Linked by Kroc Camen on Thu 5th Nov 2009 21:05 UTC
There's no right way to do it, only ideas that are better than others in certain situations. But if you had the opportunity to head up the design of a new OS, one to Put Things Right, one that could be radical enough to varnish out those UI/X bumps that have clung on for years, but practical enough to be used every day, what would you design? How would you handle application management? What about file types and compatibility? Where would you cherry pick the best bits from other OSes and where would you throw away tradition? I've tackled this challenge for myself and present (an unfinished idea): KrocOS (warning: HTML5 site, will display without CSS in IE/older browsers). OSnews Asks: What would make your perfect OS?
Thread beginning with comment 393491
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[10]: Why was he modded down?
by MysterMask on Sun 8th Nov 2009 18:44
in reply to "RE[9]: Why was he modded down? "
Member since:2005-07-12
The people who want Free software for the sake of Free software [..] cannot simply be ignored
Sure they can. Common desktop users ignore Linux and their religious behaviour all the time (and vice versa, since fundamentalistic Linux developers ignore common desktop users needs all the time, too) ..
It is they (and I) [..]
How do you know? Somehow, the proof that Betrand Russel and the pope are one comes to my mind when reading such baseless statements ..
[..] who object to a stable ABI on idealistic grounds [..]
Now this if funny. I thought Linux is about free software and not about an instable ABI. So having an unstable ABI is what makes Linux free?
Maybe you should go to an ashram and invest some time to think about a world that does not match (and never will) your idealistic view ..
RE[11]: Why was he modded down?
by cerbie on Sun 8th Nov 2009 21:59
in reply to "RE[10]: Why was he modded down? "
Member since:2006-01-02
*yawn* Linux is FOSS. Non-free binary drivers have proven to be problems for the maintainers of FOSS kernel bits in the past. Linux devs and maintainers do not want binary (black-box) drivers. A stable ABI only benefits makers of binary (binary) drivers.
Currently, plain old buggy drivers are a problem (Do Atheros G cards work with this kernel version? Try it and see!), but the kernel's internal functions changing faster than the maintainers can keep up has helped cause issues, before. A stable API (for certain definitions of A) would reduce the work needed by maintainers of various drivers, at what should be a very minor cost (provided the API is planned out, not just frozen as it is now) to the people working on related parts of the kernel, and likewise, a very minor cost in terms of memory complexity of the kernel.
RE[11]: Why was he modded down?
by sorpigal on Mon 9th Nov 2009 00:43
in reply to "RE[10]: Why was he modded down? "
Member since:2005-11-02
Now this if funny. I thought Linux is about free software and not about an instable ABI. So having an unstable ABI is what makes Linux free?
Maybe you should go to an ashram and invest some time to think about a world that does not match (and never will) your idealistic view ..
Maybe you should go to an ashram and invest some time to think about a world that does not match (and never will) your idealistic view ..
There is no technical benefit to a stable ABI. If you show one then there is some merit to this conversation. Until you do show one it is simply about helping proprietary software... which isn't a goal worth pursuing.
RE[10]: Why was he modded down?
by google_ninja on Sun 8th Nov 2009 18:58
in reply to "RE[9]: Why was he modded down? "
Member since:2006-02-05
I know you do not agree. I am just informing you: The people who want Free software for the sake of Free software are not nutcases and cannot simply be ignored because you don't care about the cause. It is they (and I) who object to a stable ABI on idealistic grounds and since you do not provide a technical reason to have one, one should not be added.
That is amazing dude. People who say stuff like that shouldn't be ignored, they should be mocked first for being so ridicules.
RE[11]: Why was he modded down?
by sorpigal on Mon 9th Nov 2009 00:47
in reply to "RE[10]: Why was he modded down? "
Member since:2005-11-02
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-11-02
I am using inflammatory language because you seem to be deliberately missing the point. Such language makes it unambiguous what I am saying. A stable kernel ABI promotes proprietary software and this is a problem, not an advantage.
We can debate the nuances of antisocial, evil and so forth at another time. It remains my belief that proprietary software is not good and should not exist in any form. Allowing peaceful co-existence with proprietary software that exists already is acceptable, but promoting the creation of (and reliance on) more proprietary software is not good and is probably malicious.
I know you do not agree. I am just informing you: The people who want Free software for the sake of Free software are not nutcases and cannot simply be ignored because you don't care about the cause. It is they (and I) who object to a stable ABI on idealistic grounds and since you do not provide a technical reason to have one, one should not be added.