Menu
▾
▴
mentalunix-developers
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2000 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(10) |
Aug
(52) |
Sep
(18) |
Oct
(17) |
Nov
|
Dec
(93) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 |
Jan
(24) |
Feb
(10) |
Mar
(27) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(1) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2002 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
(18) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2003 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(1) |
Dec
|
| 2011 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(11) |
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
From: Clinton E. <men...@cr...> - 2001-01-28 23:38:55
|
I just decided to write this. Post any comments and changes to have on it to the mailing lists, or send them to me. After it gets to a readable format, we can put it on the site: --- stuff --- MPKG Package Format Specification PROPOSAL 0.1 TERMS: MPK/mpk - the extension of a mpkg pacakge file bzip2 - a file compression technology package - a file that contains data in an installable format binary - an installable package that is created from a source package source - a package that contains the data neccesary to create a binary package. of course, a binary package may contain source or documentation and not just binaries, and a source package can contain binaries as well. In this document, source merely means an uninstallable version of a package, that must be run through the packager to turn it into an installable package REASONING: The two current leaders in packaging technology for linux are rpm and dpkg. Both are suboptimal solutions to the problem of packaging. Rpm is technically flawed, and dpkg offers too much power. Both make it difficult to pacakge and maintain packaged software. Mpkg is designed to make packaging easier, more powerful, and better using several methods. Mpkg will retain the ability to install rpm and dpkg packages(using librpm and calling dpkg). FLAWS IN DPKG: Dpkg is a very powerful pacakge manager. But, its code is extremely messy, and the common package control functions are not separated into a library for other programs to use(note: it has an interface in perl). Still, a perl interface is not good enough, because the majority of software is written in C and its cousin C++ for speed. Also, dpkg is a hack that needs a major revision. MPKG FILE FORMAT: All mpk files will be in bzip2 format. The packager will use libbz2 to access the bzip2 funtions for its usage. Every file will also contain this basic directory structure: (|| denotes or, explained later) control/ data/ || src/ doc/ bin/ src/ etc/ info/ ||: In a "binary" pacakge(mpk) you will have a data/ directory. A "source" package contains the src/ directory. the control/ directoru contains the control files for the package. No scripts may be run from a package at all. This may be dangerous. All packages must use debconf for controlling how a pacakge is used. Mpkg will not be using debconf, it will be using cdebconf instead. Because debconf does not provide 100% of the funtionality a package needs, mconf will be written. Mconf will provide an undertermined set of features. In addition, there will be a file named "INSTALL" that contains the commands to install teh pacakges. These will not involve absolute paths -- it will most likely be a mconf control file. Debian menus systems scripts and other data may also be added here. the data/(or src/) directory contains the data files to be isntalled. This will be controlled using the files in the control/ directory. There may be more directories added to this heirarchy. All packages must conform to the set structure, or they will be rejected by the package manager. Files in ./doc/ must be documentation files that are destined for the documentation folders(there may be info,doc,and man sub-sub folders added, so don't make any pacakges yet). Since the LSB and FHS are ever evolving, mconf will control where these files go(so older packages will remain compliant to the FHS. ex: /usr/doc is non-FHS compliant. If mconf existed before the FHS, then it would take a simple 1 line update to mconf to update the doc dir to be /usr/share/doc, instead of requiring each pacakge to be updated). ./etc is for configuration files; you may put any subdirs under this directory -- all data from /etc is copied to /etc unchaged unless the mconf control file specifies otherwise. The ./src/ directory is for source code files. By default, they will be put in /usr/src/package_name, but the mconf control file will allow overiding of this behaviour. the ./bin/ directory is for binaries. They will be put in /usr/bin, unless overided by the mconf control file. The info/ directory is for package information, like the desc file. END OF PROPROSAL. Please send comments to unk...@us..., or post any comments on the mentalinux sourceforge message boards or mailing lists. --- stuff --- Now, go and make changes and stuff to it so it is better. And please make comments. I think we should start tacking down what mconf and mpkg will do really soon, since the distro will be based on them(start as a fork of debian, and allow debian compatibility, and slowly move to becoming independent of debian as the mentalinux tools become stronger). ------------------------------- #indrema @ irc.openprojects.net be a part of the revolution. unknown_lamer |
|
From: Clinton E. <men...@cr...> - 2001-01-20 01:56:05
|
Xfce is the default. This is because xfce is the least windows like..and if you hate xfwm(the default wm), you can use any other wm..even E! XFce greatest strength is the panel tho, it is floating, and much like CDE. XFce is also mostly gnome compliant through XFGnome(which needs the wm, since the apps are gnome compliant..but the wm needs the gnome module to run things like gmc right..so if you use E or sawfish instead...). It is pretty nice, and what I wanted to do was make it so that(by using xfce's X resource modifyer) is to make a more unified feel to X, starting with a common theme. WEll, the evil medicine is hitting me bad now, and I can't feel my fingers so... On 19 Jan 2001, at 12:55, The_Micea wrote: > Ok no filtering then. What desktop should we support as defualt? I > think we should go with GNOME because it is OSS and Im inthusiastic > about its future after reading the interview in either maximun linux > or linux journal. > > > _______________________________________________ > Mentalunix-developers mailing list > Men...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mentalunix-developers > --------------------------- <me>So, my l33t hax0r friend has a sister <?> So, root his sister and not his box? <me>She's ugly. Or something. Not now. <me>Maybe tommorow. |
|
From: The_Micea <las...@ad...> - 2001-01-19 20:54:07
|
Ok no filtering then. What desktop should we support as defualt? I think we should go with GNOME because it is OSS and Im inthusiastic about its future after reading the interview in either maximun linux or linux journal. |
|
From: CoolProgrammer <coo...@ya...> - 2001-01-18 23:23:49
|
I agree with not necessarily trimming--after all, a user can still choose to install fewer packages than what we provide. Of course, if we have "default installations," I think we should provide one or two (at least) for smaller spaces. ~CoolProgrammer --- Clinton Ebadi <men...@cr...> wrote: > No filtering. Just adding. My idea is too make a > nice new installer, > work on making a new package manager that uses > debs(but makes the > life of a developer / package manager easier), and > making the desktop > a bit more unified. So, repackage things like xfce > with extra themes > and stuff to make everything look nicer and feel > better out of the > box. > > On 17 Jan 2001, at 21:19, The_Micea wrote: > > > ok. jobs. heres some that need to be done. > > 1. filter out useless apps from debian. we want > to trim the 6000 or > > so down to 100 or so mbs right? > > > > 2. work on installer. (I definatly want to be > part of the > > development on this) > > > > what else? > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Mentalunix-developers mailing list > > Men...@li... > > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mentalunix-developers > > > > > > --------------------------- > <me>So, my l33t hax0r friend has a sister > <?> So, root his sister and not his box? > <me>She's ugly. Or something. Not now. > <me>Maybe tommorow. > > _______________________________________________ > Mentalunix-developers mailing list > Men...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mentalunix-developers __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ |
|
From: Clinton E. <men...@cr...> - 2001-01-18 20:03:22
|
No filtering. Just adding. My idea is too make a nice new installer, work on making a new package manager that uses debs(but makes the life of a developer / package manager easier), and making the desktop a bit more unified. So, repackage things like xfce with extra themes and stuff to make everything look nicer and feel better out of the box. On 17 Jan 2001, at 21:19, The_Micea wrote: > ok. jobs. heres some that need to be done. > 1. filter out useless apps from debian. we want to trim the 6000 or > so down to 100 or so mbs right? > > 2. work on installer. (I definatly want to be part of the > development on this) > > what else? > > > _______________________________________________ > Mentalunix-developers mailing list > Men...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mentalunix-developers > --------------------------- <me>So, my l33t hax0r friend has a sister <?> So, root his sister and not his box? <me>She's ugly. Or something. Not now. <me>Maybe tommorow. |
|
From: The_Micea <las...@ad...> - 2001-01-18 04:48:48
|
ok. jobs. heres some that need to be done. 1. filter out useless apps from debian. we want to trim the 6000 or so down to 100 or so mbs right? 2. work on installer. (I definatly want to be part of the development on this) what else? |
|
From: Knie D. <nul...@ya...> - 2001-01-17 22:23:29
|
I decided to subscribe to the lists, but forgot to subscribe to the one with all the members! Anyways, here are the two messages i was meaning to send to this list! --- men...@li... wrote: > Send Mentalunix-devlist mailing list submissions to > men...@li... > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, > visit > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mentalunix-devlist > or, via email, send a message with subject or body > 'help' to > men...@li... > > You can reach the person managing the list at > men...@li... > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it > is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Mentalunix-devlist digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. RE: [Mentalunix-developers] Distro release > schedule, new direction, and broken links (Knie > Dustin) > 2. Mentalinux developer information for > contacting. (Knie Dustin) > > --__--__-- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 22:50:55 -0800 (PST) > From: Knie Dustin <nul...@ya...> > To: men...@li... > Subject: [Mentalunix-devlist] RE: > [Mentalunix-developers] Distro release schedule, new > direction, and broken links > > Ok, i finally took the time to resubscribe to the > developers list (had it with linuxstart, but then > they > discontinued email service, and then forgot to reply > and confirm when i was changing the service). Well > anyways. Overall, great ideas. I have updated the > site once again, and everything should be up to > date. > There is now a Linux code core mirror (well, right > now, its the only site, but.....) on the mentalunix > sourceforge homepage. (Linux Code Core on the > navbar > thingy). I fixed the links, updated the roadmap, and > added sourceforge news updates to the whats new > site. > If u think it would go better else where, let me > know. > I thought it would be best in the whats new page > because i felt that the information may be more then > just development information, and i didnt want to > clog > up the devel news with non-development stuff. It > may > work better on the first page, but then again, at > the > same time, the first page lists mainly site updates. > > TODO for site: > linux code core project pages. I do not have the > project information/download/documentation pages > done > or up yet. If you have any ideas, send me your > thoughts. I still want to do the design, but if u > have information regarding how you think a certain > app > should work and stuff, let me know so i can make the > pages. > Because of school work, I won't have a lot of time > for > dev stuff for a few weeks. I'll do what I can this > week, but most of my updates probably will be around > fridays. But that is not garanteed. I have a two > hour break btw classes tommorow, but i have some > reading to catch up on. So My guess is I'll have > some > time to work on the site thursday. Expect a couple > updates friday. > > Finally, I set the font size tag to 2 on the nav > now. > this may work out better, but not sure. If i dont > put > any size in, it appears to big, but then, with size, > theres allways the danger of being to small. Let me > know if u have any more complaints or comments or > suggestions. > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ > > > --__--__-- > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:45:12 -0800 (PST) > From: Knie Dustin <nul...@ya...> > To: men...@li... > Subject: [Mentalunix-devlist] Mentalinux developer > information for contacting. > > Since I am adding developers to the contact site on > the home page, I need contact information from the > other developers. I can just add sourceforge email > address, however, Im thinking it might be valuable > to > add icq numbers and stuff. Just got an idea, let > me > know what u think. What about adding personal about > us sites. U send me the info, i'll make the pages > and > add that to the contact site, That will help me > make > the page format better on windows and stuff. If you > have any comments on the current site or anything, > I'll fix that asap, but it will have to wait until I > get home. We dont have linux terms at school and i > doubt i would be able to get ssh1. So, let me know. > > Also, if I have time tonight, I will be making some > modifications to the email section of the site. > (won't be design changes) but some minor script mods > to clear up some minor probs I had earlier, Just > figured out how to fix it. > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ > > > > --__--__-- > > _______________________________________________ > Mentalunix-devlist mailing list > Men...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mentalunix-devlist > > > End of Mentalunix-devlist Digest __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ |
|
From: Joel P. <jo...@li...> - 2001-01-15 23:32:22
|
Hey all, First of all, a hello to everyone. Secondly, does mentalinux have any documentation on the packages that are going to be built from scratch? I've noticed in the developer spec that mentalinux will have a cute installer, network installations and other 'specific' installation methods? Is there going to be any filesystem stuff developed? How about other cute things that will make the *nix community really appreciate and respect this new distro? It'd be cool to have a list of 'things that need to be done' and have people like myself (with plenty of time =) to go out and do them. Perhaps there is a more detailed life cycle spec floating around somewhere? Regards, Joel Pobar. -- "The greatest mistake a person can make is to be afraid of making one." -- Noel Whittaker > Ok, New direction time. Since everyone seems to have ignored my first > one: > > - Ok, no more from scratch, forking off of debian > - Yes, based around the 2.4 kernel > - New installer > - Uses dpkg for a while, mpkg will be written when I get time > - Old specs page is meanignless > - No february release -- unrealistic with less than 2 weeks left > - Wait for my new box to come so I can do dev > - First version of the install out by the end of march..after I get > my lan up so I can do more dev work(think cvs) > - Nice, working distro done before the end of next year(but it should > be usable before then) > > New focus is on making it easier to package code and maintain a > distro. |
|
From: Clinton E. <men...@cr...> - 2001-01-15 21:53:32
|
Ok, On the site, the what's new link on the index page points to news.php, which doesn't exist, but the What's new link does work in the nav..also, it refers to dates we have missed, and the text in the nav is a bit small(it shows as about 6pt over here). Well, the contact section is cooler now anyway. Dustin: look in the sourceforge docs, because you could tie the news page in with the news we can submit on the sourceforge page, and the link to the group project page is now http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/mentalunix . Ok, New direction time. Since everyone seems to have ignored my first one: - Ok, no more from scratch, forking off of debian - Yes, based around the 2.4 kernel - New installer - Uses dpkg for a while, mpkg will be written when I get time - Old specs page is meanignless - No february release -- unrealistic with less than 2 weeks left - Wait for my new box to come so I can do dev - First version of the install out by the end of march..after I get my lan up so I can do more dev work(think cvs) - Nice, working distro done before the end of next year(but it should be usable before then) New focus is on making it easier to package code and maintain a distro. NEWS: Next year, I am in a cool class where I can do a project on school time for 90 minutes a day, both semesters. My project will be mentalunix. woo. Be happy, because come fall, I'll be forced to work on the distro for 90 minutes a day! Woo! And I'll get a grade.. MORE STUFF: I'm going to set up some mentalinux code guiudlines for things like the installer, and write some standard libraries it would need(like a virtual pacakge manager that just calls other pacakge managers, so it can be used with any package manager on the face of the planet!) --------------------------- <me>So, my l33t hax0r friend has a sister <?> So, root his sister and not his box? <me>She's ugly. Or something. Not now. <me>Maybe tommorow. |
|
From: nullpuppy <clu...@ya...> - 2001-01-15 19:43:08
|
Well, thx for reminding me about the site, i completely forgot. Its now uploaded. Since the only real vote that we got was for MentaLinux, I went ahead and used that. If we decide to change it later, I should be able to do that rather quickly (although, I will have a really high work load for school this quarter, so it may take a day or two to update.) The new site is available at http://mentalunix.sourceforge.net --------------------------------------------- DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE BY EMAIL! --------------------------------------------- You have chosen to receive messages from "mentalunix" by email. Reply to this message: http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/mentalunix/bbsfrp?action=r&tid=mentalunix&sid=1600006580&mid=404 Unsubscribe from the Club mailing list: http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/mentalunix/config/change_mb_list Return to "mentalunix": http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/mentalunix ---------------------------------------------- Not a member? Remove yourself from this list: http://edit.clubs.yahoo.com/config/unsubscribe_mb_list?.userID=munix_devr&.groupID=mentalunix&.groupType=&.code=IVyJGMuRxG |
|
From: operating_systems_man <clu...@ya...> - 2001-01-15 13:41:44
|
Hi. I haven't been here for a while now. Well it seems that there are a few more people then when I was last here thanks to /. I was just going throughing my email in Outlook witch I haven't done for a while to read all the messages that i have gotten form Yahoo and I saw all the messages from this club and it looks like it's going a lot better now. I got about halfway throught the message before outlook decided to freeze. What happend to the site being updated and the change of name? Well i'll read the last of the messages anf talk to use another time. --------------------------------------------- DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE BY EMAIL! --------------------------------------------- You have chosen to receive messages from "mentalunix" by email. Reply to this message: http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/mentalunix/bbsfrp?action=r&tid=mentalunix&sid=1600006580&mid=403 Unsubscribe from the Club mailing list: http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/mentalunix/config/change_mb_list Return to "mentalunix": http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/mentalunix ---------------------------------------------- Not a member? Remove yourself from this list: http://edit.clubs.yahoo.com/config/unsubscribe_mb_list?.userID=munix_devr&.groupID=mentalunix&.groupType=&.code=IVyJGMuRxG |
|
From: Clinton E. <men...@cr...> - 2001-01-14 23:08:49
|
Well, it has become apparant to me that SCP is back up on sourceforge, so when you get a chance, upload the new site cydust. --------------------------- <me>So, my l33t hax0r friend has a sister <?> So, root his sister and not his box? <me>She's ugly. Or something. Not now. <me>Maybe tommorow. |
|
From: CoolProgrammer <coo...@ya...> - 2001-01-11 00:07:59
|
I've used xfce on our 486, and I was pretty pleased, though I love the idea of adding desktop support to it. Oh, KDE can change the appearence of X widgets as well--however, KDE is a resource hog (which is why the 486 and xfce get along really well, though I still usually use fvwm2 with no desktop environment). Well, it sounds good... ~CoolProgrammer __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! http://photos.yahoo.com/ |
|
From: Clinton E. <men...@cr...> - 2001-01-10 23:28:34
|
I have really been thinking about this(and looking at code), and I
think it is time to scrap the idea of a new distribution from
scratch. It would be pointless to do that, when all of the groundwork
has already been laid. Why do something over when it has already been
done a few dozen times? I see no point. But, I do see a point in
channeling your energy to make the existing better. So, I propose
that we do a "fork" of debian -- repackage a few programs, use the
majority of the existing ones, add a new installer, help to improve
the debian software(if you take something, it is only fair that you
give back), and add mpkg.
Ok, the first thing to get to is what to do with mpkg? I see mpkg as
not being a package manager with its own format, but rather be a
manager that can install other pacakges, and help to maintain
syncronized databases between pacakge formats. In essence, if I
install a deb with mpkg, mpkg will generate a virtual rpm that
provides certain files and install it into the rpm database. And,
mpkg needs to become the best tool for distribution maintenence.
Basically, make pacakging debs really easy(maybe a gtk/curses program
to help get someone started / make maintence of the package even
easier?), and to make building a distrinution easy. Take this
fictional command:
mpkg --rebuilt-tree --target=i586 --source-tree=/home/me/source --
output-tree=/home/me/bin/586/
What would that command do? It would take a tree of debian source
packages, and maybe rpm/slp/slackware packages(later), and rebuild
them for your target, and dump the compiled packages in the output
tree directory. Now, one way to make these easier to code is to make
all mentalunix/new_name packages use a common extension for source
pacakges - .sdeb, instead of the one used in the debian
archives(tar.gz). It would make it easier for the program to tag
files as debs and tag files as autoconfigure packages(which
eventually it should be able to configure and install with one
command instead of 3, more on this later). Instead of unpacking them
to see what it is, it could just check the
extension(string.substr(".sdeb") using the STL strings). The whole
thing would be a nice program sitting on top of libdpkg / librpm /
zlib / mlib(mpkg library so other programs could use the functions,
and make it so mpkg would have cleaner code).
Being able to rebuild a distribution for any platform you want is a
great power. The only large problem I see is getting the build
depending to work -- either have the program un gzip / untar every
file and check its build depends, have a nice build depends db(this
can be done with the .dsc file I think) at the root of the source
tree(and have mpkg apt-get all of the pacakges it needs pre build),
or you can just hope the user has the files he/she needs.
Making mpkg make packaging more approachable needs to be a large
goal. It should be a lot easier for anyone to pacakge their
software..so the upstream authors could do more packaging, and we
could have more maintaners. A nice way to convert autoconf / automake
packages to debs would be cool, but that would require looking into
the shell scripts and parsing and stuff to get the build / runtime
depends. The only way around this problem IMHO is to make it a lot
easier to make pacakges from scratch. Have a Gtk+ GUI program that
lets a user select packages that it relies on during build and
runtime from a pop up list(actually an interface to apt-cache), and
just give it an autoconf package, and an output sdeb(it would just
strip all of the autoconf stuff and rewrite it with the Debian/rules
and new autoconf stuff). I know this would help a lot of people
become package maintainers.
Why did I abandon the idea of writing mpkg from scratch? I discovered
apt / dpkg, and I fell in love. Dpkg is a nice piece of packaging
software, and apt makes it even nicer. So, why rewrite it, when you
can build a tool that uses dpkg, and can take advantage of apt. The
only trouble with apt is that it only modifies the deb database, and
only install debs(or rpms, but you can't have both), so maybe it
would need some code added to call mpkg --resync(resync the
databases) after install stuff, or actually using mpkg instead of
dpkg(mpkg's syntax will be dpkg syntax + extended options..but there
needs to be a focus on adding the high level features, then filling
in the gaps for the 1.0 release; basically keep dpkg around for a
while)..using mpkg and not dpkg(once we get a nice 100% backwards
compatable with dpkg release) would allow apt to install lots of
formats. So, instead of rewriting all of the package code, we just
have to write some of the stuff people haven't really done yet, and
use the existing stuff people have already done. This saves us time,
and allows us to get a lot more done, faster.
