Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×
Operating Systems

Ask Slashdot: Innovative Operating Systems/Distros In 2015? 206

iamacat writes: Back in 90s, we used Linux not only because of open source, but also for innovative features not found in commercial operating systems — better multitasking, network power features like slirp and masquerading, free developer tools for many languages. Nowadays OSX and Windows caught up in these areas and mainstream distros like Ubuntu dumbed down in default configuration. So where to go for active innovation like 3D/VR desktop, artificial intelligence, drag and drop ability to mash up UI of multiple apps or just drastically better performance? Something maybe rough around the edges but usable and exciting enough to use as daily desktop?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ask Slashdot: Innovative Operating Systems/Distros In 2015?

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    better multitasking

    Then what specific OS?

    network power features like slirp and masquerading

    How were either of these unique to Linux?

    free developer tools for many languages.

    So no different than BSD?

    • Re:Uh huh... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by shaitand ( 626655 ) on Friday October 30, 2015 @02:20PM (#50834295) Journal
      BSD is not a commercial OS and isn't in competition with Linux.

      Linux brought those things to the consumer desktop. In the 2000's it not only continued to gain functionality but actually gained polish. Today, Linux is at least as polished and pretty as Windows or OSX.

      The only people still using BSD (and honestly most of the "hardcore" distributions of Linux) are people who appreciate difficulty for it's own sake. Unlike windows and OSX you trade no functionality for the polished experience. You simply fall back to manual effort when you need more flexibility than the polished tools provide and most of the time the polished tools break none of it.

      If you have trouble with rpmbuild; yum -y local vs make; make install and therefore choose the old way and break package management thus finding yourself in a dependency hell a year later... that's because you are ignorant, perhaps willfully, and your outdated and unpolished system that gives you no added functionality is what you deserve.

      For myself... I used desktop linux in 98 and have used linux in the server rack since that time. It has taken many forms and flavors for me including LFS for awhile. That was great for learning how everything works under the hood. If you are using anything but a modern user friendly linux on even a 5 yr old desktop and spending more than 2-4 hours configuring and customizing the OS itself on setup (less than windows or OS X) then I have to question your life choices. Unless are learning, why waste time manually doing things the hard way when you can point and click your way to a solid and well configured launch platform for working on the new thing you are learning now? If there is some detail that matters which you can't point and click you way to, why not help improve the polish so you can move on? The point really extends to experienced users of windows and OS X (by which I really mean the latest and greatest edition of OS X in the same way windows is nothing but the latest and greatest NT) as well.

      The OS wars are over. You could make a very good argument that Linux won since it is by far the most heavily deployed OS overall. But really it's more that the war itself become obsolete because open software stacks won. Even if you are using windows outside of certain niche environments most of the software you are using is cross platform OSS and most of your experience takes place in the browser or at least the network. It really makes very little difference what OS you use because no OS actually won and therefore everything has to work everywhere.

      I switched from a linux desktop back to windows for years because working on third party systems constantly meant needing windows only apps and because windows got me from scratch to a working platform more quickly. Meanwhile I continued using linux as my first choice for... everything else. Now I've switched back to find Linux Mint actually provides a smoother, easier, and prettier experience these days on my brand new high end laptop supporting all the recently released hardware out of the box. It was so quick and easy I actually did spent a little time customizing frivolous things like window behavior, desktop effects, and widgets. I'm not sure I want any new innovation on my desktop. Just keep pace and let things grow more stable. Maybe fix the odd clipboard behavior and inconsistency? Middle click paste is a cool concept but not worth the hassle. Finally fix the quirks of kmixer?

      The only thing left was support for the vsphere client. The virtual F5 in my lab ties me to this and the lack of functionality in the web equivalent in newer versions also hampers me here requiring me to virtualize windows. The solution is I'll simply remove both vmware and F5 from my lab. Many enterprises still have these things but that isn't the direction of the future. The future is about the open equivalents that have caught up now on the core functionality you need from these things are easily deployed on any cloud stack giving greater flexibility and automatabil
      • Today, Linux is at least as polished and pretty as Windows or OSX.

        LMFAO.

      • BSD is not a commercial OS and isn't in competition with Linux.

        Tell us again what you know about the underpinnings of OSX?

