>>107, you could at least suggest an alternative design, e.g. instead of doing this, the system should work this way. Write a detailed specification for how the entire system should work and justify why each part of it is best off working the way it does. If you don't want to do that, or are not willing, then maybe you'd best not be commenting on the shortcomings of existing systems. The number one fallacy here is "My ideas are great, and I can just leave the easy part of actually doing something with them to other people." Nobody's going to come along and fix Unix for you because you whined and ranted about it.

>>110: OSX is Unix. Windows -- glad your sense of humor is still there. QNX is a real-time operating system, so it's not suited to the same purposes as Unix. Besides, a quick visit to Wikipedia informs me that it is "POSIX compliant" and "Unix-like." Not familiar enough with your last two examples to comment -- but if they're so good, why aren't you using them, instead of griping about Unix? This is a serious question.