I had made my own ideas independently, although there are many similarities (as well as many differences; I am describing some of them below). One difference with mine is to make a specification, and that multiple independent implementations of the specification may be made.

My ideas are like a actor model in some ways, though.

Looking at [0], my idea is very similar than Zircon kernel services. However, there are many differences than what is described by [1]. In mine, an implementation might include some additional features in the kernel, although this is just an implementation detail; user programs don't know the difference of if they are kernel services or external programs (since this is how the security model of my system is designed to work).

Mine has only one type of object for IPC rather than five; it is similar than what is called a "Channel" in Fuchsia (although it is not exactly the same, but it is a similar idea). It is the only kind of kernel objects that user processes are able to see.

In mine, process management and hardware support services are not directly exposed by the system call interface; they are only exposed by IPC channels.

Like Fuchsia, mine has no ambient authority. However, proxy capabilities are used to provide security and many other features (e.g. logging accesses, simulating error conditions, transparent compression, network transparency, revocable capabilities, etc). A program receives an initial message when it starts, and this initial message will contain IPC channels (possibly in addition to other data).

Mine does not inherently have namespaces. Files can only be accessed by capabilities, and files can contain links to other files; there are no directory structures and no file names. There is a "root filesystem" but that is only needed for purpose of initializing the system; most processes cannot see it and have no way of identifying it even if it could see it. However, when running POSIX programs, a POSIX-like namespace can be emulated by using a file containing key/value lists which work similar than Fuchsia namespaces in some ways (although such features are implemented entirely in user-mode libraries; the kernel knows nothing about them).

Also, mine does not use Unicode in any way. It also does not use JSON, XML, HTML, etc. Binary file formats are preferred; nearly everything will use binary formats. There are also many other significant differences (including UI stuff). I also consider that some other things are also no good, e.g. USB, UEFI, WWW, etc (this does not mean that it is not possible to write drivers/programs that can use them; it means that the fundamental specifications of the system deliberately avoid them, and that hardware/software designed deliberately for this system are designed to not need them).

I also would have locks and transactions, including the possibility that locks/transactions may involve multiple objects at once; this includes files, but may also need to include remote objects in some cases.

There is still i18n, l10n, a11y, etc, as well as many additional features such as "window indicators", "Common Data Format", "Command, Automation, and Query Language", etc. (The i18n does not work like Fuchsia though. For example, although language identifiers are still needed (although they are not limited to the ones included in Unicode, since it does not use Unicode), identifiers are not needed for date/time, etc (the library that deals with date/time formats can be modified to add whatever kind of calendars you want to do; the application program does not usually need the identifier for it, unless perhaps you want to reference entire months or years, but to do that requires specifying them with the data being processed by the program and is entirely separate from i18n preferences anyways).)

[0] https://fuchsia.dev/static/fuchsia-src/get-started/images/in...

[1] https://fuchsia.dev/fuchsia-src/get-started/sdk/learn/intro/...