        • I am a PC-BSD user, but despite my love for the FreeBSD family, that's not what OS X is. The underpinnings of OS-X are the XNU kernel, which is a successor to NEXTSTEP's kernel. NEXTSTEP was based on a combination of Mach 2.5 and some BSD userland. OS-X uses something that's somewhat a successor to that combination - Mach 3.0 kernel along w/ userland taken from FreeBSD. The kernel however is NOT a FreeBSD kernel, which undercuts your argument somewhat. Also, a lot of things in OS-X don't run unchang
      • by illtud ( 115152 )


        The only thing left was support for the vsphere client

        When did you check this? This was a stopper for me for months, but last month a new vmware-client was released that works great for me on Fedora. JFYI.

          • Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see anything about managing an ESXi 5.1 server in the documentation for this client.
            • by illtud ( 115152 )

              Ah, sorry - misread you as asking for a working vmware view client, which was my problem. Isn't VMWare deprecating the vsphere client in favour of the web version? I'm not close enough to the administration to know whether there's missing functionality in the web version, but there's certainly functions in there that won't be supported in the windows client.

              • "Isn't VMWare deprecating the vsphere client in favour of the web version? I'm not close enough to the administration to know whether there's missing functionality in the web version"

                Yes they are, in 5.5+ and it lacks essential functionality. Since they removed functionality from the cli to push vcenter and the same functionality is notably missing from the web client I think it is a deliberate strategy on their part. You definitely tickled my lazy bone with the suggestion of a client but why mess with vmwa
  • Do what? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Lunix Nutcase ( 1092239 ) on Friday October 30, 2015 @12:36PM (#50833347)

    Back in 90s, we used Linux not only because of open source, but also for innovative features not found in commercial operating systems — better multitasking, network power features like slirp and masquerading, free developer tools for many languages.

    None of what you mention was a unique feature of Linux or even pioneered by it. All of what you talk about were already part of Unix systems that existed prior or was software that existed before Linux even existed and was already cross-platform.

    • by pla ( 258480 )
      All of what you talk about were already part of Unix systems that existed prior

      Absolutely true. Now name a desktop OS that had those features at the time.

      Yes, technically I had a $15k HP-UX system sitting on my desk at work back then (though amusingly, my Windows PC sitting next to it had about 10x the horsepower for 1/10th the cost), but that doesn't really have much relevance to your average home power-user.

      I find it odd that almost every post so far has slammed the OP for romanticizing the dawn o
      • Absolutely true. Now name a desktop OS that had those features at the time.

        Which is shifting the goalposts. The submission specifically said:

        but also for innovative features not found in commercial operating systems

        • by pla ( 258480 )
          Which is shifting the goalposts. The submission specifically said

          You have chosen to interpret the question in a way that favors your mockery of the OP.

          The very fact that you could come back to say "ha-HA, what about $OS, you ignorant fool???" demonstrates that subby clearly has a home-user-centric viewpoint.

          Yes, you can rationalize your 100% factually correct response by ignoring that; or, you can encourage someone to better appreciate our world by responding to the "real" question.

          When Grandma ask
          • You have chosen to interpret the question in a way that favors your mockery of the OP.

            No, I simply read plain English.

          • by dissy ( 172727 )

            Disclaimer: I'm not arguing GPs point. Or Ps point. Or your point. Oh wait you are P.
            Better Disclaimer: I have no point, best not to read further. If you would like your time returned, please send a stamped self addressed envelope to my gmail account, and I'll send you the GNU date source code. Please allow 4 to 6 weeks for delivery.

            When Grandma asks you who makes the best computers, do you answer "Cray", or "HP/Dell/Lenovo"?

            Well if MY grandma, passed over 15 years ago now, asked me who makes the best computers, I'd probably answer Cray too.

            And then send her off to God for the best tech suppo

      • by Anonymous Coward

        I find it odd that almost every post so far has slammed the OP for romanticizing the dawn of Linux, but it did count as that much of a radical departure from the standard fare of the day. Even if it did nothing more (and it did a lot more) than bring some of the same tools to the desktop that Big Iron had had for decades, that alone completely changed the home PC landscape forever.

        Maybe if you were only ever using DOS or Windows 3.11. Those of us that that were using 386BSD laughed at how Linux users thought their desktop was innovative.

      • Re:Do what? (Score:4, Informative)

        by jeremyp ( 130771 ) on Friday October 30, 2015 @01:33PM (#50833871) Homepage Journal

        If we are talking about the early 90's there was Windows NT 3.1 and OS/2 as well as BSD, SCO Unix and Xenix. Plus there were still Unixes available for several higher end work stations like Sun and Silicon Graphics.

