Is Linux the most advanced OS?

[sevenflo]

Is Linux the most advanced operating system?

When I ask this, I don't mean in terms of largest compatibility with applications, having the widest adoption, or even the best graphics. I understand that these all contribute to the sophistication of an OS. But in comparison to other OS filesystems, architecture support, kernel code - basically just the streamlined core of the OS as a platform built on cutting edge technology and research - is Linux the world's most advanced OS? How does the upcoming Haiku OS compare?

I'm very tech-savvy, and up until this year, I've pretty much used Windows for most of my life; mainly for the familiarity and it was just easier as everyone's computer I fixed was running Windows anyway. But after I had enough with Vista, I decided to switch to Ubuntu. And only after that did I become intrigued with ext4, btrfs, kernel support for USB3.0, security hierarchy, and the many possibilities of the command line interface.

I don't intend for this thread to morph into OS bashing. But ever since I switched, I can't believe I waited this long.

Note: I realize I'm posting on a LINUX forum, but I figure everyone is more open-minded here than any other OS forum, especially forums not relating to OS systems as people there tend to answer based on what they use.

[Sean Moran]

It's a good question that I don't tend to ask myself with all this legacy 2.53Ghz/256Mb-RAM hardware I use, and not having done anything with ASM in a long, long time. Only thing that comes to mind is maybe that like your Vista, my Windows 98 (II) was essentially static as far as advancement goes, whereas this sort of open-source collaboration might allow more dynamic advancement as soon as possible?

Not my place to speak for developers who know more than just this guesswork.

[anti_microsoft]

Advanced would be viewed different for each person.

For instance:

A gamer would find Linux to lag behind

I find myself getting very frustrated from time to time because this (whatever this may be) does not work on linux. I know a lot of the time it is not the fault of Linux why certain things don't work. But just the same as a user I just expect things to work (for the most part they do).

In order for Linux to be tagged as "the most advanced" I think that companies (game devs and such) are going to have to start taking Linux seriously.

You would actually think with the influx of users who have started using Linux the last couple years that this would be a problem that cures itself. But who knows....

[amitabhishek]

Yes it is...

[Exodist]

Is linux the most advanced OS? Thats a damn good question.
But before we can answer that we have to ask our selfs what makes an OS advanced? Also can the OS be advanced while still being the most simplest.
Or does it have to be the most complex to be "advanced"?
I believe GNU/Linux is the most simple OS out. Its also the most flexible with the only boundaries being the users imagination (and programming skils :-) ). So does this make it the most advanced? In my opinion Linux is the forefront leader is OS technology that other OS try to imitate by overloading the code in their systems. When all they had to do was just Keep It Simple "KIS" to succeed.

[blueturtl]

No.

Linux is a very traditional design in both kernel and user space implementation. It's a very good implementation and the development method is revolutionary (open source), but the software itself is pretty old fashioned.

There are both good and bad sides to this.

For example the GNU micro kernel while much more advanced is in fact still not ready because it is so difficult to design and manage.

[BslBryan]

Since technically Linux is just the kernel that an operating system is built on top of, your question becomes 'does the Linux kernel offer the potential capability of being an essential part of an advanced OS?' And the answer to that is different to everyone. I mean, this (http://boot.everywhere.dk/) is Linux, and it is by no means advanced. But, Ubuntu? I certainly consider it to be advanced.

As far as the initial reaction to Ubuntu, I think it has more to do with the fact that the Gnome interface is different to that of an Apple or Windows computer. It seems more effective, and the things capable with graphics are amazing. The GUI alone would be enough to constitute is as the most advanced. I also think that the Unix directories are a nearly perfect system to fit my needs and file organization.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Even if its not the most advanced OS it can be considered to be the most diverse.

[Sean Moran]

Even if its not the most advanced OS it can be considered to be the most diverse.
That says it very well. Is not intelligence often defined by the 'capacity' to adapt to new environments quickly? Dinosaurs were advanced once, but maybe they grew too big to adapt to the changing environment of the time?

[gnomeuser]

I think in terms of leveraging new capabilities something like SharpOS or the Microsoft research OS Singularity are excellent examples of very technically capable OSes that outdo Linux and other existing solutions in certain important areas.

The problem is switching.. rewriting drivers, libraries and applications.. a good idea is not enough, you need a migration strategy and currently none exists to move to a fundamentally new design.

