Catalog of Novel Operating Systems

I think we shouldn&#x27;t[1] be making Operating Systems, per se, but something like Operating Environments.<p>An Operating Environment (OE) would be a new interface, maybe shell and APIs to access file systems, devices, libraries and such -- possibly one that can be just launched as an application in your host OS. That way you can reuse all facilities provided by the host OS and present them in new, maybe more convenient ways. I guess Emacs is a sort of Operating Environment, as browsers as well. &#x27;Fantasy computers&#x27; are also Operating Environments, like pico-8, mini micro[2], uxn, etc..<p>Of course, if you really have great a low-level reason to reinvent the way things are done (maybe to improve security, efficiency, DX, or all of that), then go ahead :)<p>The main reasons is the difficulty in developing robust low-level systems like file systems, the large number of processors you may want to support, and also creating or porting a huge number of device drivers. At this point Linux for example supports a huge number of devices (of course you could use some sort of compatibility layer). Also, developing a new UX is very different from developing a new low-level architecture (and you can just plug the UX into existing OSes).<p>In most cases an OS shell (and an OE), from the user point of view, is &quot;just&quot; a good way of finding and launching applications. Maybe a way of finding and managing files if you count the file manager in. It shouldn&#x27;t get too much in the way and be the center of attention, I guess. (This contrasts with its low level design, which has a large number functions, APIs, etc.). But also it should probably be (in different contexts) cozy, comfortable, beautiful, etc. (because why not?). A nice advanced feature is the ability to automate things and run commands programmatically, which command shells tend to have by default but are more lacking in graphical shells. And I&#x27;m sure there is still a lot to explore in OS UX...<p>[1] I mean, unless you really have a reason with all caveats in mind of course.<p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;miniscript.org&#x2F;MiniMicro&#x2F;index.html#about" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;miniscript.org&#x2F;MiniMicro&#x2F;index.html#about</a>

I had the privilege to work as a junior operator in the 80’s, and got exposed to some strange systems .. Tandem and Wang and so on .. and I always wondered if those weird Wang Imaging System things were out there, in an emulator somewhere, to play with, as it seemed like a very functional system for archive digitalization.<p>As a retro-computing enthusiast&#x2F;zealot, for me personally it is often quite rewarding to revisit the ‘high concept execution environments’ of different computing era. I have a nice, moderately sized retro computing collection, 40 machines or so, and I recently got my SGI systems re-installed and set up for playing. Revisiting Irix after decades away from it is a real blast.

This list should include SerenityOS IMHO.<p>It might not be super unique but is a truly from-scratch &quot;common&quot; operating system built in public, which for me at least puts it at the position of a reference of an OS of whose code one person can fully understand if they&#x27;d want to understand the codebase of a whole complete-looking OS.

Notably missing from this list are seL4 and Helios which is based on it.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ares-os.org&#x2F;docs&#x2F;helios&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ares-os.org&#x2F;docs&#x2F;helios&#x2F;</a><p>The cost of not having proper sandboxing is hard to overstate. Think of all the effort that has gone into linux containers, or VMs just to run another Linux kernel, all because sandboxing was an afterthought.<p>Then there&#x27;s the stagnation in filesystems and networking, which can be at least partially attributed to the development frictions associated with a monolithic kernel. Organizational politics is interfering with including a filesystem in the Linux kernel right now.

Are there any operating systems designed from the ground up to support and fully utilize many processor systems?<p>I&#x27;m thinking systems designed based on the assumption that there are tens, hundreds or even thousands of processors, and design assumptions are made at every level to leverage that availability

And here I was hoping for a Catalog of Novell Operating Systems. :-(

I can’t help but notice that each of these stubs represent a not-insignificant portion of effort put in by one or more humans.

I would love to see some examples outside of the WIMP-based UI

The title should have been &quot;Catalog of UI Demos&quot;. It has nothing to do with operating systems.<p>Desktop Neo was a sick demo, ten years ago. If there was ever a real project that implemented it, I&#x27;d be willing to give it a whirl.

This list could be longer! I expected much more, given that CS students and hobbyists are doing this sort of thing often. Maybe the format is too verbose?

As a kernel programmer I find it so lame that when people say &quot;Operating Systems&quot; what they&#x27;re thinking is just the superficial layer: GUI interfaces, Desktop Managers and UX in general. As if the only things that could have OS were desktop computers, laptops, tablets and smartphones.<p>What about more specialized devices? e-readers, wifi-routers, smartwatches (hey, hello open sourced PebbleOS), all sorts of RTOS based things, etc? Isn&#x27;t anything interesting happening there?

cool list! i make something web based like this called <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;aesthetic.computer" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;aesthetic.computer</a>

TempleOS?

Honestly love seeing people obsess over old or weird OS stuff - makes me want to poke around in my own cluttered laptop folders just to see what weird bits I still have tucked away.

Why the &quot;novel&quot; qualifier?<p>There exist many OSes (and UI designs) based on non-mainstream concepts. Many abandoned, forgotten, @ design time suitable hardware didn&#x27;t exist, no software to take advantage of it, etc etc.<p>A &#x27;simple&#x27; retry at achieving such alternate vision could be very successful today due to changed environment, audience, or available hardware.

MercuryOS reminds me of the Apple Lisa - The way it managed applications invisibly was a step in the direction of selecting tools based on intentions. It was a document-centric system, which MercuryOS isn&#x27;t, but a step in the same direction.<p>For some time, Windows 95 (IIRC) had a Templates folder. You&#x27;d put documents in it and you could right-click a folder and select New-&gt;Invoice or something similar based on what you had in the Templates folder. It was similar to Lisa&#x27;s Stationery metaphor.