        In technical terms the Windows NT kernel compares very favourably with Linux which was pretty agricultural by the standards of the times. Taking just the example of the thread support, Linux threads were a fiasco for many years.

      • Re:Do what? (Score:4, Informative)

        by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Friday October 30, 2015 @02:03PM (#50834123) Homepage Journal

        Yes, technically I had a $15k HP-UX system sitting on my desk at work back then (though amusingly, my Windows PC sitting next to it had about 10x the horsepower for 1/10th the cost), but that doesn't really have much relevance to your average home power-user.

        Also, who the shit wants to run HP-SUX? I got paid to figure out how to set up IPSEC on it once, holy crap. The documentation was literally backwards.

        Didn't Linux do a lot of those fancy networking tricks before most commercial Unixes? Stuff like packet mangling and IP masquerading? And the free dev tools may have been available for other platforms, but there's a big difference. Most of the time, the official compiler would shit all over gcc. I worked for a company that had the sunspro compiler suite, and of course I got gcc, and anything that would build with sun's compiler would just crap all over a gcc build. Since a lot of the early work on gcc aimed at x86, you didn't get as much benefit from using some vendor's compiler on a PC Unix as you did on those more expensive platforms. So yeah, I had the GNU suite on my Sun machines, but the PC running Linux really changed the industry.

        To be fair, BSD had new stuff, too. But the community was less friendly, the documentation less penetrable (use the source? I wasn't there yet) and the license apparently attracted less contributions.

      • by Mondragon ( 3537 )

        Absolutely true. Now name a desktop OS that had those features at the time.

        Linux is barely even a desktop OS *now*, the idea that you would compare it to desktop OSes in the 90s is amusing at best.

    • True, but he said innovative, not inventive. These are not synonyms. Innovative frequently involves invention, but literally all it means is bringing a technology to people as if for the first time. The iPod would be a very major example of innovation, for example, despite every feature (except ease of use) it had being bettered by contemporary Nomads.

      The early distributions did make useful Unix-like systems available to a mass audience. MINIX didn't do that. Coherent didn't do that. And SysV certainly n

      • Except they said "innovative features not found in commercial operating systems". But this is false since commercial Unixes DID have those features. And they were ported over to Linux after the fact.

  • Is this a joke? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by creimer ( 824291 ) on Friday October 30, 2015 @12:38PM (#50833371) Homepage
    Back in the 1990's, you had to roll your own kernel and modules. If you were lucky, all the hardware worked. Most of the time it didn't. Nothing worked out of the box. Today's kids have it too easy. Now get off my lawn!
    • Of course it's a joke. iamacat is just talking about things that could be done on almost any Unix system.

      • And 3D UIs existed back then too - just watch a copy of Jurassic Park ;)
        • by saider ( 177166 )

          And 3D UIs existed back then too - just watch a copy of Jurassic Park ;)

          Are you encouraging copyright infringement?

          • Any pressed Blu-Ray or DVD is technically a copy. If not because it's bit-for-bit, then because it's stamped from a master.

        • Yes, it did. [wikipedia.org] It's always funny when nerds think that was some sort of invention of the movie when it was a real thing.

          • It's also funny when people post things that directly refute them: "File System Navigator (fsn; pronounced "fusion") is an experimental application to view a file system in 3D, made by SGI for IRIX systems. Even though it was never developed to a fully functional file manager. . ." Most anyone who worked with Unix back in those days would know that the 3D UI in the film was definitely not Unix. Most people were lucky to get a terminal when dealing with Unix.
      • by 0123456 ( 636235 )

        Of course it's a joke. iamacat is just talking about things that could be done on almost any Unix system.

        The difference is that my Linux laptop cost about $1,000, whereas, if I remember correctly, the Sun workstation on my desk cost over $25,000.

        The options for home users were basically DOS and its clones, Windows 3 and a couple of similar simplistic GUIs, OS/2, and... Linux.

        • Except the submission only said "not found in commercial operating systems". Nowhere in the sentence does it say either "desktop" or "consumer".

    • If you kids had any kind of good memory at all, you'd remember having to set the IRQ jumper on the card, then compile the kernel module with the right IRQ #defined.

    • Was the same even in the 2000's. Probably because more people using linux were using old systems from the 1990's though I suppose.