Long term we do need to address things like how to handle massively multicore systems well, we need to increase stability and security by embracing managed code and software isolated processes. It will be a demand eventually, we can't keep relying on machines with a reset button, computers need to work and recover nicely when they do not. They need to be secure by design and not just by hope and promise of fixes after the fact.

Linux is a fine OS but is it not secure, nor is it stable or reliable. It doesn't handle itself with grace and dignity.. it needs to die and a new glorious dawn should arise from its ashes. Sadly that will never happen and we are stuck with this steaming pile of poo..

[moster]

Linux is a fine OS but is it not secure, nor is it stable or reliable. It doesn't handle itself with grace and dignity.. it needs to die and a new glorious dawn should arise from its ashes. Sadly that will never happen and we are stuck with this steaming pile of poo..

You should really write poems ha-ha. I appreciate your opinion, but are you sarcastic here or what?

[Sean Moran]

You should really write poems ha-ha. I appreciate your opinion, but are you sarcastic here or what?
May even find a new toy rocking-horse in there somewhere if you search right through it!
:P

[JillSwift]

What metric would one use to quantify "most advanced"?

[Sean Moran]

After ten minutes without an answer yet, I suppose that the OP maybe offline right now and hope it's okay to quote the opening statement.

Is Linux the most advanced operating system?

... in comparison to other OS filesystems, architecture support, kernel code - basically just the streamlined core of the OS as a platform built on cutting edge technology and research ...

[starcannon]

I believe Linux to be very, progressive. Advanced is a term that is relative(and sure so is progressive); but advanced has more of a "time" factor involved. In most ways, I think Linux is very advanced, but that is from my perspective, and that is relative.

Linux may not "be the future", but I do believe its philosophy is(have fun with that linsux, after your done knuckle dragging, think about it).

If humans are to move forward, it must be in a communal way; the real question is whether we are capable of doing that as a majority, or will the dream die in some epic nanite war.

[Bachstelze]

Linux is a fine OS but is it not secure, nor is it stable or reliable. It doesn't handle itself with grace and dignity.. it needs to die and a new glorious dawn should arise from its ashes. Sadly that will never happen and we are stuck with this steaming pile of poo..

This.

[bodyharvester]

no,

the most advanced OS is the one with the most competent user

[Bachstelze]

no,

the most advanced OS is the one with the most competent user

lolwut? So the same OS with two different users won't have the same level of "advancedness"?

[bodyharvester]

lolwut? So the same OS with two different users won't have the same level of "advancedness"?

no, not when you think of something like arch and the ways you can build it, it was only a matter of time till some one said it ;)

although now that i think of it WinXP became unusable under my control, maybe im not a very competent user, oh well.

[Sean Moran]

lolwut? So the same OS with two different users won't have the same level of "advancedness"?
In the eyes of the user who's watching the other one or in the reflection of the active user's face off the screen?

Probably a little irrelevant but it begs the question when we think that the first computers were meant to be labour-saving devices and now the more 'advanced' we seem to become, the more these wonders have become time/labour-consuming devices.

[night_fox]

Linux is definitely the most advanced kernel. Compare its general speed to that of other operating systems.

[Bachstelze]

Linux is definitely the most advanced kernel. Compare its general speed to that of other operating systems.

Funny how MINIX is way faster than Linux. Is it more advanced then?

[starcannon]

Funny how MINIX is way faster than Linux. Is it more advanced then?
Minix is barely back from the dead; give it time in the oven before asking that question.

[Bachstelze]

Minix is barely back from the dead; give it time in the oven before asking that question.

This was a rethorical question...

[khelben1979]

If it's the most advanced I don't have sufficient knowledge to tell. If it's the best, definitely, in my opinion.

I would probably need to read this book (http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596005658/) to be able to answer the question.

[JillSwift]

After ten minutes without an answer yet, I suppose that the OP maybe offline right now and hope it's okay to quote the opening statement.
Those aren't really metrics - they're more qualitative than quantitative.

"Advanced" suggests an end goal to which we can compare progress. I don't think there is any such end goal. OSs are really just a collection of tools - I can gauge that Linux based OSs are a quality set of tools but it's far harder to say that they're quantitatively "advanced" because a tool doesn't exist for any end goal, rather it fills a purpose.