Instead of writing an entirely new distribution, adding on to an
existing one(debian would be a lot easier to add on to than mandrake
would ever have been) allows us to focus on the little pieces missing
from existing distributions instead of focusing on putting the pieces
already there in. An example: the desktop. Sure, gnome and kde are
nice, but are they truly Integrated Desktop Enviroments? Sure, if you
use Gtk/QT programs, but what about older programs, and programs that
don't use them? Do they change apperance when you change your theme?
No! Do they behave with the desktop enviroment like the other
programs? No! So, we could focus on bringing the "IDEnv"(Integreated
Desktop ENViroment) to become a reality. And xfce is a key tool in
this.
Ok, if you have ever used xfce, you know it is cool. It is like
gnome, but with a few less features, and a really different way of
thinking. But, that doesn't matter. What does matter is it can modify
xresources..so, if you change your theme in xfce, all of the non-Gtk
programs will change colors(nothing like what gtk can do, just simple
pallette modification). Now, since I know kde2 can use gtk
themes(how?), I don't think it would be to hard to add support for
controlling how QT apps look too. So, we use xfce. We make a nice
looking desktop, and create panel menus with the programs users often
use. We add desktop support to XFTree, and call it a day. Plus, with
its XFGnome module...yay! It can do GNOME. The windowmanager may look
a bit old, but it really isn't that bad. Users can use any wm they
want with it anyway(some like to use E with it).
Graphical login should be the default, but the installer should allow
this to be changed. Using gdm would be good, and the Default session
would be linked to the xfce session. Use the mentalunix gtk theme on
the login manager, and have a nice mentalunix logo as the picture it
uses. That wouldn't be too hard.
Provide helix gnome. Use their packages, not debians. Yes, they have
some dependeny issues, but they aren't really that bad, and if one
does prove troublesome, default back to the debian one. Or, we can
see how gnome in woody / sid progresses and move to that. Some people
will want gnome, not xfce.
Make linuxconf work nicely with Debian. Really hard to do, not really
a great priority.
Repackage certain pieces of software to make them more integrated
with the distribution. Such as xfce. Also, making pacakges use
debconf for any install time configuration is a must.
The installer should be nice and graphical with a text based
fallback. Basically, the choices for installer should be(the first
stage installer should detect which one can run):
Gtk-frame buffer installer
Native X server install
VGA16 X installer
ncurses installer
The installer should be like any other but with these addons:
- Provide a bunch of different kernels and detect what kernel would
be best for the user(SMP?/arch/SCSI or IDE?).
- Advanced configuration of hardware in custom mode(as an option to
the user). One of my friends had trouble configuring his burner. So,
provide a kernel wil scsi emulation, and configure the kernel /
config files to allow uage of the burner(either kill ATAPAI support
100%, or append="/dev/drive=ide-scsi" in the lilo config..if we don't
use grub). Same goes for things like digital cameras(if one is
detected if they can, offer to configure the gtk camera program to be
able to use it) and scanners(if they can be detected, offer to
configure SANE). For printers that can give an ID back to the
computer(2 way parallell port..my ancient printer sends back BJC-250
when the parralell port code is initialized), have the installer
autoconfigure the printfilter. If it can't be id'd, then let the user
confiure.
That is all I can type for now. My eyes hurt. Please post comments.
---------------------
ASCII ART
*********
*
*********
"Ain't it l33t?"
All views expressed are IMHO.
Because MHO is better than yours.
unknown_lamer
|
|
From: Eric G. <em...@ly...> - 2001-01-02 05:14:52
|
On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 05:53:45PM -0500, Clinton Ebadi wrote: > It is in true email format. I just have the yahoo club(where it all > started almost two years ago) forwarding its content to the list(so > the list has more information about what is happening). I'm trying to > phase the club out gradually(for development), but it will take a > while. Ooo, I see. I kept seeing that "DO NOT REPLY BY EMAIL" thing at the bottom of the message and just didn't... O well, now I know ;-) Eric > > Also, if you move this mailing list to a true email format, I'd be > > much more likely to contribute code and ideas. I don't have the time > > or patients to read that yahoo thing. > > > > Eric > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Mentalunix-developers mailing list > > Men...@li... > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/mentalunix-developers > > > > > > --------------------- > ASCII ART > ********* > * > ********* > "Ain't it l33t?" > All views expressed are IMHO. > Because MHO is better than yours. > unknown_lamer > > _______________________________________________ > Mentalunix-developers mailing list > Men...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/mentalunix-developers |
|
From: CoolProgrammer <coo...@ya...> - 2000-12-31 00:39:05
|
Actually, Netscape running multiple windows under KDE when Linux is running off of a loop filesystem with no swap appears to be evil... Under FVWM2 (which is much less memory hungry... LOL), it seems to be happy (it'll run on our 486 with 16MB RAM in fvwm2 and fvwm95)... ~CoolProgrammer --- CoolProgrammer <coo...@ya...> wrote: > Ok... I'll try this again (Netscape evils--it's evil > in any OS)... > > I learned a bit about the startup process from > re-configuring Slackware to allow logins from the > serial port (which later resulted in setting up a > PPP > network for a more powerful setup). I agree that > Linux > can be confusing--installing it on a 386 with 2MB > RAM > is the ultimate confusion (figuring out how to make > swapspace when there wasn't enough ram to run > mkswap). > > Well, LOL--let's hope this gets out this time... > > ~CoolProgrammer > --- Alan Grimes <ala...@st...> wrote: > > [two replies] > > > > CoolProgrammer wrote: > > > > > I have a question--why are you so involved in > this > > > group if you aren't a Linux user? > > > > New distribution == chance to make an impact; get > > some design changes in > > before the first rom is burned... > > Purely self serving... > > I expect that I will be kicked as a troll soon so > I > > will use the time I > > have to make as much noise as I can. =\ > > > > > Multiuser is not handled until init loads--after > > the > > > kernel loads. > > > > I have very little to absolutly no understanding > of > > the linux boot > > process... It isn't as if it were documented and > > presented in such a way > > that I could: > > > > A. Locate the documentation. > > B. Understand the documentation. > > > > The text that comes with your average distribution > > comes only with > > instructions on using the menu systems that > > distribution prefers that > > the user use. =\ > > > > So Excuse me for being ignorant... > > > > I have read that the user log-in process begins > with > > a program called > > "getty" but that's as far as my knowlege of the > > subject goes. =\ > > > > > > > The kernel handles multitasking (and possibly > > isolation of users--in > > > fact, the filesystem does keep different users > > from getting into > > > others' files). > > > > As far as I know, isolating users is one of the > > primary kernel > > functions. > > It doesn't need to be, and it would be a far > better > > workstation/emedded > > system if it did. =\ > > > > > Linux already seems pretty easy to use--with the > > KDE > > > and GNOME desktop environments, a user who is > > familiar > > > with Windows should almost feel at home. > > > > I have not gotten such a system to work, so its > > impossible for me to > > call it even remotely "easy". =P > > > > > > > One program caused the crash of another... > > > > There are several techniques to preserve > > reliability. > > The Amiga wasn't known for its crashing. ;) > > > > > I think I smell some now... > > > > Yeah, it reaks. > > > > > Couldn't be in here--running two 32-bit OS's in > > here > > > (Windows won't count as far as I'm concerned > until > > > they fry the freakin' HIMEM.SYS and give Windows > > it's > > > own upper memory management)... > > > > Himem.sys does practicaly nothing except provide > > "VCPI" interfaces. > > KRNL386 or your equivalent, uses thes services to > > install its own suckey > > memory managment.... I wish there was an > alternative > > version of Krnl386 > > that was written to prefer to use any existing > DPMI > > server instead of > > blindly replacing it with its own broken one. =( > > > > --- > > > > Clinton Ebadi wrote: > > > > > > No, nor do I ever intend to become a > unix/linux > > user. *shrug* > > > > > > Use the OS before you trash it. You sound like > > some windows user > > > bashing macs, and the mac users who bash windows > > -- you've > > > > There is text missing here but I'll try to reply. > > My simplest way to proove that I have given linux > > more than its fair > > share of my pain is that I have, in a rack behind > > me, a re-distribution > > of Rednux Lihat 3.0. I also have on-hand rednux > > lihat 5.0, which I had > > the best luck with. And then Mandrake 6.2 which > was > > far too bloated to > > fit on my drive... > > > > All of the above were far too painful for me to > > reccomend to anyone, > > save perhaps someone trying to set up a server or > > something. But mostly > > I have switched to reccomending FreeBSD... =P > > > > > > > You could easily remove "multiuser mode", > but > > why would you? > > > > > > > > To make the kernel simpler, dummy. > > > > > My god! The kernel is not multiuser, the system > > is. You can go into > > > single user mode if you like, but it wouldn't > make > > the kernel any > > > simpler! > > > > Yes, it would, considerably... Half the filesystem > > code could be ripped > > out. Half of a lot of stuff could be ripped out. > It > > SHOULD be ripped > > out! > > (especially abominations such as khttpd.) > > > > > > All user files would be stored by the user > > system in encrypted "wad" > > > > files that would be safe, even from Root (root > > could only delete your > > > > files, not view them, or even tell which files > > you have). > > > > > > WTF? wad files? Keep things from the admin. > > > > > What about trojans? > > > > That's a security problem. If the user code was > > properly sandboxed, only > > that user would really care about what it was > doing. > > > > > > > Should I, as the all knowing and wise root, > allow > > my users to have > > > their data hidden from me? > > > > Select a different user managment system or > > implement your own. ;) > > Your enginuity is the limit! > > > > > No! The admin has to be allowed to audit users > > accounts. If some crazy > > > guy is using my servers to distribute illegal > > warez / kiddie pr0n / > > > trying to crack the system with a user account, > I > > need to know. > > > > Those are first ammendment/criminal issues that > are > > between him and the > > law. > > If you are concerned about a particular user, you > > don't have to provide > > him any services. ;) > > > > > > > > I don't like compromises. > > > > > > Well, you have to live with them. Not everyone > is > > the same. If UNIX > > > doesn't have what you want, then use another > > operating system. That > > > is why we have something called choice. > > > > Could you show me such an operating system that is > > available for me to > > choose? > > > > If you can't you must realise if not sympathise > with > > my plight as a > > computer user. > > > > Once you have done that please don't insult me by > > mouthing off about my > > ability to chose something that doesn't exist. Its > > like one of the last > > queens of France who said, when confronted by the > > problem of subjects > > who had no bread, "Let them eat cake!" > > > > Get real. > > > > > > Then we need to find a way to make the ideals > > work, shouldn't we? ;) > > > > > > Not going to say much about this except..One > > person's ideal OS is > > > different from the next persons. > > > > Yes. > > This world has enough linuxi. > > Its time to start looking at different ideals. > > > > > > > > Not exactly... > > > > I *used* to be a microkernel advocate. > > > > Now I realize that kernels are unneccessary > and > > often get in the way > > > > of good code. ;) Unfortunately Linux is a > *VERY* > > traditional system > > > > but that doesn't mean it could be cleaned up > > quite a bit. > > > > > > Kernels are what control the fscking hardware. > > > > But why does the hardware need to be controlled? > > Why not just controll the *software*? > > If you limit the system to running only what goes > > through *your* > > compiler you have *perfect* control over the > > software. > > That should be enough to satisfy you, It'll > satisfy > > me! ;) > > And make for cheaper hardware too... > > > > > Without them, every single application has to be > > able to boot itself, > > > control all the hardware, and run. > > > > The Apple ran very well that way. ;) > > I believe that there is still a viable market for > > machines of that > > type... > > > > Ofcourse routines wolud be available to all > programs > > for sending > > requests to driver programs, as well as other > > programs which would > > preempt the CPU or select which routines to run or > > whatever you would > > need a program for. > > :o) > > > > > So, you'd have to reboot to use any programs. > > > > DOS doesn't have what you would call a kernel at > it > > is very happy. > > Actually I make use of a loadable kernel which > > appears to all observers > > to be a mere device driver. It is powerful enough > to > > run ZSNES and > > Quake. > > > > There are many ways to implement a system on which > > multiple programs can > > run. > > > > In the days of the punch card, each program simply > > overwrote the memory > > locations the previous program used. Since > > (hopefully) everything was > > declared properly by each succeding program. The > > machine continued to > > operate while successive shifts operated it... > > Untill it blew a tube. ;) > > > > Ofcourse more sophisticated loaders can be made > > today. > > > > > YOU NEED A KERNEL OR ELSE THE OPERATING SYSTEM > > WILL NOT WORK! > > > > In the case of this rather shitty OS, you are > > correct. =\ > > > > > C is an OS language. > > > > Yeah, and Lisp is an AI language. =P > > OSes would be better off if they were written in > > Lisp. > > And well... Windoze would be much faster if it > > weren't all in VB byte > > code. ;) > > > > > yeah. You use it to make an Operating System. > > > > Not neccessarily. > > Unix wasn't implemented in C till '83. > > Before that it was in assembly. =\ > > > > > For user apps, I agree you should use something > > like C++ or python, > > > but for a kernel and core OS applications, you > > need C, and > > > assembly(assembly is needed when directly > > controlling hardware most > > > of the time..and the kernel has to do that!) > > > > Bah! > > If I were forced by some sadist to re-implement > > linux, I'd do it all in > > FORTH. =) > > I consider C archaic even if it isn't yet > > obsolete... > > > > > You need to learn how to use a computer to use > > UNIX. > > > > And just how do you use a computer? =P > > > > > Just because the KDE and GNOME people come along > > as say : "Use linux as > > > a desktop" doesn't mean it is suited for it. > > > > I require an OS that is. > > Lets build that instead of more OSes that I DON'T > > need. =\ > > > > > UNIX is the developers OS, made by developers, > for > > developers. > > > > A system earns its value from the uses it is put > to > > by the people who > > use it. Developers who work on a system that is > only > > "for developers" > > are wasting their time. > > > > > > > Now, lets see you write an OS and maintain a > > distribution. > > > > Do you have any notion of the magnitude of that > > statement? > > > > Consider this Linux os that you are so hell bent > on > > propogating... > > Unless my IQ is less than half that of a normal > > person (It never tested > > lower than 126 which is considerably above > average), > > I am correct in > > saying that there are so few people in the entire > > world who can do > > nothing more than merely downloading and > integrating > > a working unix > > operating system that I could fit all their names > in > > a small town's > > telephone book! [from one of the books in my > > collection, I wolud have to > > look it up to get the details.] > > > > I could do it if I had either maniacly motovated > > partners who took > > everything I said as a commandment, or about $5 > > million to pay people > > like you to write it as I specify. As you can see > I > > have neither so I > > languish with windows 3.11. =( > > > > I WILL try to do it myself. I just got a lot of > > research left to do. =\ > > > > > > > > Oh, If the hurd is intended to be > "fundamentally > > easier" then please > > > > subscribe me to that mailinglist. ;) > > > > > > The HURD isn't supposed to be easier for the end > > user, it is for the > > > developer. > > > > Oh, another worthless piece of software. Thanks > for > > saving my time. =) > > > > > > > > Well then implement the functionality you want > > on those OSes while > > > > maintaining their current level of usability. > > > > > > > You can't have your cake and eat it to. > > > > No, I just want more cake!!! > > I'll pay for it! > > GIVE ME MORE!!! > > > > > > I'm just on DOS, and that gets you a little > > high. ;) > > > > > > No wonder. You must have lost a few to many > brain > > cells. > > > > No, I just got spoiled by an OS that actually took > > my needs into > > consideration. Nowadays I will not tollerate > > anything less, Not one wit. > > Do you get me? I want to make a BETTER OS. Is that > > so radical? > > > > I will use MY definitions of better. The ancient > > forms of unix that have > > been handed down to us by our ancestors mean > nothing > > to me. The one who > > pays the piper is the one who calls the tune. The > > >>>USER<<< is the > > person who pays to acquire and maintain a system. > It > > is the USER's > > requirements that must be taken into consideration > > before anything else > > when planning a new system. > > > > > > > > > Where is the code, dumbass? > > > > > > > > That's the $5,000,000 question. -<sob>- Money > > (capital)... > > > > > > Learn to code, then you can taunt us and make > fun > > of us. > > > > I can code as well as or better than you can. > > Tell me first how many lines of code went into the > > kernel, init, chron, > > bash, getty, and all the others I can't think of > off > > the top of my head. > > [I hear the number 4,000,000 thrown around alot.] > > > > And then tell me wheather I will have the time and > > resources to make and > > complete a similar effort, working alone, within > my > > lifetime much less > > the next decade! > > > > I write stories. > > It is understood that text is easier to write than > > code. > > I have written about ten stories in my lifetime > with > > what I would guess > > to be about 30,000 lines of text. Add all the > e-mail > > I've sent and you > > get something on the order of 60,000 lines of > text. > > > > Do the math! > > > > Either It is possible for a human to become ten > > times more productive or > > you are asking the impossible. > > > > > As an end user, you could help to test the > > distribution, and give us > > > positive feedback like : " it would be easier to > > do x this way, can you > > > try that?". Not, "you guys are so stupid. You > > suck. You can't do it > > > right" > > > > Well that is exactly what I will say whenever you > > discount or dismiss > > the feedback I was giving you. I told you what I > > needed and then someone > > else said "But that is not how it is done, you > > should learn better." > > THAT is when I become angry and upset. I am sure > you > > would do the same > > were you in my position. > > > > -- > > The 'apocolypse' happened in 1848. > > Now if everybody would only just look... =\ > > http://users.erols.com/alangrimes/ <my website. > > > > Unsolicited "spam" messages to this account are > > subject to usage fees > > and > > in cases of fraud or egregeous abuse, prosecution. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Mentalunix-developers mailing list > > Men...@li... > > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/mentalunix-developers > > . > > sers.erols.com/alangrimes/ <my website. > > > > Unsolicited "spam" messages to this account are > > subject to usage fees > > and > > in cases of fraud or egregeous abuse, prosecution. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Mentalunix-developers mailing list > > Men...@li... > > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/mentalunix-developers > > . > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! > http://photos.yahoo.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > Mentalunix-developers mailing list > Men...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/mentalunix-developers __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! http://photos.yahoo.com/ |
|
From: CoolProgrammer <coo...@ya...> - 2000-12-30 23:27:00
|
Ok... I'll try this again (Netscape evils--it's evil in any OS)... I learned a bit about the startup process from re-configuring Slackware to allow logins from the serial port (which later resulted in setting up a PPP network for a more powerful setup). I agree that Linux can be confusing--installing it on a 386 with 2MB RAM is the ultimate confusion (figuring out how to make swapspace when there wasn't enough ram to run mkswap). Well, LOL--let's hope this gets out this time... ~CoolProgrammer --- Alan Grimes <ala...@st...> wrote: > [two replies] > > CoolProgrammer wrote: > > > I have a question--why are you so involved in this > > group if you aren't a Linux user? > > New distribution == chance to make an impact; get > some design changes in > before the first rom is burned... > Purely self serving... > I expect that I will be kicked as a troll soon so I > will use the time I > have to make as much noise as I can. =\ > > > Multiuser is not handled until init loads--after > the > > kernel loads. > > I have very little to absolutly no understanding of > the linux boot > process... It isn't as if it were documented and > presented in such a way > that I could: > > A. Locate the documentation. > B. Understand the documentation. > > The text that comes with your average distribution > comes only with > instructions on using the menu systems that > distribution prefers that > the user use. =\ > > So Excuse me for being ignorant... > > I have read that the user log-in process begins with > a program called > "getty" but that's as far as my knowlege of the > subject goes. =\ > > > > The kernel handles multitasking (and possibly > isolation of users--in > > fact, the filesystem does keep different users > from getting into > > others' files). > > As far as I know, isolating users is one of the > primary kernel > functions. > It doesn't need to be, and it would be a far better > workstation/emedded > system if it did. =\ > > > Linux already seems pretty easy to use--with the > KDE > > and GNOME desktop environments, a user who is > familiar > > with Windows should almost feel at home. > > I have not gotten such a system to work, so its > impossible for me to > call it even remotely "easy". =P > > > > One program caused the crash of another... > > There are several techniques to preserve > reliability. > The Amiga wasn't known for its crashing. ;) > > > I think I smell some now... > > Yeah, it reaks. > > > Couldn't be in here--running two 32-bit OS's in > here > > (Windows won't count as far as I'm concerned until > > they fry the freakin' HIMEM.SYS and give Windows > it's > > own upper memory management)... > > Himem.sys does practicaly nothing except provide > "VCPI" interfaces. > KRNL386 or your equivalent, uses thes services to > install its own suckey > memory managment.... I wish there was an alternative > version of Krnl386 > that was written to prefer to use any existing DPMI > server instead of > blindly replacing it with its own broken one. =( > > --- > > Clinton Ebadi wrote: > > > > No, nor do I ever intend to become a unix/linux > user. *shrug* > > > > Use the OS before you trash it. You sound like > some windows user > > bashing macs, and the mac users who bash windows > -- you've > > There is text missing here but I'll try to reply. > My simplest way to proove that I have given linux > more than its fair > share of my pain is that I have, in a rack behind > me, a re-distribution > of Rednux Lihat 3.0. I also have on-hand rednux > lihat 5.0, which I had > the best luck with. And then Mandrake 6.2 which was > far too bloated to > fit on my drive... > > All of the above were far too painful for me to > reccomend to anyone, > save perhaps someone trying to set up a server or > something. But mostly > I have switched to reccomending FreeBSD... =P > > > > > You could easily remove "multiuser mode", but > why would you? > > > > > > To make the kernel simpler, dummy. > > > My god! The kernel is not multiuser, the system > is. You can go into > > single user mode if you like, but it wouldn't make > the kernel any > > simpler! > > Yes, it would, considerably... Half the filesystem > code could be ripped > out. Half of a lot of stuff could be ripped out. It > SHOULD be ripped > out! > (especially abominations such as khttpd.) > > > > All user files would be stored by the user > system in encrypted "wad" > > > files that would be safe, even from Root (root > could only delete your > > > files, not view them, or even tell which files > you have). > > > > WTF? wad