Don't need to imagine, it did not take off, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MkLinux

> Reception was mixed, focusing on the difficult installation process and the significant performance costs of the Mach kernel. Reviewers noted its potential as a "Unix killer", but that it required users to abandon the user-friendly Macintosh experience for a pure Linux environment.

▲

kingstnap 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

1996 is not now. This comparision makes little to no sense.

I'm sure if Apple provided support for installing your own OS on their M series laptops it would be incredibly popular. And I don't need to guess at this using weird 1996 research on microkernels because Asahi Linux exists and clearly there is interest in it.

▲

pjmlp 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Indeed, Apple from 1996 would not released Tahoe, most likely.

We don't need research because QNX, L4 and many others on embedded space do exist as well.

▲

mhurron 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Do you forget what Apple in '96 was? Or are you saying that Tahoe is too polished for the Apple of '96?

Apple was not a bastion of quality in the 90's. They couldn't modernize the Mac OS, and that continued with little more than window dressing over what was released in the 80's. The Mac line up was a horrible mess of barely different models that needed a Ph.D to figure out what was different. The company was bleeding money and seriously close to bankruptcy.

The Apple of the mid 90's wishes it could release something like Tahoe.

	▲	pjmlp 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes the 1996 Apple was on the edge of bankruptcy, yet Mac OS 8 was definitely much more polished than Tahoe.

▲

ribosometronome 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Apple circa 1996 would be charging for its updates and licensing out the software to Power Computing and UMAX. They were making a lot of "interesting" decisions.

	▲	pjmlp 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		They still are doing lots of interesting decisions, the difference is that now the piggy bank is full to care of them going badly.

▲

officeplant 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Rip Blackberry Phone + QNX, you were so promising for such a short time.

▲

fsflover 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> difficult installation process and the significant performance costs

So it was a failure in implementation.

▲

pjmlp 11 hours ago | parent [-]

And the Apple that delivered Tahoe will do better?

	▲	cromka 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		All they would need is to provide complete DTBs and some drivers, no need to write a new OS from scratch.