In fact, I think that claiming anything is the most "advanced" is essentially advertising speak. Meaningless, but sounds good.

[Bachstelze]

In fact, I think that claiming anything is the most "advanced" is essentially advertising speak. Meaningless, but sounds good.

Apple understood this. ;)

http://images.apple.com/macosx/images/overview_subhead_20090824.jpg

BTW, when my mom saw my Snow Leopard box, she asked me "is it really that good?" I was like "c'mon, it's just advertising..."

[JillSwift]

Apple understood this. ;)

http://images.apple.com/macosx/images/overview_subhead_20090824.jpg

BTW, when my mom saw my Snow Leopard box, she asked me "is it really that good?" I was like "c'mon, it's just advertising..."
Heh. Apple has always been great at the marketing.

[Sean Moran]

Those aren't really metrics - they're more qualitative than quantitative.

"Advanced" suggests an end goal to which we can compare progress. I don't think there is any such end goal. OSs are really just a collection of tools - I can gauge that Linux based OSs are a quality set of tools but it's far harder to say that they're quantitatively "advanced" because a tool doesn't exist for any end goal, rather it fills a purpose.

In fact, I think that claiming anything is the most "advanced" is essentially advertising speak. Meaningless, but sounds good.
You're right and I stand corrected. I guess this thread has and is exploring these things, but also felt obliged to answer your question (as none was provided) from what I could glean from the specifics in the OP post on the first page that maybe others hadn't yet read. To tell the truth, I was thinking that quality and quantity were the other way around too, but I'll try to be a bit more thoughtful before I hit the Reply button next time.

It has been one of the more enjoyable discussions IMHO to break the monotony of this otherwise tedious day, so thanks to the OP and all contributors for it, and Goodnight until tomorrow.

[praveesh]

I have heard that open solaris's kernel is the most advanced kernel. That one utilizes the available system resources most effectively. In a server , the performance difference between the linux and the open solaris are tremendous

[praveesh]

Linux is the name of the kernel of Ubuntu. Gnu/linux is the collective name used to refer the operating systems that use linux kernel . If you are saying about the linux kernel , it is not the best (actually , there is nothing the best. If some feature has to be improved, some other feature has to be degraded. It's always a compromise ). There are some other parts of the operating system that I consider very advanced . I consider the KDE , one of the desktops of linux, the most advanced desktop to the time(atleast the design consisting of plasma and plasmoids is very advanced).

[Eisenwinter]

Note: I realize I'm posting on a LINUX forum, but I figure everyone is more open-minded here than any other OS forum, especially forums not relating to OS systems as people there tend to answer based on what they use.
You'll be amazed at how biased people's opinions here are.

[gnomeuser]

You should really write poems ha-ha. I appreciate your opinion, but are you sarcastic here or what?

Sadly no, we dug a hole here and geting out is going to be a problem. It also means that innovation on a serious scale is going to be hard to have catch on.

At best evolution from A to B will be a path but that will take a lot time and you will have old hats who still insist that C is sane and that monlithic kernels are not a problem. Today we still see people who claim that real code is ASM code, progress is scary to a large number of people in IT.

Another route one could go would be to allow this new system to entirely virtualize other OSes to run existing programs for the lengthy migration period; or as it was suggested Microsoft might do with their rumoured Midori project, run the new system is a process in the old system till all applications have been migrated (something I think will take forever.. and then some).

It¨s not impossible, just improbable that we will ever truly migrate to a completely new design at this stage.

neck deep and sobbing
C turds are bobbing
innovation it died
oh boy how I cried.
no glorious .NET OS for me
the future will wait just you see
We dug our own graves,
while high and at raves
UNIX must suffer it's end
in the place also Windows it went.
Look fluffy bunnies and stuff
Of which I can't get enough.
the status quo just won't hack it
now hand me that straightjacket.

I admit that was a 2 mins attempt, I apologize for it's horribliness.

[moster]

@gnomeuser
Yes, you very good highlight common problems. But, I do not completely agree with you. I am more, how to say, optimistic. :) My current hopes are all on HaikuOS.

After reading your "poem", apology is needed but also accepted. ha-ha

[gn2]

Is Linux the most advanced operating system? ~

Yes.

[RiceMonster]

Sadly no, we dug a hole here and geting out is going to be a problem. It also means that innovation on a serious scale is going to be hard to have catch on.