files? Keep things from the admin. > > > What about trojans? > > That's a security problem. If the user code was > properly sandboxed, only > that user would really care about what it was doing. > > > > Should I, as the all knowing and wise root, allow > my users to have > > their data hidden from me? > > Select a different user managment system or > implement your own. ;) > Your enginuity is the limit! > > > No! The admin has to be allowed to audit users > accounts. If some crazy > > guy is using my servers to distribute illegal > warez / kiddie pr0n / > > trying to crack the system with a user account, I > need to know. > > Those are first ammendment/criminal issues that are > between him and the > law. > If you are concerned about a particular user, you > don't have to provide > him any services. ;) > > > > > I don't like compromises. > > > > Well, you have to live with them. Not everyone is > the same. If UNIX > > doesn't have what you want, then use another > operating system. That > > is why we have something called choice. > > Could you show me such an operating system that is > available for me to > choose? > > If you can't you must realise if not sympathise with > my plight as a > computer user. > > Once you have done that please don't insult me by > mouthing off about my > ability to chose something that doesn't exist. Its > like one of the last > queens of France who said, when confronted by the > problem of subjects > who had no bread, "Let them eat cake!" > > Get real. > > > > Then we need to find a way to make the ideals > work, shouldn't we? ;) > > > > Not going to say much about this except..One > person's ideal OS is > > different from the next persons. > > Yes. > This world has enough linuxi. > Its time to start looking at different ideals. > > > > > Not exactly... > > > I *used* to be a microkernel advocate. > > > Now I realize that kernels are unneccessary and > often get in the way > > > of good code. ;) Unfortunately Linux is a *VERY* > traditional system > > > but that doesn't mean it could be cleaned up > quite a bit. > > > > Kernels are what control the fscking hardware. > > But why does the hardware need to be controlled? > Why not just controll the *software*? > If you limit the system to running only what goes > through *your* > compiler you have *perfect* control over the > software. > That should be enough to satisfy you, It'll satisfy > me! ;) > And make for cheaper hardware too... > > > Without them, every single application has to be > able to boot itself, > > control all the hardware, and run. > > The Apple ran very well that way. ;) > I believe that there is still a viable market for > machines of that > type... > > Ofcourse routines wolud be available to all programs > for sending > requests to driver programs, as well as other > programs which would > preempt the CPU or select which routines to run or > whatever you would > need a program for. > :o) > > > So, you'd have to reboot to use any programs. > > DOS doesn't have what you would call a kernel at it > is very happy. > Actually I make use of a loadable kernel which > appears to all observers > to be a mere device driver. It is powerful enough to > run ZSNES and > Quake. > > There are many ways to implement a system on which > multiple programs can > run. > > In the days of the punch card, each program simply > overwrote the memory > locations the previous program used. Since > (hopefully) everything was > declared properly by each succeding program. The > machine continued to > operate while successive shifts operated it... > Untill it blew a tube. ;) > > Ofcourse more sophisticated loaders can be made > today. > > > YOU NEED A KERNEL OR ELSE THE OPERATING SYSTEM > WILL NOT WORK! > > In the case of this rather shitty OS, you are > correct. =\ > > > C is an OS language. > > Yeah, and Lisp is an AI language. =P > OSes would be better off if they were written in > Lisp. > And well... Windoze would be much faster if it > weren't all in VB byte > code. ;) > > > yeah. You use it to make an Operating System. > > Not neccessarily. > Unix wasn't implemented in C till '83. > Before that it was in assembly. =\ > > > For user apps, I agree you should use something > like C++ or python, > > but for a kernel and core OS applications, you > need C, and > > assembly(assembly is needed when directly > controlling hardware most > > of the time..and the kernel has to do that!) > > Bah! > If I were forced by some sadist to re-implement > linux, I'd do it all in > FORTH. =) > I consider C archaic even if it isn't yet > obsolete... > > > You need to learn how to use a computer to use > UNIX. > > And just how do you use a computer? =P > > > Just because the KDE and GNOME people come along > as say : "Use linux as > > a desktop" doesn't mean it is suited for it. > > I require an OS that is. > Lets build that instead of more OSes that I DON'T > need. =\ > > > UNIX is the developers OS, made by developers, for > developers. > > A system earns its value from the uses it is put to > by the people who > use it. Developers who work on a system that is only > "for developers" > are wasting their time. > > > > Now, lets see you write an OS and maintain a > distribution. > > Do you have any notion of the magnitude of that > statement? > > Consider this Linux os that you are so hell bent on > propogating... > Unless my IQ is less than half that of a normal > person (It never tested > lower than 126 which is considerably above average), > I am correct in > saying that there are so few people in the entire > world who can do > nothing more than merely downloading and integrating > a working unix > operating system that I could fit all their names in > a small town's > telephone book! [from one of the books in my > collection, I wolud have to > look it up to get the details.] > > I could do it if I had either maniacly motovated > partners who took > everything I said as a commandment, or about $5 > million to pay people > like you to write it as I specify. As you can see I > have neither so I > languish with windows 3.11. =( > > I WILL try to do it myself. I just got a lot of > research left to do. =\ > > > > > Oh, If the hurd is intended to be "fundamentally > easier" then please > > > subscribe me to that mailinglist. ;) > > > > The HURD isn't supposed to be easier for the end > user, it is for the > > developer. > > Oh, another worthless piece of software. Thanks for > saving my time. =) > > > > > Well then implement the functionality you want > on those OSes while > > > maintaining their current level of usability. > > > > > You can't have your cake and eat it to. > > No, I just want more cake!!! > I'll pay for it! > GIVE ME MORE!!! > > > > I'm just on DOS, and that gets you a little > high. ;) > > > > No wonder. You must have lost a few to many brain > cells. > > No, I just got spoiled by an OS that actually took > my needs into > consideration. Nowadays I will not tollerate > anything less, Not one wit. > Do you get me? I want to make a BETTER OS. Is that > so radical? > > I will use MY definitions of better. The ancient > forms of unix that have > been handed down to us by our ancestors mean nothing > to me. The one who > pays the piper is the one who calls the tune. The > >>>USER<<< is the > person who pays to acquire and maintain a system. It > is the USER's > requirements that must be taken into consideration > before anything else > when planning a new system. > > > > > > Where is the code, dumbass? > > > > > > That's the $5,000,000 question. -<sob>- Money > (capital)... > > > > Learn to code, then you can taunt us and make fun > of us. > > I can code as well as or better than you can. > Tell me first how many lines of code went into the > kernel, init, chron, > bash, getty, and all the others I can't think of off > the top of my head. > [I hear the number 4,000,000 thrown around alot.] > > And then tell me wheather I will have the time and > resources to make and > complete a similar effort, working alone, within my > lifetime much less > the next decade! > > I write stories. > It is understood that text is easier to write than > code. > I have written about ten stories in my lifetime with > what I would guess > to be about 30,000 lines of text. Add all the e-mail > I've sent and you > get something on the order of 60,000 lines of text. > > Do the math! > > Either It is possible for a human to become ten > times more productive or > you are asking the impossible. > > > As an end user, you could help to test the > distribution, and give us > > positive feedback like : " it would be easier to > do x this way, can you > > try that?". Not, "you guys are so stupid. You > suck. You can't do it > > right" > > Well that is exactly what I will say whenever you > discount or dismiss > the feedback I was giving you. I told you what I > needed and then someone > else said "But that is not how it is done, you > should learn better." > THAT is when I become angry and upset. I am sure you > would do the same > were you in my position. > > -- > The 'apocolypse' happened in 1848. > Now if everybody would only just look... =\ > http://users.erols.com/alangrimes/ <my website. > > Unsolicited "spam" messages to this account are > subject to usage fees > and > in cases of fraud or egregeous abuse, prosecution. > > _______________________________________________ > Mentalunix-developers mailing list > Men...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/mentalunix-developers > . > sers.erols.com/alangrimes/ <my website. > > Unsolicited "spam" messages to this account are > subject to usage fees > and > in cases of fraud or egregeous abuse, prosecution. > > _______________________________________________ > Mentalunix-developers mailing list > Men...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/mentalunix-developers > . > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! http://photos.yahoo.com/ |
|
From: Clinton E. <men...@cr...> - 2000-12-30 20:00:44
|
Hey cydust, I think you should add a link to the mailist subscribe page on the mentalunix site. The subscribe page is at: http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/mentalunix-developers I think it might be helpful, because that url is a bit long. --------------------- ASCII ART ********* * ********* "Ain't it l33t?" All views expressed are IMHO. Because MHO is better than yours. unknown_lamer |
|
From: The_Micea <clu...@ya...> - 2000-12-30 19:44:47
|
Mental Spice posted a comment that the yahoo club would be phazing out soon. But he posted on the sourceforge mailing list so that people posting in the club could not see it. So Im just relaying this on. --------------------------------------------- DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE BY EMAIL! --------------------------------------------- You have chosen to receive messages from "mentalunix" by email. Reply to this message: http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/mentalunix/bbsfrp?action=r&tid=mentalunix&sid=1600006580&mid=402 Unsubscribe from the Club mailing list: http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/mentalunix/config/change_mb_list Return to "mentalunix": http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/mentalunix ---------------------------------------------- Not a member? Remove yourself from this list: http://edit.clubs.yahoo.com/config/unsubscribe_mb_list?.userID=munix_devr&.groupID=mentalunix&.groupType=&.code=IVyJGMuRxG |
|
From: The_Micea <las...@ad...> - 2000-12-30 19:39:06
|
mLinux sounds good. Now that I think about it autwolf is correct. lunix is to similiar. Everything we do should consider the legal implications first. Mentalunix sounds ok too. we should check to see wether the MuLinux project has a patent though. Because mlinux would be very simular to them. |
|
From: CyDust <clu...@ya...> - 2000-12-30 06:36:11
|
great input. you may be new, but your voice is strong, and will most likely be valuable. Youre a great addition to the team! --------------------------------------------- DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE BY EMAIL! --------------------------------------------- You have chosen to receive messages from "mentalunix" by email. Reply to this message: http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/mentalunix/bbsfrp?action=r&tid=mentalunix&sid=1600006580&mid=401 Unsubscribe from the Club mailing list: http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/mentalunix/config/change_mb_list Return to "mentalunix": http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/mentalunix ---------------------------------------------- Not a member? Remove yourself from this list: http://edit.clubs.yahoo.com/config/unsubscribe_mb_list?.userID=munix_devr&.groupID=mentalunix&.groupType=&.code=IVyJGMuRxG |
|
From: Alan G. <ala...@st...> - 2000-12-30 05:32:57
|
First, When replying to stuff, it is customary to trim down the
orrigional text to just what you are replying to directly, As I have
done from the beginning of this thread.
