Linked by Michael Reed on Thu 12th Oct 2006 18:00 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes This article is a inspired by some of the ideas which seem be constantly floating around my mind whenever I think about or read about operating systems. Surely, every time-served OS-geek carries a mental list of this sort around with them? This is a summary of all of the features which I would like to see in my dream FOSS based Operating System.
Order by: Score:
v What you want is out there....
by twickline on Thu 12th Oct 2006 18:18 UTC
RE: What you want is out there....
by Janizary on Thu 12th Oct 2006 18:37 UTC in reply to "What you want is out there...."
Janizary Member since:
2006-03-12

Your comment is out of place, Gentoo is no different from any other Linux distribution or even very far off of one of the BSDs.

Besides, if anything, portage is the opposite of what the article says Mike wants. Mike wants an apt-get or a pkg_add, not an emerge.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

To me it sounds more like GoboLinux or perhaps even more the dead LinuxSTEP (especially file system layout and appfolders).

Reply Score: 2

hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

yep, gobolinux was one of the first things that came to mind when reading all these pages.

a very interesting rethink of the basics of a distro, without breaking much.

Reply Score: 1

Yeah
by samad on Thu 12th Oct 2006 18:37 UTC
samad
Member since:
2006-03-31

"...The directory layout would not be based around Unix/Linux conventions. For example, why not store the fonts in '/fonts'? Again, I know that some Linux people find ``either /usr/opt/etc/X11/fonts or /etc/X11/usr/fonts depending on the phase of the moon'' a bit easier to remember than '/fonts'..."

I recommend the author to read a few Plan9 papers, especially this one:
http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/names.html

Also the author should look more into OS X. It already has a lot of these features, especially the whole fonts bit. Fonts are stored in /Library/Fonts for all users, or ~/Library/Fonts for yourself. And it has an X server. And it has a decent GUI, but not nearly as efficient as xfce.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Yeah
by Moochman on Thu 12th Oct 2006 18:56 UTC in reply to "Yeah"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

I actually don't get what's so great about XFCE. Everthing else about the article I understand, but XFCE... I guess I just don't get it. Personally I find its interface far too limiting in terms of customizability compared to the likes of KDE or Gnome, and not particularly visually attractive either. (I admit that KDE can seem a bit flashy and have too many options sometimes, but if you put in the effort it can be customized to perfection). Anyway, the last version of XFCE I tried was over a year ago, when everyone was suddenly espousing the greatness of XFCE as the best DE alternative.... and within a few minutes of using it I got annoyed because it seemed near impossible to add all the icons I wanted, in whatever order I wanted, to the bar without jumping through hoops, so I gave up on it. What makes XFCE (current version or just in general) so special? Or is it just another case of certain people liking minimalism, the same thing which has always kept customizers like me steering clear of the likes of Fluxbox?

Edited 2006-10-12 18:57

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Yeah
by maydaytx on Thu 12th Oct 2006 21:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Yeah"
maydaytx Member since:
2006-04-17

I would suggest just trying Xfce 4.4 when it comes out (shouldn't be too long). The panel app has been completely rewritten, so you may find it more customizable. Thunar with desktop icons also makes a nice addition (my favorite file manager, much better than xffm IMO).

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Yeah
by MattPie on Thu 12th Oct 2006 21:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Yeah"
MattPie Member since:
2006-04-18

Thunar with desktop icons also makes a nice addition (my favorite file manager, much better than xffm IMO).

I suspect people who like Xfce (me) would still be happy with twm if it looked better. I could probably count the number of times I've used the gnome file manager here at work on one hand, and hate icons on the desktop (they just get hidden behind windows). Xfce (to me) is just something to manage windows. All the my work is done in a terminal and Firefox, with a dabble in VMware Server Console once in awhile.

I suppose if I were using a machine to manage my multimedia extravaganza at home, I might have different preferences. Fedora 4-5 and Ubuntu 5.10-6.06 seem to hate the network (Intel 82257) and USB on my home system (MSI K7 board), so I use FreeBSD and XP.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Yeah
by rhyder on Fri 13th Oct 2006 01:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Yeah"
rhyder Member since:
2005-09-28

I hate having things on the backdrop as well.

I might have a go at putting more system monitors there at some point though. Sometimes, I'm watching a film and it would be nice to look over at the computer and see the time, current downloads, IM icons etc.

I find the idea of getting to backdrop to click an icon rather counter-intuitive.

