mentalunix-developers

Re: [Mentalunix-developers] More requirements:

[Clinton E. <men...@cr...>]

On 27 Dec 2000, at 15:20, Alan Grimes wrote:

> UL - NO POINTLESS REDUNDANCY. When you have a good text editor that is
> ESASY TO LEARN and SIMPLE TO OPERATE. You don't need VI or anything
> else. Therefore this distribution should maintain only one GOOD
> version of anything.
>
? I am confused. Users need choice. The base system will either have 
nano or mcedit, to avoid the emacs / vi war. Then, vi and emacs will 
both be optional packages.
 
> M - Good mechanisms for version controll should be implemented and
> excessive BLOAT such as the X windowing system should be removed and
> distributed as SEPERATE packages. NOT EVERYTHING IS LINUX, THERE IS A
> SEPERATE CATEGORY FOR *PROGRAMS* THAT AREN'T LINUX. Don't cram
> everything into one product. =(
> 
A distribution is more than just the OS. It is the suite of programs 
that make the OS(which is GNU + linux in our case) useful. Programs 
like X will be optional. Like in most distributions. Of course, our 
install won't be very newbie friendly until I can do some decent X 
programming..but when it is, there will be a new user install(that 
installs the stuff the average user would want..execept they would 
choose from home, business, development, or server installs) and a 
custom install(choose all of the tasks / individual packages if you 
like). So, even an automated install wouldn't install everything like 
some do(*cough*mandrake*cough*), but just what the user should need 
for their install choice. Because why should a Home or business user 
need Apache at all?
> -- 
> If a "bug" in one program causes another to fail, the OS is at fault.
> 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

Re: [Mentalunix-developers] More requirements:

[CoolProgrammer <coo...@ya...>]

Ok--I'm lost in this... it seems almost like I've
missed something.

Also, software does not have to be compiled on the
machine on which it is to be used--I think SuSE is
proving that to me right now (just installed it--it's
kicking ass compared to what I had on here, and it's
driving our 486 really well).

I'll leave the rest of the message alone for now--I
have some massive Linux configuration to do and a
CD-RW drive to install in Windows...