      I remember someone asking why I tried so many distros of linux and how could I enjoy that. My answer was more less, I had to try that many until I could fine one that worked. I recall trying to find something to work with my old Dell Dimension 4200 (a P3 800), and had to basically play matchmaker with my hardware, bios version, and linux distro until I could get one that worked.

    • Today's kids have it too easy.

      That's an illusion. While modern distributions require almost no effort, that ease of use comes at the traditional price: in the rare cases that things don't work, today's kids have no idea how to deal with it.

  • different linux? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 30, 2015 @12:38PM (#50833377)

    Just because Ubuntu dumbed down doesn't mean you need to use it. Slakware is still out there. Arch, Gentoo, Debian, Fedora, etc. are all a bit rougher and all have a bit more "exciting stuff". Still, the submittor's main problem is that he needs to go into a StarTrek movie. Truly innovative ideas in operating systems, like Plan9 and Eros, end up with less "drag and drop ability to mash up UI of multiple apps" (whatever that means) than the mainstream. Most of the innovation is now best done on the level of the application anyway.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    better multitasking

    Than what? Windows? I'm pretty sure it didn't have better multitasking than a real Unix in the 90s.

    network power features like slirp and masquerading

    Slirp supported commercial Unixes like Solaris. IP masquerading could also be done on BSDs and other Unixes as well.

    free developer tools for many languages

    The GNU tools could be run on commercial Unixes even before Linux existed.

  • by Rei ( 128717 ) on Friday October 30, 2015 @12:41PM (#50833407) Homepage

    They say that P-P-P-PowerOS [knowyourmeme.com] is rather nice, but it only runs on specific laptops.

  • TFS must've been written by a Slav: no "a" in any of it... ;)

  • Huh? (Score:1, Troll)

    by gstoddart ( 321705 )

    So where to go for active innovation like 3D/VR desktop, artificial intelligence, drag and drop ability to mash up UI of multiple apps

    Holy crap, I just got bingo!!

    rough around the edges but usable and exciting enough to use as daily desktop

    Exciting?? What the hell? You want 'exciting' plug a Windows box direct to the intertubes with no firewall.

    I heard some crazy guy has a "praise jeebus" operating system or something, but I'm pretty sure I have never once heard anybody say "gee, what I want is a desktop

  • by TheModelEskimo ( 968202 ) on Friday October 30, 2015 @01:01PM (#50833545)
    There is so much innovation these days that it has transcended the separation-by-OS that used to handily signal where and what kind of changes you could expect. As an example, if you're looking for an experimental graphical terminal emulator [acko.net] it turns out you can use it in Windows and OS X, but not in Linux. But the point is, it's not available on one OS in particular and it's even a virtue now to be cross-platform. There's so much new tech out there and it all happens on a huge variety of platforms. So trying out new tech is just a matter of focusing (for example: system software, graphics software, hardware support, kernel-level new stuff, software in embedded systems, hardware sensors, etc.) and then deciding what the required resources are to dive in on that specific level. What OS or OSes would be best, what packages should you install, and so on.

    Going back to your examples, 3D/VR desktop work has been going on since the 80s at least, and AI before that, and "drastically better performance" has always been on peoples' minds. The GUI mashups even ring a bell, though everything is so scriptable these days that anyone who's doing a GUI mashup would probably be less frustrated just typing it into a reusable script. These aren't new topics, they change over time incrementally, and the only advice I can give is to make sure you are _really_ looking at the high-end tech that you think you are. If you are frustrated with a slow system, did it cost less than $10K? Because that's commodity-level pricing. If you are frustrated with the 3D effects you just enabled on your desktop, did you really research the state of the art? And so on.

    Also, just to nitpick--you say Ubuntu is dumbed-down in "default configuration" but Windows and OS X are dumbed down by default too, aren't they? That's why you have package managers, Ninite, the App Store, etc. Restore your purchases or download a set of things and you're out of the dumbzone.
  • The past couple of Ubuntu releases have been fairly "boring" stability releases, but 16.04 is looking to have some exciting new features: Mir (replacement for X.org), Snappy Core (replacement for .DEB packages, to compete with Docker), and Unity8 convergence. The goal is that somebody will be able to carry around an Ubuntu Phone that morphs from a touchscreen smartphone to a full-fledged desktop when it connects to a dumb terminal. If it's a hit, then I imagine in the future, it will also serve as a console
    • by Raseri ( 812266 )
      And the thought of having a grand total of one point of failure for all of your data and electronics, including your car and your house? Is this also awesome?
      • Data: I have two separate automated backup routines, so nothing to fear there. Car/house: losing my phone would be about the same as losing my TV remote, which does not keep me up at night. Single point of failure for all my electronics: yes, that would be a bitch I suppose. But unless you're a complete dolt that destroys your phone more than once per year, I think having a single $1k phone-computer +accessories would be cheaper in the long run than having to replace my phone, computer, laptop, and tablet e
  • I'm pretty sure you want this: http://www.menuetos.net/ [menuetos.net]