Mike

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Yeah
by maydaytx on Fri 13th Oct 2006 07:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Yeah"
maydaytx Member since:
2006-04-17

Xfdesktop allows the option of desktop icons, minimized window icons, or none. As far as I know, the desktop icons are enabled by default. If you prefer no icons, just choose that option in the desktop preferences.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Yeah
by Moochman on Thu 12th Oct 2006 21:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Yeah"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Thanks for the tip; I just might.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Yeah
by rhyder on Fri 13th Oct 2006 01:27 UTC in reply to "Yeah"
rhyder Member since:
2005-09-28

Thanks I'll take a look at at the OS9 docs.

Whenever I've looked at OS9, it didn't look like the kind of thing that was very close to being able to run X11 with a standard window manager. Part of the criteria stated in the article is that it must be doable with 1 mil Euros and 1 year.

I knew about the app folders implementation in OSX. The fonts layout sound like it's well designed too. Unfortunately, OSX is tied to proprietary hardware that I can't afford. I haven't used MacOS since 7.x but I wonder if a lot of the good apps are still shareware rather than free? That was one of the other criteria, that the system be based on OSS and give access to loads of FOSS.

How viable running X11 (for day to day use) on top of MacOS would be, I'm not quite sure as I don't have much experience with a recent MacOS.

Mike

Edited 2006-10-13 01:27

Reply Score: 1

Re: What you want is out there....
by tunkaflux on Thu 12th Oct 2006 18:37 UTC
tunkaflux
Member since:
2006-01-25

Right, Gentoo with it's 100's of USE flags, standard Linux lay-out, 'etc-update', 100's of different applications for the same thing etc... That is not what Mike wanted ;) (not to bash Gentoo as I'm running it on non-x86 hardware...)

What Mike want sounds more like BeOS or Syllable with a different filesystem lay-out and the Mac OS X way of installing applications...

Reply Score: 3

rhyder Member since:
2005-09-28

Heh, I like to of it as the RiscOS/Amiga way of installing applications ;-)

From everything I've read about it, Gentoo sounds like a great distro but, you're right, it's not at all what I had in mind when laying out the specs for the OS.

Mike

Reply Score: 1

tunkaflux Member since:
2006-01-25

Have you checked out BeOS, Syllable or Mac OS X? (Mind you, Syllable is very very pre 1.0 software ;) )

Reply Score: 1

Symlink mods
by stestagg on Thu 12th Oct 2006 18:43 UTC
stestagg
Member since:
2006-06-03

Nice article, I wonder how much work would really be needed to accomplish what was outlined. My OS dreams are somewhat more far-fetched that this.

I like the idea of the 'alias' symlink 'libs:'. However what I would like more is an aggregate symlink.
Sort of like a folder which concatenates lots of folders. So a /fonts folder could be defined such that `ls /fonts` would spew out the contents of /usr/fonts /usr/share/fonts /usr/X11R6/defoma/pango/fonts/...
New files created would automatically be placed in a predefined folder. Also some sort of file-name pecking order would need to be defined to stop collisions, but it would greatly simplify some things ;) .

Reply Score: 1

RE: Symlink mods
by rhyder on Fri 13th Oct 2006 01:37 UTC in reply to "Symlink mods"
rhyder Member since:
2005-09-28

That is a neat idea. I wonder how viable it is or if someone somewhere has created a tool that can do this?

Mike

Reply Score: 1

GoboLinux
by astralbat on Thu 12th Oct 2006 19:03 UTC
astralbat
Member since:
2006-08-29

Maybe you were inspired by GoboLinux, or maybe you don't know about it. What you say about the filesystem layout has many similarities with what GoboLinux is aiming to achieve.

The idea of Gobo's filesystem layout is simplicity (also inspired by MacOSX). They have sensibly named directories, and applications are logically installed in a nice and tidy fashion. But in order to retain compatiblity with the 'legacy' layout, they have to have tonnes of symlinks pointing from the standard directories (/bin,/usr/bin etc.) which makes a mess.

Then to make it worse, they've hacked the kernel to hide those standard directories so you don't see them. In my opinion this is bad and it still doesn't remove the need for a good package manager.