~CoolProgrammer


--- Alan Grimes <ala...@st...> wrote:
> Clinton Ebadi wrote:
> 
> yer clueless...
> I'm sorry to get personal but only on rare occasions
> do I see such an
> amazingly spectacular display of unthinking blind
> ignorance! 
> 
> Unfortunately all linux developers are as stupid as
> you are. =(
> 
> 
> 
> > > P - No binary distributions! Argument: When I
> installed Mandrake 6.5
> > > my Athalon had a BogoMips rating of 799. When I
> recompiled the kernel
> > > it jumped to 1,500. =) Therefore all software
> should be compiled by
> > > and for the host processor.
> > >
> > If you read the mpkg spec,
> 
> I have never heard of mpkg. I would have no inkling
> that such a thing
> existed for me to look for. 'mpkg' is hakish anyway.
> 
> 
> > The time involved would not be very nice, not to
> > mention some things like ACE or CORBA that require
> HUGE amounts of
> > ram to compile(500+ MB)
> 
> Dear God!  = 0
> 
> > distribution ISOs would be in binary form(i386,
> i486, i586, i686,
> 
> Well I guess we're stuck with a precompiled version
> for every chip ever
> made... =( 
> The project will need a massive compile farm but it
> will be the fastest
> out-of-the-box distribution on the planet... 
> 
> > This is where the newbie manpages come in.
> 
> I have never heard of "newbie" manpages. I wouldn't
> know how to look for
> them and only vague notions of how to access them,
> assuming man was
> functioning properly on whatever system I had. Linux
> has nothing
> remotely akin to anything as helpful as "this end
> up".
> 
> > It's all going to be linked up to linuxnewbie(I'll
> talk to sensei when 
> > we get ready to start it) database.
> 
> That might be helpful...
> 
> > We might as well add a whole newbie system in with
> it..make a new 
> > shell based on bash that has newbie command
> aliases?
> 
> That would be pretty perverse... Simply provide
> commands with english
> names and simple intuitive interfaces. Send
> everything that is not easy
> and *USABLE* to /device/null, where it belongs.
> 
> > Let me explain. You type memory. It loads mem.
> Well, if we just aliased 
> > it, you would have a huge list of aliases,
> 
> Well on my system I have several aliases for mem,
> each with its own
> switch settings... I only use the one called
> "memory" though... 
> I just checked my "res" directory and I see that I
> havn't touched any of
> aliases since AUGUST OF 1996!!!!
> 
> DOS has provided a system that is so stable that I
> have files that have
> been preserved perfectly for half a decade. There
> are files on my system
> with date stamps of 1986.
> 
> > and you would think memory was the actual command.
> 
> It would be.... And life would be *good*. I would
> actually use such an
> operating system. =\
> 
> >  So, with a special 
> > file..maybe .newbierc with the alias in it. Here
> could be a sample 
> > session:
> > 
> > user@host:~$ memory
> > user, the actual command is mem.
> > type: nman mem for help
> > user@host:~$ mem
> > You have xxxx MB of free ram....
> 
> That is disgusting. 
> 
> > The user could learn easily that way, and the
> commands would be more
> > intuitive.
> 
> Huh, I explained 'intuitive' in my last post, you
> didn't listen.
> 
> > And, the user doesn't become dependent on the
> shortcuts..after learning 
> > the command, they are a competent gnu/linux user.
> 
> Thinking like that infurriates me to the point where
> I want to pick up a
> brick and bash it into your skull. 
> 
> THE POINT IS NOT TO MAKE THE USER A COMPETENT
> 'GNU/LINUX USER', YOU
> STUPID SACK OF SHIT, IT IS TO MAKE A GNU/LINUX THAT
> DOES NOT REQUIRE
> 'COMPETANCE'. A COLLEGE GRADUATE WITH A DEGREE IN
> LIBERAL ARTS FROM 1980
> SHOULD KNOW EVERYTHING HE NEEDS TO USE A COMPUTER
> WITHOUT *ANY*
> TRAINING. THE WORLD SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BEND TO THE
> WHIMS OF THE POMPUS
> ASSHOLES THAT MADE UNIX!!! 
