big conglomerate decided they needed their own independent thing. Like Google did with Fuchsia, next time Samsung or the Chinese State perhaps. But even then a scenario like Android or Tizen would be the more likely outcome, a different userland implemented on Linux.
My “I’m a CS” colleagues all tell stories about the OS they created in uni. A couple of them were happy stories.
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/6-828-operating-system-engineering-fall-2012/
It’s good to know how to do it, but there is not much need to go and do it.
A couple of them were happy stories. Not an easy feat.
There are. They just don’t have a lot of popularity. Take a look at RedoxOS for example.
Or GNU HURD, FreeBSD, ReactOS, Singularity, TempleOS, …
TheseusOS is another interesting one.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Every good Computer Science or Computer Engineering major has written their own operating system.
And every one of them wishes to never need to do it again and gains an understanding of just how magical all that “OS Bloat” is.
Agreed, and since we’re at it, same for compilers honestly.
People are creating new operating systems, but the reason they don’t catch on is hardware and software compatibility. It was hard enough to make an actual performant operating system that could work on a wide variety of hardware back in the 90s. Trying to do it for every possible hardware combination available now is just crazy. It can also be an incredibly difficult task to get even open source software working properly on a new OS. Anything else is just completely out of the question.
Even Google and Microsoft ran into this problem. Microsoft dropped Singularity ages ago, and while Google’s Fuschia made it to literally a couple of devices its future is uncertain since Google laid off a significant part of the team working on it.