Some interesting ideas, but I think I'd stick with Gentoo for now :-)

Edited 2006-10-12 19:14

Reply Score: 1

RE: GoboLinux
by yanik on Thu 12th Oct 2006 19:25 UTC in reply to "GoboLinux"
yanik Member since:
2005-07-13

I was also thinking about GoboLinux when I read the article. Altho I never used Gobo, it seemed like a nice idea. I didn't know about those tonnes of symlinks tho.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: GoboLinux
by hobgoblin on Thu 12th Oct 2006 20:44 UTC in reply to "RE: GoboLinux"
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

well its either that or having to go over every programs source with a fine tooth comb, looking for hardcoded paths.

atleast now you can more often then not grab the source of a unknown program, throw the tar-ball at compile (the gobo tool for managing source based intstalls) and more often then not get a compiled program (gobo will even pull down either precompiles or source of known libs that are not allready installed) parked inside the correct /programs/"programname"/"version"/ directory.

my next linux install will be a gobo install ;)

Edited 2006-10-12 20:47

Reply Score: 1

RE: GoboLinux
by dylansmrjones on Thu 12th Oct 2006 19:33 UTC in reply to "GoboLinux"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

I was more thinking of a linuxSTEP (linux with GNUstep with a FHS following OPENSTEP specifications).

It's so much alike my thoughts that it's scary. Compatiblity with normal file system layout could be done through a compatibility package installing the necessary symlinks.

Reply Score: 2

RE: GoboLinux
by Mohjive on Thu 19th Oct 2006 18:38 UTC in reply to "GoboLinux"
Mohjive Member since:
2005-11-04

"But in order to retain compatiblity with the 'legacy' layout, they have to have tonnes of symlinks pointing from the standard directories (/bin,/usr/bin etc.) which makes a mess."

That's because there's a lot of application that isn't well behaved and has hard coded paths in the source. If there was an ideal world, those symlinks wouldn't be needed.

"Then to make it worse, they've hacked the kernel to hide those standard directories so you don't see them. In my opinion this is bad and it still doesn't remove the need for a good package manager."

First of all, this kernel hack is completly optional. One does not have to use it to be able to use GoboLinux, one can manage with any configuration of the kernel.

Second, even if the directories (or symlinks) are hidden, they are still usefull. One could still do 'cd /etc' to get to the directory with the settings, just that 'etc' doesn't show when you do 'ls /'

Reply Score: 1

Eventually...
by tpaws on Thu 12th Oct 2006 19:24 UTC
tpaws
Member since:
2006-06-02

Library Computer Access and Retrieval System

Reply Score: 1

RE: Eventually...
by rhyder on Fri 13th Oct 2006 01:47 UTC in reply to "Eventually..."
rhyder Member since:
2005-09-28

Actually, I think that an LCARS system could be pretty good for some uses and some people. For most people overlapping windows are a power user feature that just causes confusion. Most PDA OSes, for example use a layout of that type.

Another technique that could be adapted to such a layout would be the abandoned IBM/Apple OpenDoc system. With that (if I understood it fully), if you wanted to edit some rich text on a webpage, the 'word processor' would provide the editing tools within your web browser. Similarly, it would work in much the same way if you need to edit an SVG in the middle of a document.

Mike

Edited 2006-10-13 01:48

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Eventually...
by hobgoblin on Fri 13th Oct 2006 04:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Eventually..."
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

windows 1.0, and that os that first showed of the WMI interface both where unable to have overlapping windows.

there are some WM's for X available that do non-overlapping. ION i think is the best known one.

the original idea was, as you said, to avoid confusion when one window partialy or fully overlapped another.

hell, i have recently found me playing with the idea of having a PDA like interface to the computer. just look at these widgets and all that turns the desktop area into a kind of quick check for trivial data.

and that opendoc stuff reminds me of some other toughts i have had, about rather then installing software, you install functions. so that rather then installing photoshop and having to remember the way photoshop works each time you use it you just selects to edit a photo and presto. ie, 100% document/file/object-centric working, compared to todays application-centric working.

Reply Score: 1

make install
by blixel on Thu 12th Oct 2006 19:27 UTC
blixel
Member since:
2005-07-06

Once they have been installed/compiled, Linux applications sometimes leave behind no clue as to where they went!

Look into the --prefix option. If you want to know which files belong to a given program, install it to some temporary location such as ~/tmp_install.

My personal convention is to only ever install system wide programs with the package manager. (apt-get in my case.) If I need to compile and install something manually, I install it within my home directory, and each program within its own directory. For me, this is ~/local/programs

So whenever I run ./configure, I always use ./configure --prefix /home/david/local/programs/NameOfProgram

Once it's installed, I'll setup any necessary symlinks to my ~/local/usr/bin directory which is in my path.

