… in which the authors describe application level device drivers to map between the physical hardware and a presumably common abstract interface. That doesn't seem to change the world much over a kernel device driver mapping to a common abstract interface, except that you can implement a different common abstract interface if you wish. You'll just have to write new drivers for all the cards. This is fine for experimentation, but not nice for production.
I think the ground shift between 1996 and now is the democratization of kernel code. These mysterious "kernel architects" referenced in the paper who handed down a system from on high are now any decent C programmer with an itch to scratch. If you don't like the Linux/*BSD/whatever abstractions given to you, then make your own. If people like it and it doesn't offend an influential developer it can even be widely deployed.
I disagree. It's much harder now to scratch your itch than ever before. You can see it in how people like Linus Torvalds have an almost demigod status in that kernel hacking is considered to be a highly arcane activity. This is in stark contrast to the past, where writing operating systems was a much more mundane and common activity, not unlike writing your own web framework today.
Certainly some shortcuts like DDE, rump kernels and emerging flavors of libOS are now coming around, but it's still an uphill battle.
writing operating systems was a much more mundane and common activity
[citation needed] - outside of academic environments. I suppose the embedded environment might count as building your own micro-operating system (only one task? don't bother with a scheduler etc).
Just look at the Wikipedia Timeline of Operating Systems with special attention to number of distinct OS's in any given time period. You'll find it drops off sharply as it nears the present if you count stuff that was actually deployed or in working condition. Well, that was the situation when I looked at it a year ago. Hopefully you come back with good, contrary news. :)
Another example is sheer amount of dead, search results I get for OS projects on sites that track them. Almost all are before 2010 with most closer to the late 90's. I'm not sure why this is but there's just hardly anyone doing it anymore. Maybe it's because they google it and see how hard it is with all the dead projects. ;)
Kernel hacking was always arcane, the original greybeard wizard stereotype. With the modern Internet community it became more accessible. At the same time, a million JS webdevs ALSO appeared to work on the big was.
I think the ground shift between 1996 and now is the democratization of kernel code. These mysterious "kernel architects" referenced in the paper who handed down a system from on high are now any decent C programmer with an itch to scratch. If you don't like the Linux/*BSD/whatever abstractions given to you, then make your own. If people like it and it doesn't offend an influential developer it can even be widely deployed.