At best evolution from A to B will be a path but that will take a lot time and you will have old hats who still insist that C is sane and that monlithic kernels are not a problem. Today we still see people who claim that real code is ASM code, progress is scary to a large number of people in IT.

The problem is, most of the innovation going on is a lot more in the high level area. Nobody wants to write a new kernel because it's figured that the hard work has already been done. That, also coupled with the fact that all kinds of software would have to be ported over, new drivers would need to be written, and it would take a heck of a long time to get it up to speed with current kernels. Backwards compatibility is something that people really desire (and for a good reason), but it can really hold things back at the same time. it's for the same reason that 64 bit intel processors can run 32 bit code.

Is Linux the most advanced OS? No. It follows the old monolithic design. I'd argue the way it was developed was rather revolutionary (I mean fast pace, open development), but the design of the kernel is certainly not "advanced". However, it's arguable that the monolithic design allowed Linux to catch on because it was much easier to develop and maintain.

[Firestem4]

I agree with much of what was said previously. My personal thoughts on this are that Linux has the capability to be the most advanced, by being the most current. Because of the nature of Linux and Distro development I believe linux users are more capable of adopting newer technology. USB 3.0 is a perfect example compared to Microsoft WIndows. They have very long adoption of newer and upcoming technology compared to Linux, whereas USB 3.0 will be ready and usable in the Linux kernel shortly after it arrives in the consumer market.

This also helps to drive adoption of newer technology and even standards.

But again this all depends on what you're using Linux for. Its diversity as someone has mentioned before has also been the key to Linux's success because it can be made to do so many different things. When you use Windows or Mac, you are using a single version of Windows (or Mac). The only alternative if you want to get rid of some of the goodies are to go Embedded, as one example.

[openfly]

barrelfish is pretty ahead of the curve as far as operating system design goes.

[Eisenwinter]

barrelfish is pretty ahead of the curve as far as operating system design goes.
Wikipedia'd it, seems like you're correct, as far as innovation and futuristic ideas go. I'm looking forward to see this system released.

[starcannon]

Heh. Apple has always been great at the marketing.
+1
They can sell a $700.00 laptop for $2500.00 just buy putting an Apple(tm)(r)(c) Logo on the case.

[moster]

Is Linux the most advanced OS? No. It follows the old monolithic design. I'd argue the way it was developed was rather revolutionary (I mean fast pace, open development), but the design of the kernel is certainly not "advanced". However, it's arguable that the monolithic design allowed Linux to catch on because it was much easier to develop and maintain.

ufff, monolithic kernel is easier/more simple to develop. That is probably reason why Linus as student was able to do it. But still I consider him near genius. Major problem now is maintaining that kernel. Do you not see that kernel hackers constantly brake something? Well, that is because his old design where is everything on one big pile.

[starcannon]

ufff, monolithic kernel is easier/more simple to develop. That is probably reason why Linus as student was able to do it. But still I consider him near genius. Major problem now is maintaining that kernel. Do you not see that kernel hackers constantly brake something? Well, that is because his old design where is everything on one big pile.

I wish I had the ability to start up a gnew kernel project. Sadly I would not even know where or how to start. I'll just use this old pos instead.

[RiceMonster]

ufff, monolithic kernel is easier/more simple to develop. That is probably reason why Linus as student was able to do it. But still I consider him near genius. Major problem now is maintaining that kernel. Do you not see that kernel hackers constantly brake something? Well, that is because his old design where is everything on one big pile.

That's what I was getting at. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "maintain", however.

[moster]

I wish I had the ability to start up a gnew kernel project. Sadly I would not even know where or how to start. I'll just use this old pos instead.
To tell you the truth, if gnu hurd guys could not do it, probably it is more difficult that we all think. And when somebody is born who can do something like that, he go away and write his own FailOS like SkyOS. Total waste of time and precious intelligence.

That's what I was getting at. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "maintain", however.
Yes, sorry if I overreacted. That "maintain" could be stepping stone in future of linux when he grow to let say.. size of a windows.

[infestor]

imho microkernel rules. a working one surely :)

[lalalie]

I think it depends on how you define 'most advanced'. Each OS is advance in their own way in my opinion! [:

[NCLI]

Linux is a fine OS but is it not secure, nor is it stable or reliable. It doesn't handle itself with grace and dignity.. it needs to die and a new glorious dawn should arise from its ashes. Sadly that will never happen and we are stuck with this steaming pile of poo..
Can you please sum up the main problems with the kernel? I'm interested because I've heard nothing but positive things about it.

