From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: dfawcus+lists-tuhs@employees.org (Derek Fawcus)
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 12:14:08 +0100
Subject: [TUHS] UNIX of choice these days?
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.02.1709250555160.93615@frieza.hoshinet.org>
References: <20170923091704.GD10152@darioniedermann.it>
 <CANuZA8QHNn=6Gg-Sm20s-0PSsS7y26c=uNbNETUX74Tx1A=DWQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALMnNGgMSmqQ56r7xTRNdrDYfRiMieQ48kuZfWtSKd+yjmP2tg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP6exYKxC2g06dSRiM8-0BLN08AEWyO-8a0VAcy3vP4H3-8o8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170924140617.GG28606@mcvoy.com> <20170924203621.GA80203@wopr>
 <49B7FCB8-A086-4FFB-AF3B-4B3BD167EC54@bitblocks.com>
 <alpine.BSF.2.21.1709250934460.89458@aneurin.horsfall.org>
 <CALMnNGi_sXnbrQ+PHx5v0bHo0ALgpPeBAoNSX2g2y75zbE185A@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.BSF.2.02.1709250555160.93615@frieza.hoshinet.org>
Message-ID: <20170925111408.GA32953@accordion.employees.org>

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 05:58:23AM -0400, Steve Nickolas wrote:
> 
> If I were designing an OS, only the bare minimum number of system calls 
> would be implemented in the kernel (stuff like open, close, seek, read, 
> write, and create/kill process) and everything else would be implemented 
> in library... I don't know how that would stack up against Unix in the 
> day, or *x these days, but I daresay it probably would have fewer system 
> calls than MS-DOS 2.0.

Not all later developed OS's had loads of calls.

One I used in the 90's (FlexOS) only had 40, having started around 84/85?
with 41 (when known as Concurrent DOS-286).

DF