> 
> If you kick me from the list for that I will be
> content. Please notify
> me if you do. -- thanx. 
>  
> > and stuff like that. The app is centralized(by
> package name). So, you
> > can just cd into the apps dir, and then the
> appname, and see all of
> > the file associated with it. Of course, the dir
> would be read-only,
> > and could be reconstructed if root trashed it by
> running some rebuild
> > command in mpkg.
> 
> =\
> I don't get it...
> I'm a DOS user. 
> cd gamez 
> cd quake
> quake
> or 
> deltree quake.
> or 
> cd quake 
> cd id 
> e quake.ini 
> or 
> cd quake
> md newlevel
> cd newlevel 
> pkunzip \archive\newqkake . /d 
> or .... 
> 
> Do I have the only sane computer on the planet?
> 
> > No app planned, but it is an interesting idea.
> Maybe a program like
> > newbie xinit? A newbie init front end in Gtk that
> had options like
> > this(to change runlevels):
> 
> Anything that is easy to use... I don't understand
> this shit anyway so
> I'm indifferent...
> 
> [switching to single user mode] 
> 
> Multiuser mode is totally pointless on workstations.
> I would remove all traces of multiuser from the base
> system and then
> re-implement it in user-space and then provide it as
> an option.
> 
> Unix is perverse so you'd have to re-implement
> almost everything... 
> 
> > I think it would make a good program. I could
> sketch it out in
> > glade(just the GUI, not code) later.
> 
> GUI is like a US golden dollar. It costs a buck,
> Looks like its worth a
> lot more but in truth its WORTHLESS!!! =\ 
> 
> The OS that is fundamentally easier to use is the
> real gold that I am
> seeking...
> 
> [console managment] 
> > Really hard to do that. Programs like Xemacs on
> the console change
> > the cursor for internal management. Please explain
> further what you
> > mean exactly.
> 
> If the OS doesn't do that then it is not even a
> complete OS, and not
> worth much to anyone at all. =(
> 
> 
> > On 27 Dec 2000, at 15:20, Alan Grimes wrote:
>  
> [multiple editors and other redundancy]
> > ? I am confused. Users need choice. The base
> system will either have
> > nano or mcedit, to avoid the emacs / vi war. Then,
> vi and emacs will
> > both be optional packages.
> 
> Ofcourse you can install E-macs later but I will not
> help in that untill
> it is rewritten... E-macs is probably one of the
> most advanced
> applications around... Its a pitty that its so
> difficult to use.
> 
> > A distribution is more than just the OS.
> 
> Is != should be. 
> should be, um, see DOS. ;)
> 
> > It is the suite of programs that make the OS(which
> is GNU + linux in 
> > our case) useful.
> 
> Yes, But that is not what we are working on here.
> We make the system through which the computer can be
> applied to useful
> work. BUT NOT THE APPLICATIONS THEMSELVES... =\ 
> 
> > Programs like X will be optional. Like in most
> distributions. Of 
> > course, our install won't be very newbie friendly
> until I can do some > decent X programming.
> 
> THAT IS TOTALLY BASS ACKWARDS!!!!
> THE SYSTEM BECOMES USABLE *THEN* YOU CUSTOMIZE YOUR
> USER INTERFACE. 
> DON'T ANY OF YOU DIPSHITS GET IT? STUPID GUI OPTIONS
> IN WINDOWS 98'S
> REGEDIT DO NOT MAKE THE REGISTRY ONE WIT EASIER TO
> USE!!! DO YOU GET IT?
> NOT ONE WIT!!!! 
> X XWINDOWS, "ENLIGHTENMENT" "MOTIF" "OLWM" WHATEVER
> I DON'T CARE!!!
> THEY ARE ALL PERFECTLY FUCKING WORTHLESS. I WOULDN'T
> PAY HALF A CENT FOR
> THEM, NOT EVEN THAT... INFACT I WOULD PAY YOU TO
> REFORMAT AND INSTALL
> BeOS, WHICH TAKES CARE OF ITSELF REASONABLY WELL.
> WHEN WILL YOU
> FUCKFACES LEARN???? 
> 
> YOU HAVN'T LEARNED A SINGLE FUCKING THING IN THE
> LAST TWENTY-THREE YEARS
> ABOUT WHAT AN OS IS, WHAT IT SHOULD BE, OR HOW TO
> MAKE IT EASIER TO
> USE!!! 
> 
> -- 
> If a "bug" in one program causes another to fail,
> the OS is at fault.
> 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


