So after reading that stuff I'm still not impressed. Might be me, I worked on SunOS and we did "objects" for the VFS layer. It was like a class with all virtual methods. Worked well.
Full on object oriented stuff in an OS seems weird to me. But I'm not an OO person, I like really simple stuff, SunOS made that work, I hacked vi so that when you tagged on VOP_OPEN it knew that there was ufs_open and nfs_open and tmpfs_open and you could walk all of them, but it was very simplistic. And as such it actually worked.
I like stuff that works, proven in the field, proven in the development space, we can ship this and can support it.
I may be well behind the times but what I read didn't make me want to go work on it, it made me skeptical about it actually working in real life. I'd be happy if someone proved me wrong, it sounds cool. When is it shipping?
Yeah, but see, vfs doesn't count because... Uh, it uses macros, or something.
Hell, even the user land side is "OO". The same set of syscalls work on files, sockets (IPv4 and IPv6), pipes, etc. "needs more OO" is a pretty nebulous complaint about an OS.
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?BlueAbyss
Old spec: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?BlueAbyssFramework
(By the way, it's Richard Kulisz who is saying all of this. Ward Cunningham has nothing to do with it.)