That keeps compiled programs all contained in their own area. And since they are all installed to a single directory, if I want to get rid of the program, I just rm -rf ~/local/programs/NameOfProgram and it's gone. (If I created a symlink in ~/local/usr/bin, I'll delete that too.)

Reply Score: 4

RE: make install
by Doc Pain on Thu 12th Oct 2006 20:37 UTC in reply to "make install"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"Look into the --prefix option. If you want to know which files belong to a given program, install it to some temporary location such as ~/tmp_install."

You should take a look on the packagin system used by FreeBSD. Installed programs (packages) are listed in the package database /var/db/pkg; every package has a directory with package name and version. It contains files thatt tell you about package purpose and description (+COMMENT, +DESCRIPTION), installed files (+CONTENTS).

This is a good way to find out which package a file belongs to.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: make install
by blixel on Thu 12th Oct 2006 21:34 UTC in reply to "RE: make install"
blixel Member since:
2005-07-06

You should take a look on the packagin system used by FreeBSD.

What does the packaging system for FreeBSD have to do with anything mentioned in the article, or anything I wrote in my comment?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: make install
by Doc Pain on Thu 12th Oct 2006 21:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: make install"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"What does the packaging system for FreeBSD have to do with anything mentioned in the article, or anything I wrote in my comment?"

This is the reference text:

By blixel (1.88) on 2006-10-12 20:27:50 CET {
Look into the --prefix option. If you want to know which files belong to a given program, install it to some temporary location such as ~/tmp_install.
}

I just mentioned this packaging system because it is modified by a "make install" command. So, if you want to know wich files belong to a given program, you would only have to ask the package database.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: make install
by blixel on Thu 12th Oct 2006 22:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: make install"
blixel Member since:
2005-07-06

I just mentioned this packaging system because it is modified by a "make install" command. So, if you want to know wich files belong to a given program, you would only have to ask the package database.

Right ... but in context to the part of the article I was quoting, the original author was talking about doing manual "make installs" ... i.e. without the aid of a package management system. So my reply was all about managing manual installs. (Because the author said "Once they [they being manual program installations using "make install"] have been installed/compiled, Linux applications sometimes leave behind no clue as to where they went!")

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: make install
by Doc Pain on Thu 12th Oct 2006 22:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: make install"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

blixel (1.86) on 2006-10-12 22:10:32 CET in reply to ""
Right ... but in context to the part of the article I was quoting, the original author was talking about doing manual "make installs" ... i.e. without the aid of a package management system. So my reply was all about managing manual installs. (Because the author said "Once they [they being manual program installations using "make install"] have been installed/compiled, Linux applications sometimes leave behind no clue as to where they went!")


You're completely right. I mentioned the MUST of a funcional automated packaging system in order to avoid things like this. I think a "my dream" operating system just should contain such a thing.

Reply Score: 1

RE: make install
by rhyder on Fri 13th Oct 2006 01:50 UTC in reply to "make install"
rhyder Member since:
2005-09-28

"Look into the --prefix option. If you want to know which files belong to a given program, install it to some temporary location such as ~/tmp_install. "

Thanks, I'll take a look into that. I'd dabbled with --prefix to some extent in order to keep a couple of different builds of Lyx installed at the same time. But I hadn't though of using it in that way.

Mike

Reply Score: 1

RE: make install
by Mohjive on Thu 19th Oct 2006 18:28 UTC in reply to "make install"
Mohjive Member since:
2005-11-04

"So whenever I run ./configure, I always use ./configure --prefix /home/david/local/programs/NameOfProgram

Once it's installed, I'll setup any necessary symlinks to my ~/local/usr/bin directory which is in my path."

You should really take a look at GoboLinux then. It does the exact same thing; everything is installed into it's own directory and then symlinked into the directory in the path. Just that there are tools for it to simplify the process.

Reply Score: 1

An operating system that WORKS!
by Southern.Pride on Thu 12th Oct 2006 19:28 UTC
Southern.Pride
Member since:
2006-09-14

One that works and has functionality, Linux based but with the kernel modules more secluded and protected to keep the thing from hanging up.

Plus an interface that is slick (ie - kde) but very stable and apps that to not crash.

Plus, a speedy boot up time.

Reply Score: 1

Lambda
Member since:
2006-07-28

Personally, I'd take the concept of Squeak http://www.squeak.org and put it on top of the Linux kernel.

It wouldn't necessarily be based on Smalltalk. Actually, I'd rather have it based off of Slate http://slate.tunes.org. Slate is basically a Smalltalk/Self/Lisp hybrid that is a very interesting language.