  • by TheCount22 ( 952106 ) on Friday October 30, 2015 @01:09PM (#50833637)

    Take a look at Squeak ( http://squeak.org/ [squeak.org] ). As it turns out most things in the future will have their roots in the discarded ideas of the past. As far as programming languages take a look at Erlang and Elixir (computer languages are the operating systems of the future). I expect the capability model and the actor model will get a lot more popular in the future. In the future computers will be networks, applications will be distributed applications.

    • by 0123456 ( 636235 )

      In the future computers will be networks, applications will be distributed applications.

      I still remember when that was the future twenty years ago! We've gone so far ahead in time that the past is now the future!

    • "Take a look at Squeak "

      Too squeaky.

    • by rwa2 ( 4391 ) * on Friday October 30, 2015 @01:40PM (#50833927) Homepage Journal

      Yeah, I don't know why it has been such slow going... back in the naughties I was working with distributed applications... We'd be setting up MOSIX clusters with transparent process migration (it's often faster to migrate the process to the data rather than get the data to the process) and distributed filesystems like CODA (which still aren't much of a commodity, they've just sorta migrated to "the cloud" with crap like Dropbox and Google Drive and MS OneDrive or whatever). I could walk up to any computer or device and access my desktop via VNC and keep working on whatever I was doing just as I had left it.

      In the mean time, it seems like everything was set back 10 years as everything got reinvented for mobile devices. Network speeds for mobile phones were roughly about 10 years behind desktop computing. Screen size and resolution was closer to about 20 years behind, which might explain why phone interfaces today look more like Windows 3.11 than ever.

      Perhaps the biggest difference is in price. Now that smartphones and computers are practically disposable, we've shifted from building highly reliable distributed systems to highly replaceable throwaway systems. Don't get too attached to the idea of a persistent remotely accessible virtual workspace, all your programs (I mean "apps") and interfaces you're accustomed to using will be thrown away during the next release cycle next week anyways.

    • Take a look at Squeak ( http://squeak.org/ [squeak.org] ).

      I did take a look at Squeak. The interface is abysmal and the documentation is atrocious. The runtime is slower than I would ever have thought possible. I was really excited about it until I used it.

  • by Hognoxious ( 631665 ) on Friday October 30, 2015 @01:15PM (#50833705) Homepage Journal

    drag and drop ability to mash up UI of multiple apps

    Iif you want one with a random bullshit generator, just choose whatever the OP runs.

  • "Something maybe rough around the edges but usable and exciting enough to use as daily desktop?"

    Yup, that's pretty much the definition of Enlightenment [enlightenment.org]

    I love the Terminology [enlightenment.org] terminal emulator and wish it was easier to install on non-Enlightenment distros.

    • I enjoyed Enlightenment's experimetalness in 1999. But at a glance I don't see a lot of improvements in the past 16 years. Other than terminology, what've they been innovating lately?

  • Windows 8! (Score:4, Funny)

    by postmortem ( 906676 ) on Friday October 30, 2015 @01:24PM (#50833791) Journal

    It is very exciting to use! You'd want to destroy keyboard, screen, or the computer itself after you use it for a bit.

  • Other Reasons (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sir_Eptishous ( 873977 ) on Friday October 30, 2015 @01:44PM (#50833965) Homepage
    Speaking for myself, I use Linux distros at home for these reasons:

    1. They're not Microsoft, Apple or Google.
    2. There is less "telemetry" from my Linux boxes to OS megacorps(see #1)
    3. Linux desktops have become reasonably reliable and stable, and yes, I've been using Unix/Linux since late 90s.
    4. I enjoy trying out different distros/software, configuring the software, seeing the different ways things work in different distros, etc
    5. Linux is fun!
    • by hughbar ( 579555 )
      Yes agree. Been using since early 2000s, now on Linux Mint.