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/

Re: [Mentalunix-developers] More requirements:

[Alan G. <ala...@st...>]

CoolProgrammer wrote:

> I'll leave the rest of the message alone for now--I have some massive 
> Linux configuration to do and a CD-RW drive to install in Windows...

Can we develop a distribution that does *not* require "massive
configuration"? 

Please?

Pretty please?

-- 
If a "bug" in one program causes another to fail, the OS is at fault.
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.

Re: [Mentalunix-developers] More requirements:

[Clinton E. <men...@cr...>]

It won't need massive configuration! It should work for the vast 
majority of people OUT OF THE BOX! That is the whole point! We take 
the best parts of debian(apt, debconf, update-*), and then rewrite 
everything else from the ground up(pacakges and all..but the 
installer may ask the user if they would like to put the 
debian/stormix/libranet/progeny linux apt sources so they can get 
pacakges from them too). We will be using the mandrake hwdetect 
libraries to detect hardware, a nice text mode / GUI installer, and 
some other nice stuff. You just create a user or two during install, 
reboot(or maybe not), and you log in using gdm under X! No 
configuration at all! Less than even windows! yay! Isn't that good 
enough for you?

On 28 Dec 2000, at 19:15, Alan Grimes wrote:

> CoolProgrammer wrote:
> 
> > I'll leave the rest of the message alone for now--I have some
> > massive Linux configuration to do and a CD-RW drive to install in
> > Windows...
> 
> Can we develop a distribution that does *not* require "massive
> configuration"? 
> 
> Please?
> 
> Pretty please?
> 
> -- 
> If a "bug" in one program causes another to fail, the OS is at fault.
> 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

Re: [Mentalunix-developers] More requirements:

[CoolProgrammer <coo...@ya...>]

We do... have you ever heard of WinLinux?

Also, it doesn't require it--most normal people don't
try to use a loop filesystem on /, as I'm trying to
do...

~CoolProgrammer
--- Alan Grimes <ala...@st...> wrote:
> CoolProgrammer wrote:
> 
> > I'll leave the rest of the message alone for
> now--I have some massive 
> > Linux configuration to do and a CD-RW drive to
> install in Windows...
> 
> Can we develop a distribution that does *not*
> require "massive
> configuration"? 
> 
> Please?
> 
> Pretty please?
> 
> -- 
> If a "bug" in one program causes another to fail,
> the OS is at fault.
> 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


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/

Re: [Mentalunix-developers] More requirements:

[CoolProgrammer <coo...@ya...>]

I agree that the entire distribution should be
optimized--it only makes sense...

Also, we could detect the CPU speed--the kernel
already does, in fact--how else would a kernel
compiled for a 486 know not to run on a 386 (I've
tried that just to see what it would do, too)?

I have a question--why are you so involved in this
group if you aren't a Linux user?

Multiuser is not handled until init loads--after the
kernel loads. The kernel handles multitasking (and
possibly isolation of users--in fact, the filesystem
does keep different users from getting into others'
files).

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 think it's
the installation and configuration of hardware that
gets people.

I have a Windows bug to mention--e-mail from a certain
person would crash Word when my dad would try to
respond to it. It caused a DDE error, which led to
Outlook repeatedly crashing. One program caused the
crash of another...

Smells just like Windows 3.1 code...

I think I smell some now...

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)...

