Talk:System software

The following was removed from the main page since it seems more appropriate for the Discussion.

Operating System Selection

I would like to seriously question using Linux as the basis of the laptop. It's a path of constant tweaking and tuning. Linux is also further away from the "pure" microkernel architectures than the BSDs. In short Linux is like a F1 tuned for racing - but not as reliable. When working on a familiar hardware platform the BSDs become very robust and nice platform to work with. And more importantly without the horrible quality problems of the Linux kernel. FreeBSD kernel is also magnitudes more secure - it just is cleaner and better thought and developed with the focus first on stability and reliablity. Unlike Linux.. The bottom line is that the project has got the possibility to choose from others than just Linux as well. I'd go for Frisbee or mentioned reasons but there are others too.

• (While I agree that *BSD might be a better option -- perhaps OpenBSD in particular for reasons of stability, et cetera -- I think the disparaging remarks about Linux-based operating systems were poorly conceived, exaggerated, and unnecessary as presented. - Chad Perrin)

• Indeed: BSD is a good alternative. Another alternative may be an older Linux kernel. The 2.4 kernel line is pretty stable and good also. The current Linux kernel version is 2.6

• (User-contributed) Yes, the older the Linux kernel is, the more stable it becomes. For example, the current 1.08 version of PuppyLinux is based on the 2.4 kernel, and can confidently deliver satisfactory GUI experience despite the resource constraints in the OLPC machine.

• BSD is just as monolithic as Linux is, and the reverse - and their developers target reliability and security just as much as others, proved by millions of servers running it and some big companies wasting lot of engineering resources in making it even more stable (for example Linux distros are already shipping advanced security frameworks like SElinux, while FreeBSD (not openbsd) is still working on it)

Why UNIX(like) at all?
Recently Negroponte stated that a "slimmer Linux" is needed for the $100 laptop. Like others here, I question why it has to be Linux. But I'll take that notion even further: Why does the OS even need to be Unix or a Unix work alike? Why is Negroponte so bent on Linux? There are other FOSS options that are much more focused on the desktop, yet still have Posix compliance.

• Haiku-OS is an FOSS implementation of the BeOS tool kits with a FOSS kernel. It maintains binary and source level compatibility with BeOS R5, so all pre-existing free R5 software will work on it. (There is quite a bit)

• Syllable OS Is a lot like BeOS. (But it's not BeOS) It's getting pretty mature.

Both these options are FOSS. If you really want the Unixy goodness, both also happen to have Posix compliant shells, so much of the Unix CLI stuff is portable. Both have fast native GUI systems and very modern design behind the internals. Both are extremely light weight compared to BSD or Linux + X + desktop env. And if one was really concerned with the stability of the kernel, it might be possible to run one of these alternative environments on top of a BSD or Linux kernel instead of their native kernels.

• Why UNIX(like)?: What is the point of running a non-Unix kernel just to run Unix software using compatibility layers? A Unixy operative system will make things much easier (POSIX is native there and software is already running there and it's the main development platform) and will allow developers to concentrate on more serious issues like ram usage.

It might also be possible to buy out the BeOS R5 codebase from Palm Inc. or have them donate it to the project. They don't seem interested in doing anything with it. Then the OLPC project could release the the source under GPL and get help from the Haiku and Yellow Tab guys to whip it into shape for the $100 laptop. I really can't convey how great BeOS or Haiku would be project. It's a perfect match for a system with the $100 laptops specs.

The need for a distributed OS

The deployment environment is a school, not a business. So it needs cheap, easy system administration above all, as well as painless system integration. It would also be good if it distributed the file system so the spare storage on the laptops can be aggregated.

The logical choice is Plan 9. Plan 9 is open-sourced, designed for graphics, lightweight, network-centric, has a UNIX api (glued on the side, but it's there), and is designed to integrate and implement distributed file systems. It should be easy to aggregate the file systems of many laptops just by merging their name spaces.

• Recent Linux kernels already support the 9P protocol and per-process namespaces to some degree. While Plan9 is a beautiful operative system, its sadly more of a research OS than the real alternative that OLPC needs - most of the *nix software have never been ported and it doesn't gets ported by just pressing a button.