      Now back in university and Libre Office has trashed my footnotes because they want essays in 'Word format'. This is the kind of thing that slows/stops adoption, confusion with 'Microsoft' and 'standard'. That and, to be fair, I still use Windows for music projects.

      Meanwhile my desktop runs sweetly on an ancient clunker with about £80 and I'm 'thinking about' changing it this year. No upgrades etc. this, in itself, gives a much better eco
  • So, with all due respect to those who would rather nit pick perceptions or memories of the good old days..

    Is there no one with a suggestion for a new operating environment (or OS) to answer the OP's question?
    (No, I don't know of one either)

    • I don't want any of that useless crap that the poster considers "innovation"

      Here's some real innovation:
      http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin... [openbsd.org]

  • by corychristison ( 951993 ) on Friday October 30, 2015 @02:13PM (#50834205)

    For anyone looking to get their hands dirty, I always recommend to try out Funtoo Linux.

    Try out various kernels (even BSD kernels), choice between 3 init systems, and all the customization you want.

    Seriously. Try it. www.funtoo.org

  • Several companies announced resistive or whatever memory that is almost as fast as DRAM, while also non-volatile, cheap and big like flash. We need an architecture that takes full advantage of that. Keep the programs and data in place (instead of the usual RAM to/from disk joggling), optimize the I/O and CPU differently...

    HP announced some work in this direction with their "Machine", but for now I believe all they have is some slightly customized Linux distro.

    If I remember correctly, PalmOS had some goo

  • Sorry, we are at the top of the s-curve. Forget about innovation and expect incremental enhancements.

  • Where else, but the Apollo Giudance Computer [wikipedia.org] or Data General's RDOS [wikipedia.org]. Oh wait, it does not have .NET or Node.JS so maybe it is not so innovative.
  • There are a lot of things that can be done in the open source arena but things like AI are too valuable for universities to give away and often require physical datacenters to train and use. Siri, Cortana etc. are not in my opinion likely to emerge through part time collaboration and unlike drivers, there isn't really an incentive for the big players such as Google to give it away. The good news is that most consumer facing AI/Digital Assistants will simply be a web service that someone could write a front

  • NixOS has a package manager that I think has a real shot at achieving scalability and repeatability in package management. Once something works in NixOS it will keep working on it's own, since specific versions of dependencies are tracked and can coexist, whereas in mainstream distros shit breaks all the time. The current model of freezing everything once in a while and patching up some of the most obviously broken stuff simply isn't keeping up with the pace of software development IMHO. http://nixos.org [nixos.org]
  • All the leading OS still don't deviate much from traditional kernel design approaches, the main "innovation" i'm interested in for a modern OS is provable reliability... by provable i don't mean empirical and observable reliability (e.g FreeBSD), i mean reliable by design: There are some pretty innovative concepts beyond the basic microkernel concepts in Minix 3, and unlike it's predecessors it's intended to be more than an educational tool.
  • >" Nowadays OSX [MacOS] and [MS-]Windows caught up in these areas"

    Oh really? Perhaps quite a bit in just THOSE few areas which you listed, but in nowhere NEAR all the areas for which many of us continue to choose Linux. It is nice that Linux forced other operating systems to suck less than they used to, however :)

    >"and mainstream distros like Ubuntu dumbed down in default configuration."

    So then use one of the other [superior and yet excellent] Linux distros. I, for one, have never selected to use U

  • I find that Microsoft is really innovating in the user interface department these days.
  • Probably the most 'innovative' in that its approach is very non-tradititional. Seems like a good idea at this time:

    https://www.qubes-os.org/ [qubes-os.org]

    • by Burz ( 138833 )

      Qubes does integrate security context display into the window manager. That is, at least, some UI innovation the OP may be interested in. It also solves security problems with cut-and-paste between domains.

  • Nothing as far as a distro (or desktop environment) with 3D VR or AI comes to mind but there is innovation in OS going on. Not many have attempted to answer the OP, so here's my list. Others mentioned Qubes, Urbit, and Mirage.io, which reminded me of Nix OS and HaLVM.

    Both innovative and seems daily-driver ready:
    1. Qubes OS - https://www.qubes-os.org/ [qubes-os.org] - Linux distro that runs a Xen hypervisor to contain every app (including Windows ones) away from the desktop environment
    2. Haiku OS - https://www.haiku-os.org [haiku-os.org]

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (8) I'm on the committee and I *still* don't know what the hell #pragma is for.

Working...