Linked by David Adams on Sat 17th May 2008 03:39 UTC, submitted by IdaAshley
Ever wonder what makes a computer tick or how a UNIX server does what it does? Discover what happens when you push the power button on your computer. This article discusses the different boot types, managing the AIX bootlist and the AIX boot sequence. After reading this article, you will better understand what exactly happens when your server starts.
Thread beginning with comment 314731
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by Kroc
by sonic2000gr on Sun 18th May 2008 18:15
in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Kroc"
Member since:2007-05-20
seem more theological than anything else to me. Why should a plain personal computer user have to bother with understanding UNIX? That seems bizarre to me.
No, sorry this was not what I meant. An end user that is not the kind of geek like many of us here, should not have to understand UNIX the way this statement implies. People who write OSes should though, and they should try to apply its stronger points to their OS (meaning mostly the under-the-hood design). The desktop OS of the future (if such a thing exists) does not have to be Windows or UNIX, but should merge the best of both worlds, both in the GUI and internals.
Also, why these complicated installation procedures (again, in personal computers), why not simply design executable files so that they can be run directly and function as both the application itself and a configurer/"installer" that (in most cases) creates/modifies only a few local config-files. This, at any point, i.e. when needed, much like some applications in DOS did for example.
I too would love to see all "dependency hell" and "DLL hell" go away. However the drawback from this (under current technology terms) would be statically linked programs, with lots of duplicated code. So what, memory is cheap you may say, but consider how many apps you would have to update when a vulnerability is found in code contained in all of them. There is a price for everything.
Sorry for my, perhaps, slightly irritated tone, don't take it personal, it's only 20 years of frustration taking its toll 
Hehe, don't worry about it, I can sympathize with you. I've gone through many systems over the years. There is no such thing as a perfect OS, at least I feel I have a lot more control now that I mainly use Linux/BSD.
Member since:2006-01-03
I too would love to see all "dependency hell" and "DLL hell" go away. However the drawback from this (under current technology terms) would be statically linked programs, with lots of duplicated code. So what, memory is cheap you may say, but consider how many apps you would have to update when a vulnerability is found in code contained in all of them. There is a price for everything.
I fully agree with you, and moreover without some dynamic linking more code would be duplicated in RAM and in the caches which, of course, are much more limited than disk (or flash) space. However I feel that a dynamic library placed in its own naturally named subdirectory would be easy to find even for simple applications written the way I suggested above, i.e. without demanding special packet handlers or installers (of course some conventions are needed to avoid dependence on user input or searching).
Several versions (bug fixes and/or variants) of a certain library could be put in separate subdirectories placed under the same "umbrella" directory (as disk space is "virtually unlimited" today), enabling applications to choose a version based on either date stamps or user selection (the user may prefer an older version of a GUI for instance).
I misread the part on reinventing UNIX - sorry for that - but still feel that the UNIX way is certainly not the only way. For instance, as far as I understand, VMS and WinNT (both by Dave Cutler) seem technically just as sound as UNIX. All the XP and Vista add-ons by MS are another matter, also what one thinks about MS business practices etc. As everybody here knows, there also exists other systems which are not plain copies of UNIX.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-01-03
I agree on most of your views, especially regarding slow-booting Windows (and Linux/KDE), but your statement
seem more theological than anything else to me. Why should a plain personal computer user have to bother with understanding UNIX? That seems bizarre to me.
Also, why these complicated installation procedures (again, in personal computers), why not simply design executable files so that they can be run directly and function as both the application itself and a configurer/"installer" that (in most cases) creates/modifies only a few local config-files. This, at any point, i.e. when needed, much like some applications in DOS did for example.
It would be very simple and also so much more inherently self contained (or object oriented if you like) than the scattering of files and information at various places, normally done by both Linux and Windows installation procedures. Why should simplicity and elegance be so darn hard to achieve? (Again, in a single-user personal computer.)
Sorry for my, perhaps, slightly irritated tone, don't take it personal, it's only 20 years of frustration taking its toll