←back to thread

358 points ofalkaed | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.324s | source

Just curious and who knows, maybe someone will adopt it or develop something new based on its ideas.
Show context
Animats ◴[] No.45556053[source]
- Photon, the graphical interface for QNX. Oriented more towards real time (widgets included gauges) but good enough to support two different web browsers. No delays. This was a real time operating system.

- MacOS 8. Not the Linux thing, but Copeland. This was a modernized version of the original MacOS, continuing the tradition of no command line. Not having a command line forces everyone to get their act together about how to install and configure things. Probably would have eased the tradition to mobile. A version was actually shipped to developers, but it had to be covered up to justify the bailout of Next by Apple to get Steve Jobs.

- Transaction processing operating systems. The first one was IBM's Customer Information Control System. A transaction processor is a kind of OS where everything is like a CGI program - load program, do something, exit program. Unix and Linux are, underneath, terminal oriented time sharing systems.

- IBM MicroChannel. Early minicomputer and microcomputer designers thought "bus", where peripherals can talk to memory and peripherals look like memory to the CPU. Mainframes, though, had "channels", simple processors which connected peripherals to the CPU. Channels could run simple channel programs, and managed device access to memory. IBM tried to introduce that with the PS2, but they made it proprietary and that failed in the marketplace. Today, everything has something like channels, but they're not a unified interface concept that simplifies the OS.

- CPUs that really hypervise properly. That is, virtual execution environments look just like real ones. IBM did that in VM, and it worked well because channels are a good abstraction for both a real machine and a VM. Storing into device registers to make things happen is not. x86 has added several layers below the "real machine" layer, and they're all hacks.

- The Motorola 680x0 series. Should have been the foundation of the microcomputer era, but it took way too long to get the MMU out the door. The original 68000 came out in 1978, but then Motorola fell behind.

- Modula. Modula 2 and 3 were reasonably good languages. Oberon was a flop. DEC was into Modula, but Modula went down with DEC.

- XHTML. Have you ever read the parsing rules for HTML 5, where the semantics for bad HTML were formalized? Browsers should just punt at the first error, display an error message, and render the rest of the page in Times Roman. Would it kill people to have to close their tags properly?

- Word Lens. Look at the world through your phone, and text is translated, standalone, on the device. No Internet connection required. Killed by Google in favor of hosted Google Translate.

replies(21): >>45556101 #>>45556208 #>>45556229 #>>45556271 #>>45556669 #>>45556854 #>>45556998 #>>45557079 #>>45557129 #>>45557453 #>>45557719 #>>45557765 #>>45558292 #>>45558373 #>>45558638 #>>45558754 #>>45559205 #>>45560537 #>>45561793 #>>45565845 #>>45582965 #
Timwi ◴[] No.45556998[source]
The reason XHTML failed is because the spec required it to be sent with a new MIME type (application/xml+xhtml I believe) which no webserver did out of the box. Everything defaulted to text/html, which all browsers would interpret as HTML, and given the mismatching doctype, would interpret as tag soup (quirks mode/lenient).

Meanwhile, local files with the doctype would be treated as XHTML, so people assumed the doctype was all you needed. So everyone who tried to use XHTML didn't realize that it would go back to being read as HTML when they upload it to their webserver/return it from PHP/etc. Then, when something went wrong/worked differently than expected, the author would blame XHTML.

Edit: I see that I'm getting downvoted here; if any of this is factually incorrect I would like to be educated please.

replies(2): >>45557104 #>>45557196 #
crote ◴[] No.45557104[source]
Isn't that what the <!DOCTYPE> tag was supposed to solve?
replies(1): >>45557136 #
Timwi ◴[] No.45557136[source]
Yes, I covered that; everyone assumed that you only needed to specify the doctype, but in practice browsers only accepted it for local files or HTTP responses with Content-Type: application/xml+xhtml. I've edited the comment to make that more explicit.
replies(1): >>45557149 #
1. crote ◴[] No.45557149[source]
Ah, I see. Yeah, that's a bit silly. They should've gone for "MUST have doctype, SHOULD have content type".