I'd also probably skin another syntax like Applescript (or something as natural language as possible) on top of it too.

But the real interesting thing from a user perspective is that it would be "Turtles all the way down". What that means is that as much of the system (at least everything above the kernel) would be written in a highly, introspective language like Smalltalk or Slate or maybe even Lisp.

What that gives you is basically everything on your desktop is a "live object". It can be inspected and manipulated. Little applets are completely trivial to make for a non-programmer. You could have a little visual language too. See squeak again.

It might be hard to imagine, but for those of you that have worked in Smalltalk environments, you know what I mean. Of course it would be modern, GPU-accelerated with lots of eye-candy (unlike Squeak).

Reply Score: 2

Some points
by Anonymous Penguin on Thu 12th Oct 2006 20:58 UTC
Anonymous Penguin
Member since:
2005-07-06

1) "It's not the hardware, you understand; the hardware is great; it's really moved on a lot since the 8 bit BBC Micro that I started with at age 7."

Very true. This is never stressed enough. Hardware is improving at a very fast rate, software is lagging behind badly. It is more than anything a kind of "denial". Microsoft has done nothing to promote XP 64bit, and I wonder how much they are going to in order to promote Vista 64.
The FOSS community isn't much better either. How often I have read: "64bit? What is the big deal?". SUSE has been the only exception. Mac OS X is also very progressive from this point of view.

2) "The second way of making the money go as far as possible would be to make the OS itself open source. This means that, if other people like the look of Mike OS, they can contribute to it. I don't care about personally profiting from the OS in monetary terms - I've still got four million Euros, remember. I'm not going to get dragged into an argument about the best licence to use; let's just say that it's a licence that means that anyone can contribute to the OS and also that, we can help ourselves to most of the FOSS freely available on other platforms.

Therefore, the Foundation is going start the MikeOS project and get it to a state where it is usable. This will use up the first million Euro and from that point onwards, it will have to survive on its own."

This point is so obvious that everybody should agree.
I can understand that if your name is Microsoft or Apple you might disagree, but if you are trying to create a tiny hobby OS, trying to keep it closed source shows a total lack of basic common sense.

3)Software installation: well, that is very similar to the OS X way or perhaps the PC-BSD one. It also vaguely reminds me of autopackage. But in any case he has got a very good point.

Reply Score: 1

So basically…
by nevali on Thu 12th Oct 2006 21:00 UTC
nevali
Member since:
2006-10-12

Mac OS X, but on a range of different hardware, and completely open-source.

Reply Score: 3

RE: So basically…
by dylansmrjones on Thu 12th Oct 2006 22:07 UTC in reply to "So basically…"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Naah.. More like NeXTSTEP before it was ruined ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: So basically…
by helf on Thu 12th Oct 2006 22:26 UTC in reply to "RE: So basically…"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

pretty much ;D

Reply Score: 1

RE: So basically…
by Lambda on Thu 12th Oct 2006 22:14 UTC in reply to "So basically…"
Lambda Member since:
2006-07-28

I'll take the shrink-wrapped OSX, but forget about it being open source, or you don't get OSX.

Reply Score: 0

RE: So basically…
by Bringbackanonposting on Fri 13th Oct 2006 04:32 UTC in reply to "So basically…"
Bringbackanonposting Member since:
2005-11-16

SO basically...OSX users in general have no idea how OSX works nor do they care so should probably go read something else. The author wouldn't bother writing this if OSX is what he wanted. What is wrong with you people?
Not everyone wants a Mac. Say it over and over again. Repeat after me: NOT EVERYONE WANTS A MAC.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: So basically…
by MysterMask on Fri 13th Oct 2006 10:42 UTC in reply to "RE: So basically…"
MysterMask Member since:
2005-07-12

OSX users in general have no idea how OSX works nor do they care

Lame, old prejudice. We're not living in 1980 anymore..

And back on topic: MikeOS seems IMHO pretty close to an open source MacOSX clone

Reply Score: 1

RE
by Kroc on Thu 12th Oct 2006 21:18 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

The operative word here is "My".
The user wants the focus, simplicity and design of Mac OS, but the openess of Linux. You can't have both.

By being open source, everybody has the ability to input, and it's very difficult to get a comunity to agree on one way of doing things, one GUI, one of each subsystem. Only closed source, or controlled source can do this.

Reply Score: 1

RE
by dylansmrjones on Thu 12th Oct 2006 22:10 UTC in reply to "RE"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

That's not correct. At least not entirely.