Inclding the full text of the orrigional in the reply is foolish because
if two people did it as the length of the messages would grow at a
linear rate untill somebody's computer creashed. The message you sent
out was 21k which is above what usual list-ettiquite allows.
Slashdot just posted a story about a system called "Pliant" which is
MUCH Closer to what I want. I'll be taking myself off this list right
after I have verified that this message has gotten out. Contiue this
thread by replying directly to me if you prefer.
> You do make me think about 15% of the time you rant.
I must congratulate you for being a discerning enough reader to actually
consider what I say instead of dismissing it immediately.
> But you really have a few major misconceptions about how stuff works.
Maybe, or I might have thought about it at such great length that you
can't quite see how my ideas have evolved and therefore think they are
foolish.
> > That's a security problem. If the user code was properly sandboxed,
> > only that user would really care about what it was doing.
>
> But why should I let a user who has a cracking tool to continue to
> try and crack the system? No reason. If I saw they were running some
> wierd app in the logs, I might want to have a look see.
If your loggs pick up something you don't like then do whatever you
want... The loging mechanisms were never clear enough to me for me to
make any good use of them...
> Well, there is no right to privacy from private companies. If I let
> you use my server, then I can look at your files.
That is a local policy decision... Not something for us OS G0Dz to hand
down...
> > But why does the hardware need to be controlled?
> > Why not just controll the *software*?
> > If you limit the system to running only what goes through *your*
> > compiler you have *perfect* control over the software.
> > That should be enough to satisfy you, It'll satisfy me! ;)
> > And make for cheaper hardware too...
>
> Because, a programmer will only program if they don't have to worry
> about little things like what hard drive you use. Belive me, it is
> easier to use stuff like fs_read() or open_device() that actually
> writing the hundreds of lines of code to do the same! Why do it more
> than once, when you can do it once?
Naturally... Those calls you just presented are horribly low-level...
There would be some convention between the programmer's environment and
the runtime system such that calls of any level of abstraction could be
provided.
The highest-level interface I can think of and describe right here would
be based on objects...
Something like:
Send_to_subsystem(REQUEST_OBJECT, "foo");
Service_Request("foo", READ);
This is a messed up C-like example but it does show how things could be
done on a very abstract and therefore powerful level... foo could be a
program, a service, anything you could choose... No reason at all to
mess with low-level device or even traditional filesystem calls. =)
I designed a system similar to this but didn't implement it because my
design was too primitive and didn't 3xp10!7 the various programming
languages as it should have...
> > Not neccessarily.
> > Unix wasn't implemented in C till '83.
> > Before that it was in assembly. =\
> Yep. Yep. Yep. But lisp != good for an OS. Lisp interpresters are
> written in C.
Some BAD/first generation lisp environments may be implemented in C...
But here's a little secret:
C compilers are written in C.
Lisp environments (often including both compiler and runtime
interpriter)
are written in Lisp.
Forth environments are written in Forth...
See a patern?
If your language isn't good enough to support its own compiler then you
don't have anything worth using. ;)
> > Bah!
> > If I were forced by some sadist to re-implement linux, I'd do it all
> > in FORTH. =) I consider C archaic even if it isn't yet obsolete...
>
> C is never obsolete. It can be extended.
If you are thinking about libraries,
You have never used FORTH.
> > > You need to learn how to use a computer to use UNIX.
> >
> > And just how do you use a computer? =P
>
> Or rather, you need to be able to use a shell and stuff.
command.com hasn't challenged me in years...
> Not really. Developers developing for other developers is good
> sometimes. Not commercially, but in the free software world it works.
> If you don't have to make money, you should make it easy for fellow
> developers to use it, and make it so they have the power they want.
> Plus, when developing for other developers, you can show off your
> coding skills and become cool. The end users don't care how well you
> code.
Nor do they have an OS. =\
> Yep. But the source is free for those apps. You can take what works,
> trash what doesn't.
In theory...
[rewriting linux]
> Not really. Remember, you don't have to do 100% rewrites. From your
> rants, it seems you'd need to do a 60% rewrite, not 100%
Well, looking at the existing systems will shave a lot of effort off of
the task of figuring out how to do certain things, what algorithms work
and stuff. But if I decide to go with a language that I find more
suitable for one reason or another, I will be faced with rewriting the
entire thing in that language.
--
The 'apocolypse' happened in 1848.
Now if everybody would only just look... =\
http://users.erols.com/alangrimes/ <my website.
Unsolicited "spam" messages to this account are subject to usage fees
and
in cases of fraud or egregeous abuse, prosecution.
|
|
From: Clinton E. <men...@cr...> - 2000-12-30 04:17:03
|
Not voting yet. But my suggestion is: mLINUX The m can mean anything: mental minimal meow m mLINUX mLINUX seems to me to be the best name ever. MentaLINUX is just a bit confusing(if we ever got a domain...well, we'd need mentallinux.org, mentalinux.org, etc). With mLINUX, everything is good. On 29 Dec 2000, at 17:44, autwulf wrote: > Ok, my vote is for: MENTALinux. Why you ask? well... > > if this distro is gonna be easy for schools and newbies and the > average joe to use, it could be very easy for them to get confused by > the word LUNIX. I realize the club is named mentalunix. but this is > going to be a distro of Linux. not lunix. a uber-newbie might believe > lunix's something entirely different than linux. > > also, how would one pronounce mentalunix? Mental Unix, menta lunix, > mental lunix... much easier is MENTALinux... giving us both the word > MENTAL and Linux. Mental Linux. <grin> i think that name just has the > most pizazz, and is the most straight forward. > > another thing... the people at berkley or whoever owns the word UNIX > may not care if we said the unix is part of the work lunix. it is > extremely similar, and the average person could confuse lunix with > Unix very easily. that's why we'd lose a copyright lawsuit, if my > memory of business law serves me correctly (i just had it last > semester, but it seems so long ago). > > i know i'm new here, but i just wanted to put my two cents in. :-) > > later! > > --------------------------------------------- > DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE BY EMAIL! > --------------------------------------------- > You have chosen to receive messages from "mentalunix" by email. > > Reply to this message: > http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/mentalunix/bbsfrp?action=r&tid=mentalunix > &sid=1600006580&mid=400 > > Unsubscribe from the Club mailing list: > http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/mentalunix/config/change_mb_list > > Return to "mentalunix": > http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/mentalunix > ---------------------------------------------- > > Not a member? Remove yourself from this list: > http://edit.clubs.yahoo.com/config/unsubscribe_mb_list?.userID=munix_d > evr&.groupID=mentalunix&.groupType=&.code=IVyJGMuRxG > > > _______________________________________________ > Mentalunix-developers mailing list > Men...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/mentalunix-developers > --------------------- ASCII ART ********* * ********* "Ain't it l33t?" All views expressed are IMHO. Because MHO is better than yours. unknown_lamer |
|
From: Clinton E. <men...@cr...> - 2000-12-30 04:17:01
|
Ok. I have lots of stuff down below. No, you won't be kicked as a troll. You do make me think about 15% of the time you rant. But you really have a few major misconceptions about how stuff works. > [two replies] > > CoolProgrammer wrote: > > > I have a question--why are you so involved in this > > group if you aren't a Linux user? > > New distribution == chance to make an impact; get some design changes > in before the first rom is burned... Purely self serving... I expect > that I will be kicked as a troll soon so I will use the time I have to > make as much noise as I can. =\ See above comment(no getting kicked). Make noise when it will have a real effect. Don't make noise for the sake of making it. Remember, we haven't even really started mLINUX(I'll call it that until we vote on the name). And, everything is going to be in really active development until 1.0, so you have a LONG time to make an impact. And then, it will go back into development for 1.1 and 1.3. and whatever. > > > Multiuser is not handled until init loads--after the > > kernel loads. > > I have very little to absolutly no understanding of the linux boot > process... It isn't as if it were documented and presented in such a > way that I could: > > A. Locate the documentation. > B. Understand the documentation. > > The text that comes with your average distribution comes only with > instructions on using the menu systems that distribution prefers that > the user use. =\ > > So Excuse me for being ignorant... > > I have read that the user log-in process begins with a program called > "getty" but that's as far as my knowlege of the subject goes. =\ > > > > The kernel handles multitasking (and possibly isolation of > > users--in > > fact, the filesystem does keep different users from getting into > > others' files). > > As far as I know, isolating users is one of the primary kernel > functions. > It doesn't need to be, and it would be a far better > workstation/emedded system if it did. =\ > Actually, it is part of the file system. The kernel makes the programs play nice, and the file system has nifty things like permissions, so you little bob can't go into mommy and daddies room and kill himself with dad's gun(or something like that). Or, rather, it keeps your mom(or mum if your not from here) and dad from looking at your 1337 / that little script kiddie from deleting all of your files. DOS doesn't have that. Or rather, FAT doesn't have that(DOS could have it if they added ext2 or some unix-like fs support to it) > > Linux already seems pretty easy to use--with the KDE > > and GNOME desktop environments, a user who is familiar > > with Windows should almost feel at home. > > I have not gotten such a system to work, so its impossible for me to > call it even remotely "easy". =P > > Well, try installing Corel or Stormix linux. The installs are beatiful(mLINUX is trying to emulate them). After they get installed, you log in at the graphical boot manager, and then you can go. Yay. That is how my first 4 months of linux usage went -- log into kdm, do cool stuff. > > One program caused the crash of another... > > There are several techniques to preserve reliability. > The Amiga wasn't known for its crashing. ;) > The amiga was really well designed. The MacOS has a great UI(I love it), but it doesn't have protected memory(but amiga had this in the 80s). Windows has pseudo-protected mem, but apps still run when accessing memory they can't have(under linux, if an app tries to access a memory location not allocated to it, it gets a segemntation fault). > > I think I smell some now... > > Yeah, it reaks. > > > Couldn't be in here--running two 32-bit OS's in here > > (Windows won't count as far as I'm concerned until > > they fry the freakin' HIMEM.SYS and give Windows it's > > own upper memory management)... > > Himem.sys does practicaly nothing except provide "VCPI" interfaces. > KRNL386 or your equivalent, uses thes services to install its own > suckey memory managment.... I wish there was an alternative version of > Krnl386 that was written to prefer to use any existing DPMI server > instead of blindly replacing it with its own broken one. =( > > --- > > Clinton Ebadi wrote: > > > > No, nor do I ever intend to become a unix/linux user. *shrug* > > > > Use the OS before you trash it. You sound like some windows user > > bashing macs, and the mac users who bash windows -- you've > > There is text missing here but I'll try to reply. > My simplest way to proove that I have given linux more than its fair > share of my pain is that I have, in a rack behind me, a > re-distribution of Rednux Lihat 3.0. I also have on-hand rednux lihat > 5.0, which I had the best luck with. And then Mandrake 6.2 which was > far too bloated to fit on my drive... > > All of the above were far too painful for me to reccomend to anyone, > save perhaps someone trying