[toupeiro]

Linux, encapsulating the "Linux kernel" as a base for OS in this thread, are definitely the most flexible of any other OSes. It can run on Super computers and heart monitors in a doctors office. It depends on your criteria for advanced, whether or not you can say Linux is the most advanced OS. There isn't one quite as versatile.

[moster]

Linux, encapsulating the "Linux kernel" as a base for OS in this thread, are definitely the most flexible of any other OSes. It can run on Super computers and heart monitors in a doctors office. It depends on your criteria for advanced, whether or not you can say Linux is the most advanced OS. There isn't one quite as versatile.

Every story has a two sides. You are perfectly right. But just look at it from the other side.

Something tailored to do specific task is usually better from some universal solution. In this case, desktop computing. Linux too a large bite, and he is chewing it for years and years.

[openfly]

I'd like to say, the 2.6 single dev tree approach was an enormous mistake.

[tcoffeep]

No.

I couldn't say it any better than this.

[Bachstelze]

Linux, encapsulating the "Linux kernel" as a base for OS in this thread, are definitely the most flexible of any other OSes. It can run on Super computers and heart monitors in a doctors office. (...) There isn't one quite as versatile.

NetBSD much?

The most portable Linux distribution is Debian, which runs on 12 architectures (http://packages.debian.org/lenny/bash) (for the stable version, scroll down a bit). NetBSD runs on many more (ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-5.0.1/).

[openfly]

Bachstelze my personal opinion is single user mode does not a port of NetBSD make.

[RiceMonster]

Bachstelze my personal opinion is single user mode does not a port of NetBSD make.

What?

[Boom!!!]

Funny, SuSe have over 500 hundred people employed working on that OS and it's not even in my top 4 of KDE distributions.;)

[sevenflo]

Wow, thanks a lot for the many replies!

I didn't expect the thread to grow to such a length. Also, thanks Sean Moran for helping clarify a few things. My absence has been due to university.

I definitely learnt a lot and can now see the pros and cons of such a design. I agree with a lot on both sides.

Anybody have tried or have thoughts on Haiku?

[hanzomon4]

No... OS X is didn't you hear?


But really I think these MS research OSes are the most advanced. Linux and OS X both use ideas older then dirt.

[Xbehave]

Yes it is, because it takes many concepts you see in POC OSes along with many original concepts and puts them in a real world usable OS. There are more original concepts in linux than any other OS and there are more working examples of academic papers than any other OS. Unlike those that disagree I am going to back up my point:

JFFS - a log filesystem that gets realworld use on NAND flash contains most of the emerging tech in SSDs [citation (http://lwn.net/Articles/353411/)]
Realtime - while there are many (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_real-time_operating_systems) realtime OSes, AFAIK linux is the only desktop os that contains a realtime framework and a pre-emptible kernel (it's not 100% realtime but that is because there are issues getting realtime without sacrificing other areas)
hypervisor tech - AFAIK these are teqniques only avalible in linux, it can save memory across multiple hosts and add security (http://danwalsh.livejournal.com/30565.html) to virulaistion


SO while there are single issue OSes that are more advanced in one issue or another (plan9, haiku, etc), linux is by far the most advanced overall OS and I challenge anybody to show otherwise (I only read posts with links and several lines of content so "no" or "plan9 had everything as files" do not count as responses)


But really I think these MS research OSes are the most advanced. Linux and OS X both use ideas older then dirt.
I think MS research OSes are older than dirt
singularity, an os written in managed code - old (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaOS)
barrelfish, an os that has complex IPC - like clusters have for years?

And its not like either of those are much more than a POC

[markbuntu]

Advanced... hmmmm...advanced. How would we quantify that?

Software that makes the most of the most advanced hardware?
An OS aimed towards the future instead of the past?

Linux will not make it on those criteria.

The kernel is becoming problematic due to size alone. But it is scalable and still mostly modular but the single dev tree will fall over due to its own weight.

When Linus started all he was trying to do was make something that would make use of all the commands available on the i386 chip.

A trivial task compared to what the kernel is trying to do today.