It's perfectly posssible to combine the focus, simplicity and design of Mac OS with the openness of Linux. GNUstep proves this, and is perhaps closer to the real thing than Mac OS X ;)

Controlled sources are a must here, I agree, but open source does not equal lack of control. It's perfectly possible to control submissions, and there lack of control is no more likely than with closed source. But that of course makes it likely enough anyway.

There are several GPL'ed and MIT-licensed projects with great control and strict focus. And there are many closed source projects with no control and no focus.

Anyway, it's possible to get both. And creating such a distribution is reasonably easy. The problem is to maintain it.

Reply Score: 1

RE
by rhyder on Fri 13th Oct 2006 01:56 UTC in reply to "RE"
rhyder Member since:
2005-09-28

"The user wants the focus, simplicity and design of Mac OS, but the openess of Linux. You can't have both. "

You could in theory and perhaps in practice too. The 1 million Euros provides the 'steering' to shape the layout of the OS.

Mike

Reply Score: 1

RE
by hobgoblin on Fri 13th Oct 2006 04:48 UTC in reply to "RE"
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

ubuntu anyone?

Reply Score: 1

Raffaele
Member since:
2005-11-12

Is this a compendium (a summary with some considerations) or an addendum (a part joined subsequently) to Alternative OS contest?

I asked this, because this Dream OS article deals mainly with the characteristics featured by alternative OSes all grouped toghether to create a new mythical OS...

And by the way, just for the fact I am here...

Can I ask to moderators why the GEOS article won Alternative OS Contest?

Hasn't GEOS article being published online AFTER the deadline of 14 of July?????

Reply Score: 2

Ronald Vos Member since:
2005-07-06

[off-topic]
Can I ask to moderators why the GEOS article won Alternative OS Contest?

Hasn't GEOS article being published online AFTER the deadline of 14 of July?????


They almost all were published after 14 july IIRC. That doesn't mean they weren't sent in before that date.[/off-topic]

Reply Score: 2

Only dreams?
by Raffaele on Thu 12th Oct 2006 21:33 UTC
Raffaele
Member since:
2005-11-12

A good compromise to all desires of the Author it is MorhpOS OS, except for the fact it is not Open Source...

...But, maybe in the future it could being released OPen Source as it has just happened with its GUI called Ambient.

Not only but MorphOS memory protection capabilities should be improved by finishing developing sandbox of QBOX environment directly related to its microkernel Quark, and not being only stucking with sandbox with Amiga API called ABOX.

So the author could get finally its dream OS ecoming real stuff.

From another point of view he had also considered AROS into its discussions. And sure AROS seems to me close to his desires, bus as being AmigaOS 3.1 Like, then AROS has no memory protection.

Well. But AROS is Open Source OS.

Any person could co-operate the project, join with other programmers in a distributed worldwide effort, and helping adding new features such as Memory Protection to AROS little, joung and promising OS.

So, when AROS will begin to deal with Protected Memory and other features, that actually are still missing, then Mr. Reed could at least make true his dream OS.

Please programmers. Help improving AROS:

http://www.aros.org

Reply Score: 1

RE: Only dreams?
by dylansmrjones on Thu 12th Oct 2006 22:11 UTC in reply to "Only dreams?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Ambient has been open source for a long time.

Reply Score: 1

The Operating System as a goal in itself
by h3rman on Thu 12th Oct 2006 21:51 UTC
h3rman
Member since:
2006-08-09

Does anybody still use programs on their OS?

I would very much love to see a "perfect" OS.
But I still prefer great programs running on it.

In practice, it's better to just 'fall in love' with your OS, in spite of all its shortcomings. That's the charm of it.

Reply Score: 1

And MY dream OS
by DigitalAxis on Thu 12th Oct 2006 22:02 UTC
DigitalAxis
Member since:
2005-08-28

My dream OS would be a lot like Mike's, although I've often wondered if there isn't a way to get the best of both worlds situation with the RiscOS model and the Linux model, using NTFS's file system.

First, a hard link is a file with two names. It's the same exact data on the disk, with two different names/directories.

NTFS, if I recall correctly, has a feature that amounts to semi-hard links. It stores identical files as a single hard-linked file, but unlike a real hard link, it will create a new file if you change one of them. The ones that are unchanged continue to be the same data, the one you changed is now its own data in a different location on the disk.

Could you use such a thing to simultaneously have the ease of RiscOS drag'n'drop installation, but avoid the trouble of duplicated libraries taking up space?