to set up a server or something. But > mostly I have switched to reccomending FreeBSD... =P > Well, try installing storm or corel linux. Redhat is not good for a complete newbie, and rpm is just plain bad. > > > > You could easily remove "multiuser mode", but why would you? > > > > > > To make the kernel simpler, dummy. > > > My god! The kernel is not multiuser, the system is. You can go into > > single user mode if you like, but it wouldn't make the kernel any > > simpler! > > Yes, it would, considerably... Half the filesystem code could be > ripped out. Half of a lot of stuff could be ripped out. It SHOULD be > ripped out! (especially abominations such as khttpd.) > khttpd is optional. In fact, most of the kernel stuff is optional. Don't need support for that device? Fine, don't load its module. Don't need khttpd? Fine, don't compile or load its modules. The file system stuff is the fs stuff. We could screw permissions, and pretend to be windoze, and use FAT32 on all of the drives if you really wanted to. VFS makes it so all of your apps should work. > > > All user files would be stored by the user system in encrypted > > > "wad" files that would be safe, even from Root (root could only > > > delete your files, not view them, or even tell which files you > > > have). > > > > WTF? wad files? Keep things from the admin. > > > What about trojans? > > That's a security problem. If the user code was properly sandboxed, > only that user would really care about what it was doing. > But why should I let a user who has a cracking tool to continue to try and crack the system? No reason. If I saw they were running some wierd app in the logs, I might want to have a look see. > > Should I, as the all knowing and wise root, allow my users to have > > their data hidden from me? > > Select a different user managment system or implement your own. ;) > Your enginuity is the limit! > > > No! The admin has to be allowed to audit users accounts. If some > > crazy > > guy is using my servers to distribute illegal warez / kiddie pr0n / > > trying to crack the system with a user account, I need to know. > > Those are first ammendment/criminal issues that are between him and > the law. If you are concerned about a particular user, you don't have > to provide him any services. ;) Well, there is no right to privacy from private companies. If I let you use my server, then I can look at your files. > > > > > I don't like compromises. > > > > Well, you have to live with them. Not everyone is the same. If UNIX > > doesn't have what you want, then use another operating system. That > > is why we have something called choice. > > Could you show me such an operating system that is available for me to > choose? > > If you can't you must realise if not sympathise with my plight as a > computer user. > > Once you have done that please don't insult me by mouthing off about > my ability to chose something that doesn't exist. Its like one of the > last queens of France who said, when confronted by the problem of > subjects who had no bread, "Let them eat cake!" > > Get real. > Well, then it might work for you, but if it doesn't work for most people, it is screwed. The whole cake thing is, the queen was stupid, and didn't know her people were poor(which is why they had that little revolution and killed her). > > > Then we need to find a way to make the ideals work, shouldn't we? > > > ;) > > > > Not going to say much about this except..One person's ideal OS is > > different from the next persons. > > Yes. > This world has enough linuxi. > Its time to start looking at different ideals. > > > > > Not exactly... > > > I *used* to be a microkernel advocate. > > > Now I realize that kernels are unneccessary and often get in the > > > way of good code. ;) Unfortunately Linux is a *VERY* traditional > > > system but that doesn't mean it could be cleaned up quite a bit. > > > > Kernels are what control the fscking hardware. > > But why does the hardware need to be controlled? > Why not just controll the *software*? > If you limit the system to running only what goes through *your* > compiler you have *perfect* control over the software. > That should be enough to satisfy you, It'll satisfy me! ;) > And make for cheaper hardware too... > Because, a programmer will only program if they don't have to worry about little things like what hard drive you use. Belive me, it is easier to use stuff like fs_read() or open_device() that actually writing the hundreds of lines of code to do the same! Why do it more than once, when you can do it once? > > Without them, every single application has to be able to boot > > itself, control all the hardware, and run. > > The Apple ran very well that way. ;) > I believe that there is still a viable market for machines of that > type... > > Ofcourse routines wolud be available to all programs for sending > requests to driver programs, as well as other programs which would > preempt the CPU or select which routines to run or whatever you would > need a program for. :o) > > > So, you'd have to reboot to use any programs. > > DOS doesn't have what you would call a kernel at it is very happy. > Actually I make use of a loadable kernel which appears to all > observers to be a mere device driver. It is powerful enough to run > ZSNES and Quake. > It does have a kernel. Just a limited one. > There are many ways to implement a system on which multiple programs > can run. > > In the days of the punch card, each program simply overwrote the > memory locations the previous program used. Since (hopefully) > everything was declared properly by each succeding program. The > machine continued to operate while successive shifts operated it... > Untill it blew a tube. ;) > > Ofcourse more sophisticated loaders can be made today. > Yep. That is why we have init. Tommorow I will post stuff about some other project that someone is doing..they wanted us to kill mLINUX, and work with them, but they ahve huge differences, and cool version of init(we could use it) > > YOU NEED A KERNEL OR ELSE THE OPERATING SYSTEM WILL NOT WORK! > > In the case of this rather shitty OS, you are correct. =\ > > > C is an OS language. > > Yeah, and Lisp is an AI language. =P > OSes would be better off if they were written in Lisp. > And well... Windoze would be much faster if it weren't all in VB byte > code. ;) > > > yeah. You use it to make an Operating System. > > Not neccessarily. > Unix wasn't implemented in C till '83. > Before that it was in assembly. =\ > Yep. Yep. Yep. But lisp != good for an OS. Lisp interpresters are written in C. > > For user apps, I agree you should use something like C++ or python, > > but for a kernel and core OS applications, you need C, and > > assembly(assembly is needed when directly controlling hardware most > > of the time..and the kernel has to do that!) > > Bah! > If I were forced by some sadist to re-implement linux, I'd do it all > in FORTH. =) I consider C archaic even if it isn't yet obsolete... > C is never obsolete. It can be extended. > > You need to learn how to use a computer to use UNIX. > > And just how do you use a computer? =P > Or rather, you need to be able to use a shell and stuff. > > Just because the KDE and GNOME people come along as say : "Use linux > > as a desktop" doesn't mean it is suited for it. > > I require an OS that is. > Lets build that instead of more OSes that I DON'T need. =\ > Well, linux can be used as a desktop, very succesfuly(look at corel linux). But, it is designed for the server / development enviroment, and always will be. So, it is stil a few years from running really great for the average AOLuser. We will reach the goal of a usable desktop enviroment, but we are still in the infancy of linux desktops. > > UNIX is the developers OS, made by developers, for developers. > > A system earns its value from the uses it is put to by the people who > use it. Developers who work on a system that is only "for developers" > are wasting their time. > Not really. Developers developing for other developers is good sometimes. Not commercially, but in the free software world it works. If you don't have to make money, you should make it easy for fellow developers to use it, and make it so they have the power they want. Plus, when developing for other developers, you can show off your coding skills and become cool. The end users don't care how well you code. > > > Now, lets see you write an OS and maintain a distribution. > > Do you have any notion of the magnitude of that statement? > > Consider this Linux os that you are so hell bent on propogating... > Unless my IQ is less than half that of a normal person (It never > tested lower than 126 which is considerably above average), I am > correct in saying that there are so few people in the entire world who > can do nothing more than merely downloading and integrating a working > unix operating system that I could fit all their names in a small > town's telephone book! [from one of the books in my collection, I > wolud have to look it up to get the details.] > > I could do it if I had either maniacly motovated partners who took > everything I said as a commandment, or about $5 million to pay people > like you to write it as I specify. As you can see I have neither so I > languish with windows 3.11. =( > > I WILL try to do it myself. I just got a lot of research left to do. > =\ > > Well, mLINUX probably won't be everything you want, but it could be usable for you. You have to learn to live with comprimises. It is how life works. > > > Oh, If the hurd is intended to be "fundamentally easier" then > > > please subscribe me to that mailinglist. ;) > > > > The HURD isn't supposed to be easier for the end user, it is for the > > developer. > > Oh, another worthless piece of software. Thanks for saving my time. =) > Not for me. I can't wait until the Debian HURD distribution is really usable. It will have a partition on my box. > > > > Well then implement the functionality you want on those OSes while > > > maintaining their current level of usability. > > > > > You can't have your cake and eat it to. > > No, I just want more cake!!! > I'll pay for it! > GIVE ME MORE!!! > Sorry. You can eat some of it, not all. But at least you can eat most of it. > > > I'm just on DOS, and that gets you a little high. ;) > > > > No wonder. You must have lost a few to many brain cells. > > No, I just got spoiled by an OS that actually took my needs into > consideration. Nowadays I will not tollerate anything less, Not one > wit. Do you get me? I want to make a BETTER OS. Is that so radical? > > I will use MY definitions of better. The ancient forms of unix that > have been handed down to us by our ancestors mean nothing to me. The > one who pays the piper is the one who calls the tune. The >>>USER<<< > is the person who pays to acquire and maintain a system. It is the > USER's requirements that must be taken into consideration before > anything else when planning a new system. > > You aren't a user yet. After we get to a usable state, plese try to install the distribution on some old box you have and talk to us some more. If you see us going in the "wrong" direction, troll us again. I've estimated that 15% Of your troll rants are useful. > > > > Where is the code, dumbass? > > > > > > That's the $5,000,000 question. -<sob>- Money (capital)... > > > > Learn to code, then you can taunt us and make fun of us. > > I can code as well as or better than you can. > Tell me first how many lines of code went into the kernel, init, > chron, bash, getty, and all the others I can't think of off the top of > my head. [I hear the number 4,000,000 thrown around alot.] > > And then tell me wheather I will have the time and resources to make > and complete a similar effort, working alone, within my lifetime much > less the next decade! > Yep. But the source is free for those apps. You can take what works, trash what doesn't. > I write stories. > It is understood that text is easier to write than code. > I have written about ten stories in my lifetime with what I would > guess to be about 30,000 lines of text. Add all the e-mail I've sent > and you get something on the order of 60,000 lines of text. > > Do the math! > > Either It is possible for a human to become ten times more productive > or you are asking the impossible. > Not really. Remember, you don't have to do 100% rewrites. From your rants, it seems you'd need to do a 60% rewrite, not 100% > > As an end user, you could help to test the distribution, and give us > > positive feedback like : " it would be easier to do x this way, can > > you try that?". Not, "you guys are so stupid. You suck. You can't do > > it right" > > Well that is exactly what I will say whenever you discount or dismiss > the feedback I was giving you. I told you what I needed and then > someone else said "But that is not how it is done, you should learn > better." THAT is when I become angry and upset. I am sure you would do > the same were you in my position. > > -- Sorry about that. Just stop using all caps and stuff. > The 'apocolypse' happened in 1848. > Now if everybody would only just look... =\ > http://users.erols.com/alangrimes/ <my website. > > Unsolicited "spam" messages to this account are subject to usage fees > and in cases of fraud or egregeous abuse, prosecution. > > _______________________________________________ > Mentalunix-developers mailing list > Men...@li... > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/mentalunix-developers > --------------------- ASCII ART ********* * ********* "Ain't it l33t?" All views expressed are IMHO. Because MHO is better than yours. unknown_lamer |