The system I envision would store identical libraries (say, GTK+2.8.9) once and make fake hard links in each of the folders the file's supposedly in... Now, suppose you upgrade The Gimp to a new version that requires GTK+2.8.10. Now the files in The Gimp's folder are NOT hard-linked; they're GTK+2.8.10. All the others point remain pointing to 2.8.9 and remain working just as they used to.


The next difficulty in a RiscOS system is that a bug-fix to a library would have to be applied to EACH program that uses that library. (correct me if I'm wrong)
Suppose you make a special case where each library (or other shared file) on the system is ACTUALLY hard-linked to... uh, /usr. To upgrade all applications from 2.8.9 to 2.8.9a, you would apply the bugfix to that file. Yeah, I suppose you'd end up with the same problems if 2.8.9a broke application X.

Oh, and since one feature of hard (and "hard") links is that the data isn't removed from the disk until all the directory entries to it are removed, so you can still remove applications by deleting their folder.


All this work would probably put a serious strain on the filesystem.
Actually, all this could be done with symlinks (but that would involve adding more physical files, and keeping track of how many symlinks point to each file)



My only other 'big wish' is that the OS could have a bunch of, say, audio-playing interfaces, so that every player that connects to that audio interface could use all the plugins installed. Let's say you have an ancient music playing program that calls the audio interface. Add the Ogg Vorbis playing plugin to your system and... Voila, your music player can now play Ogg Vorbis because your system knows how to deal with it now. Yes, this would make audio players more uniform in terms of their playback... but there are other ways to differentiate yourself.

I know several OSes (such as BeOS) have done things like this... Windows does it with video codecs. All I have to do is install an XviD codec and WMP, Winamp and the rest now understand XviD.

Edited 2006-10-12 22:10

Reply Score: 1

PC-BSD anyone?
by Joe User on Thu 12th Oct 2006 22:09 UTC
Joe User
Member since:
2005-06-29

This description looks like PC-BSD, don't you think so?

Reply Score: 1

Appdirs
by axel on Thu 12th Oct 2006 23:23 UTC
axel
Member since:
2006-02-04

all i can ever think when people whine on about how appdirs in linux would cure cancer or something i just cant help but think about ROX, sitting there with its full desktop of appdirs and its drag and drop saving and loading classes.
and of course gnustep.

Reply Score: 1

WTF
by Duffman on Fri 13th Oct 2006 05:13 UTC
Duffman
Member since:
2005-11-23

First we get publicity in article and now we get publicity in front of the web page.

I am obliged to close a publicity before I can read something on this site each time I open the website or click on a link to see comment/read an article.

This site has too much publicity (and don't tell me that you gain no money with it), it is full of crap now. Thanks, I will save my time and not come back again. I hope this site will disappear from the net.

Edited 2006-10-13 05:14

Reply Score: 0

Totally useless
by jeet232 on Fri 13th Oct 2006 06:02 UTC
jeet232
Member since:
2006-10-13

I didn't find ur ideas worth; you have stressed less on the ideas but talked more about here and there.
these ideas are no-where near to throw away windows; not even any good linux distro these days;
what it will take to do that is completly outstanding OS, which no one has done so far.
but wait for some more time; i'll be putting it on the stage.

Reply Score: 1

the year is 2006
by nexie on Fri 13th Oct 2006 09:20 UTC
nexie
Member since:
2006-03-28

it's 2006 nex, so why is your computer really big hot and takes an age to actually do anything, you know, things like switch on and er switch off, what do you actually use your computer for? if it's so fikkin great why does it take so much time and wasted energy to do it? so ask yourself, if it's 2006 why is my computer a piece of spit... this rant goes on a bit more but you get the jist..

Reply Score: 1

Mac OS 9 VM
by jamning on Fri 13th Oct 2006 09:21 UTC
jamning
Member since:
2006-10-13

My dream OS would actually be a virtualized Mac OS 9 environment with each application running in its own sandbox, or Mac OS 9 environment and servers so that Apps can communicate with each other and the underlying system. Hopefully with parts re-written in i86 architecture with non-portable code running in seperate powerpc sandbox.

Reply Score: 1

Unambitious
by steve_s on Fri 13th Oct 2006 09:48 UTC
steve_s
Member since:
2006-01-16

Mike, I hate to say it, but MikeOS isn't really very ambitious.