|
From: Alan G. <ala...@st...> - 2000-12-30 03:06:07
|
[two replies] CoolProgrammer wrote: > I have a question--why are you so involved in this > group if you aren't a Linux user? New distribution == chance to make an impact; get some design changes in before the first rom is burned... Purely self serving... I expect that I will be kicked as a troll soon so I will use the time I have to make as much noise as I can. =\ > Multiuser is not handled until init loads--after the > kernel loads. I have very little to absolutly no understanding of the linux boot process... It isn't as if it were documented and presented in such a way that I could: A. Locate the documentation. B. Understand the documentation. The text that comes with your average distribution comes only with instructions on using the menu systems that distribution prefers that the user use. =\ So Excuse me for being ignorant... I have read that the user log-in process begins with a program called "getty" but that's as far as my knowlege of the subject goes. =\ > The kernel handles multitasking (and possibly isolation of users--in > fact, the filesystem does keep different users from getting into > others' files). As far as I know, isolating users is one of the primary kernel functions. It doesn't need to be, and it would be a far better workstation/emedded system if it did. =\ > Linux already seems pretty easy to use--with the KDE > and GNOME desktop environments, a user who is familiar > with Windows should almost feel at home. I have not gotten such a system to work, so its impossible for me to call it even remotely "easy". =P > One program caused the crash of another... There are several techniques to preserve reliability. The Amiga wasn't known for its crashing. ;) > I think I smell some now... Yeah, it reaks. > Couldn't be in here--running two 32-bit OS's in here > (Windows won't count as far as I'm concerned until > they fry the freakin' HIMEM.SYS and give Windows it's > own upper memory management)... Himem.sys does practicaly nothing except provide "VCPI" interfaces. KRNL386 or your equivalent, uses thes services to install its own suckey memory managment.... I wish there was an alternative version of Krnl386 that was written to prefer to use any existing DPMI server instead of blindly replacing it with its own broken one. =( --- Clinton Ebadi wrote: > > No, nor do I ever intend to become a unix/linux user. *shrug* > > Use the OS before you trash it. You sound like some windows user > bashing macs, and the mac users who bash windows -- you've There is text missing here but I'll try to reply. My simplest way to proove that I have given linux more than its fair share of my pain is that I have, in a rack behind me, a re-distribution of Rednux Lihat 3.0. I also have on-hand rednux lihat 5.0, which I had the best luck with. And then Mandrake 6.2 which was far too bloated to fit on my drive... All of the above were far too painful for me to reccomend to anyone, save perhaps someone trying to set up a server or something. But mostly I have switched to reccomending FreeBSD... =P > > > You could easily remove "multiuser mode", but why would you? > > > > To make the kernel simpler, dummy. > My god! The kernel is not multiuser, the system is. You can go into > single user mode if you like, but it wouldn't make the kernel any > simpler! Yes, it would, considerably... Half the filesystem code could be ripped out. Half of a lot of stuff could be ripped out. It SHOULD be ripped out! (especially abominations such as khttpd.) > > All user files would be stored by the user system in encrypted "wad" > > files that would be safe, even from Root (root could only delete your > > files, not view them, or even tell which files you have). > > WTF? wad files? Keep things from the admin. > What about trojans? That's a security problem. If the user code was properly sandboxed, only that user would really care about what it was doing. > Should I, as the all knowing and wise root, allow my users to have > their data hidden from me? Select a different user managment system or implement your own. ;) Your enginuity is the limit! > No! The admin has to be allowed to audit users accounts. If some crazy > guy is using my servers to distribute illegal warez / kiddie pr0n / > trying to crack the system with a user account, I need to know. Those are first ammendment/criminal issues that are between him and the law. If you are concerned about a particular user, you don't have to provide him any services. ;) > > I don't like compromises. > > Well, you have to live with them. Not everyone is the same. If UNIX > doesn't have what you want, then use another operating system. That > is why we have something called choice. Could you show me such an operating system that is available for me to choose? If you can't you must realise if not sympathise with my plight as a computer user. Once you have done that please don't insult me by mouthing off about my ability to chose something that doesn't exist. Its like one of the last queens of France who said, when confronted by the problem of subjects who had no bread, "Let them eat cake!" Get real. > > Then we need to find a way to make the ideals work, shouldn't we? ;) > > Not going to say much about this except..One person's ideal OS is > different from the next persons. Yes. This world has enough linuxi. Its time to start looking at different ideals. > > Not exactly... > > I *used* to be a microkernel advocate. > > Now I realize that kernels are unneccessary and often get in the way > > of good code. ;) Unfortunately Linux is a *VERY* traditional system > > but that doesn't mean it could be cleaned up quite a bit. > > Kernels are what control the fscking hardware. But why does the hardware need to be controlled? Why not just controll the *software*? If you limit the system to running only what goes through *your* compiler you have *perfect* control over the software. That should be enough to satisfy you, It'll satisfy me! ;) And make for cheaper hardware too... > Without them, every single application has to be able to boot itself, > control all the hardware, and run. The Apple ran very well that way. ;) I believe that there is still a viable market for machines of that type... Ofcourse routines wolud be available to all programs for sending requests to driver programs, as well as other programs which would preempt the CPU or select which routines to run or whatever you would need a program for. :o) > So, you'd have to reboot to use any programs. DOS doesn't have what you would call a kernel at it is very happy. Actually I make use of a loadable kernel which appears to all observers to be a mere device driver. It is powerful enough to run ZSNES and Quake. There are many ways to implement a system on which multiple programs can run. In the days of the punch card, each program simply overwrote the memory locations the previous program used. Since (hopefully) everything was declared properly by each succeding program. The machine continued to operate while successive shifts operated it... Untill it blew a tube. ;) Ofcourse more sophisticated loaders can be made today. > YOU NEED A KERNEL OR ELSE THE OPERATING SYSTEM WILL NOT WORK! In the case of this rather shitty OS, you are correct. =\ > C is an OS language. Yeah, and Lisp is an AI language. =P OSes would be better off if they were written in Lisp. And well... Windoze would be much faster if it weren't all in VB byte code. ;) > yeah. You use it to make an Operating System. Not neccessarily. Unix wasn't implemented in C till '83. Before that it was in assembly. =\ > For user apps, I agree you should use something like C++ or python, > but for a kernel and core OS applications, you need C, and > assembly(assembly is needed when directly controlling hardware most > of the time..and the kernel has to do that!) Bah! If I were forced by some sadist to re-implement linux, I'd do it all in FORTH. =) I consider C archaic even if it isn't yet obsolete... > You need to learn how to use a computer to use UNIX. And just how do you use a computer? =P > Just because the KDE and GNOME people come along as say : "Use linux as > a desktop" doesn't mean it is suited for it. I require an OS that is. Lets build that instead of more OSes that I DON'T need. =\ > UNIX is the developers OS, made by developers, for developers. A system earns its value from the uses it is put to by the people who use it. Developers who work on a system that is only "for developers" are wasting their time. > Now, lets see you write an OS and maintain a distribution. Do you have any notion of the magnitude of that statement? Consider this Linux os that you are so hell bent on propogating... Unless my IQ is less than half that of a normal person (It never tested lower than 126 which is considerably above average), I am correct in saying that there are so few people in the entire world who can do nothing more than merely downloading and integrating a working unix operating system that I could fit all their names in a small town's telephone book! [from one of the books in my collection, I wolud have to look it up to get the details.] I could do it if I had either maniacly motovated partners who took everything I said as a commandment, or about $5 million to pay people like you to write it as I specify. As you can see I have neither so I languish with windows 3.11. =( I WILL try to do it myself. I just got a lot of research left to do. =\ > > Oh, If the hurd is intended to be "fundamentally easier" then please > > subscribe me to that mailinglist. ;) > > The HURD isn't supposed to be easier for the end user, it is for the > developer. Oh, another worthless piece of software. Thanks for saving my time. =) > > Well then implement the functionality you want on those OSes while > > maintaining their current level of usability. > > > You can't have your cake and eat it to. No, I just want more cake!!! I'll pay for it! GIVE ME MORE!!! > > I'm just on DOS, and that gets you a little high. ;) > > No wonder. You must have lost a few to many brain cells. No, I just got spoiled by an OS that actually took my needs into consideration. Nowadays I will not tollerate anything less, Not one wit. Do you get me? I want to make a BETTER OS. Is that so radical? I will use MY definitions of better. The ancient forms of unix that have been handed down to us by our ancestors mean nothing to me. The one who pays the piper is the one who calls the tune. The >>>USER<<< is the person who pays to acquire and maintain a system. It is the USER's requirements that must be taken into consideration before anything else when planning a new system. > > > Where is the code, dumbass? > > > > That's the $5,000,000 question. -<sob>- Money (capital)... > > Learn to code, then you can taunt us and make fun of us. I can code as well as or better than you can. Tell me first how many lines of code went into the kernel, init, chron, bash, getty, and all the others I can't think of off the top of my head. [I hear the number 4,000,000 thrown around alot.] And then tell me wheather I will have the time and resources to make and complete a similar effort, working alone, within my lifetime much less the next decade! I write stories. It is understood that text is easier to write than code. I have written about ten stories in my lifetime with what I would guess to be about 30,000 lines of text. Add all the e-mail I've sent and you get something on the order of 60,000 lines of text. Do the math! Either It is possible for a human to become ten times more productive or you are asking the impossible. > As an end user, you could help to test the distribution, and give us > positive feedback like : " it would be easier to do x this way, can you > try that?". Not, "you guys are so stupid. You suck. You can't do it > right" Well that is exactly what I will say whenever you discount or dismiss the feedback I was giving you. I told you what I needed and then someone else said "But that is not how it is done, you should learn better." THAT is when I become angry and upset. I am sure you would do the same were you in my position. -- The 'apocolypse' happened in 1848. Now if everybody would only just look... =\ http://users.erols.com/alangrimes/ <my website. Unsolicited "spam" messages to this account are subject to usage fees and in cases of fraud or egregeous abuse, prosecution. |
2 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