You're basically describing a custom Linux distro, and nothing more. As folks here have pointed out just about everything you desire exists in one form or another. It seems to me that your entire OS project would probably be concerned with picking the components and then making the required edits to sort out the directory structure. I'd expect this could be accomplished for considerably less than 1m Euros, and probably within just 6 months rather than a year.

What you're describing also seems to me to be fairly close to Haiku - excepting of course being based on the Linux kernel and running X-Windows.

Reply Score: 4

Some people have no imagination.
by axilmar on Fri 13th Oct 2006 10:32 UTC
axilmar
Member since:
2006-03-20

Basically the guy wants an Amiga like OS with a few enhancements from the Unix world! what a shame! some people have no imagination at all.

The following text descibes my own ideal operating system. But before that, I would like to stretch the fact that hardware is far from ideal as the author says. The reason is that each device should be independent of O/S, all devices should have an object-oriented interface and the driver code should be in bytecode format loaded into their flashable roms, thus allowing very easy integration with the host O/S. Instead of that, what we get is a list of I/O ports or memory locations and a specification for some types of devices that is usually not implemented 100% and is fixed in the rom.

Let's go to the operating system...I want an operating system where:

1) there are no applications/drivers/filesystem whatsoever.

2) all data and code is stored in a relational database.

3) code is stored as functions.

4) data is automatically persisted and indepentent of code.

5) code is stored as bytecode; the kernel translates the bytecode to native code and caches the result, handling security as well.

6) programs are composed by the user with the help of a GUI, by chaining functions together. The GUI is 'function centric', i.e. it allows the user to process data using one or more functions. Let's name these programs 'tasks'.

7) tasks are full screen, with a small bar in the end of the screen which contains a view of open tasks. Clicking the other tasks brings them on the screen.

8) the system knows the data types of data, so it is possible to do queries across the system.

9) the system is distributed. Computations can run in any available node.

10) the system is reactive; state change can be intercepted and handled accordingly.

All the above is coordinated by the kernel (the only native code in the system).

Reply Score: 2

RE: Some people have no imagination.
by Pixie on Sat 14th Oct 2006 11:02 UTC in reply to "Some people have no imagination."
Pixie Member since:
2005-09-30

Basically the guy wants an Amiga like OS with a few enhancements from the Unix world!
And can you really blame him!? ;-)

Reply Score: 2

Gold OS
by diegoviola on Fri 13th Oct 2006 11:02 UTC
diegoviola
Member since:
2006-08-15

Gold is a new operating system from scratch designed for desktop use and modern computing, you can see it here http://icculus.org/gold/

This operating system has really nice things, for example, see this about his GUI, http://www.jbit.net/~jbit/Golem-Stuff.txt

This is probably what you would want, it simply rocks!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Gold OS
by unodgs on Fri 13th Oct 2006 11:42 UTC in reply to "Gold OS"
unodgs Member since:
2005-08-09

* _NEVER_ steal the keyboard/mouse focus.
(Game devs, try to not steal them outside of gameplay)
* _NEVER_ put a new object/window/etc ontop of where the user is currently working.
(like, don't put a notification above the text input box currently focused)
* _NEVER_ put keyboards/mice/etc into weird modes without a visual indicator and a clear way out.


If only vista had this implemented....

Reply Score: 1

RE: Gold OS
by diegoviola on Fri 13th Oct 2006 14:22 UTC in reply to "Gold OS"
diegoviola Member since:
2006-08-15

The File vs Objects concept is really nice too, you can read that on their web site, and they are in #gold @freenode.

Reply Score: 1

Quite true
by pandronic on Sat 14th Oct 2006 08:53 UTC
pandronic
Member since:
2006-05-18

I hope that the Linux developers are reading this. This guy's points are quite obvious if you've played around a little with Linux. I don't understand why is it so hard for the developers to figure them out.

Reply Score: 4

Assign
by Pixie on Sat 14th Oct 2006 11:08 UTC
Pixie
Member since:
2005-09-30

You can't specify a meaningful assignment for 'libs:' if your library files are scattered over 120 directories.

You can have different directories sharing the same assign, so that you don't have to mix them all in the same place, obviously if you copy something to libs: it will go to the master assign, but for looking it will hunt those 120 directories until it finds the correct library, it doesn't mean ´per se´that it is meaningful.

You can have a libs: assign at user space avoiding the system completely

Reply Score: 2

Sounds a lot like...
by fretinator on Sat 14th Oct 2006 18:35 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

PC_BSD. Especially with PBI"s for package installation.

Reply Score: 2