~CoolProgrammer
--- Alan Grimes <ala...@st...> wrote:
> Eric Gibson wrote:
> > If you make binaries optimized for i586 you are in
> good shape, the 
> > "extra" microcode in newer or different processors
> do not always give 
> > you a speed benefit...
> 
> Thats a start, But the entire distribution needs to
> be optomized too. 
> Otherwise you only get the benefit of the kernel
> using 1% of the
> processor where it otherwise would have taken 5%,
> and all your other
> stuff taking the same ammount of time it always
> had...
> 
> >  If I remember correctly there is a
> > value you can access on a certain interupt that
> gives you an
> > indication of the processor type.
> 
> There is an instruction with the mnemonic "CPUID"
> that does that
> function. It was first implemented on the Pentium
> classic and also
> appears on AMD 5x86 chips of a similar vintage
> though those chips were
> far less capable. 
> 
> > And you make a competant linux user by acting like
> a 3 year old
> > elitist idiot?
> 
> No, nor do I ever intend to become a unix/linux
> user. *shrug*
> 
> > > Unix is perverse so you'd have to re-implement
> almost everything...
> > 
> > This is the fundamental schism between people that
> know what work,
> > and people that have no idea what they are talking
> about.
> 
> om
> I don't care what I don't know. 
> I really don't.
> Wanna know something?
> It doesn't matter either! 
> I am going to specify a system that will work for
> >>> ME <<<. 
> You can either help me make it or throw me off this
> list and I will
> continue trying to find ways of making it happen for
> me. 
> Its your choice. 
> Just tell me if you do throw me off.
> 
> > You could easily remove "multiuser mode", but why
> would you?
> 
> To make the kernel simpler, dummy.
> 
> > So you can have an insecure system?
> 
> Security doesn't require anything more from the
> kernel than a certain
> "quality of service" guarentee.
> 
> 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).
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be throwing security away, I'd be
> *ENHANCING* it, manyfold!
> 
> 
> > I say the distrobution should have *more* access
> control, and more 
> > finely grained multiuser functionality  (with a
> good interface).
> 
> BUT FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE, TAKE IT OUT OF THE KERNEL
> FIRST!!!
> 
> > UNIX is a compromise. 
> 
> I don't like compromises.
> 
> > It's an practical implementation of what works,
> not what is ideal 
> > (because the two are truely seperated).
> 
> Then we need to find a way to make the ideals work,
> shouldn't we? ;)
> 
> > "Re-implement everything in userspace". You are a
> fscking
> > microkernel advocate too I bet...
> 
> 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.
> 
> > We all know how well those proliferated... Not
> because it's not a 
> > better idea, but because it is an ideal that makes
> practical matters 
> > more complicated!
> 
> Perhaps, If you don't know how to design software. 
> Or are using archaic languages such as Assembly or
> C...
> 
> 
> > > The OS that is fundamentally easier to use is
> the real gold that I am
> > > seeking...
> > 
> > Well you are working with the wrong OS, UNIX makes
> assumptions.
> 
> That is an unsound philOSophy. =\
> 
> > Having personally wrote translators in the Hurd,
> and studied the
> > same ideas of making a "fundamentally easier" OS
> and OE I can say
> > that UNIX is by far more practical, feasable and
> dependable.
> 
> Oh, If the hurd is intended to be "fundamentally
> easier" then please
> subscribe me to that mailinglist. ;)
> 
> >  Look at OS's that have tried to do this, Mac OSX,
> Windows... They are
> > easier to use, but they have sacrificed the
> functionality and
> > intimacy that you have in a UNIX environment.
> 
> Well then implement the functionality you want on
> those OSes while
> maintaining their current level of usability. 
> 
> The only thing I don't want to do is to make another
> unusable OS.
> 
> > You are better off using a CORBA or other object
> interface at the user 
> > level and hiding what is known as UNIX.
> 
> It'll still be there... 
> Like a skeletin in the closet...
> A monster under the bed...
> A curse hanging over me...
> 
> Haunting my system with all its little daemons. 
> 
> No. 
> 
> Bad idea. 
> 
> Terrible idea. 
> 
> BeOS is somewhat like that but at least its usable.
> ;)
> 
> Give me something clean, sane, and well designed. 
> 
> > > YOU HAVN'T LEARNED A SINGLE FUCKING THING IN THE
> LAST TWENTY-THREE 
> > > YEARS ABOUT WHAT AN OS IS, WHAT IT SHOULD BE, OR
> HOW TO MAKE IT 
> > > EASIER TO USE!!!
> > 
> > Are you drunk or something?
> 
> I'm as sober as I get.
> I'm just on DOS, and that gets you a little high. ;)
> 
> > There are many ways you could alter linux to
> accomodate your self 
> > righteous need to make the perfect OS. 
> 
> No, there aren't.
> 
> > I don't see you doing it.
> 
> Can't be done. 
> It would take a single human (well maybe a cyborg;
> I'm not that bright.)
> ten years to make the changes that I want made to
> linux, and still it
> wouldn't be perfect. =(
> 
> > Where is the code, dumbass?
> 
> That's the $5,000,000 question. -<sob>- Money
> (capital)...
> 
> -- 
> If a "bug" in one program causes another to fail,
> the OS is at fault.
> 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
> .
> _______________________________________
> 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] Debate over philOSophy. =\

[Alan G. <ala...@st...>]

[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.

Re: [Mentalunix-developers] More requirements:

[Clinton E. <men...@cr...>]

>> If you make binaries optimized for i586 you are in good shape, the
> > "extra" microcode in newer or different processors do not always
> > give you a speed benefit...
> 
> Thats a start, But the entire distribution needs to be optomized too.
> Otherwise you only get the benefit of the kernel using 1% of the
> processor where it otherwise would have taken 5%, and all your other
> stuff taking the same ammount of time it always had...
> 
Yes, the entire distribution will be optimized, and available as a 
sourcecode(yes, the installer will just sit on top of mpkg, so you 
can install using only sourcepackages).

> >  If I remember correctly there is a
> > value you can access on a certain interupt that gives you an
> > indication of the processor type.
> 
> There is an instruction with the mnemonic "CPUID" that does that
> function. It was first implemented on the Pentium classic and also
> appears on AMD 5x86 chips of a similar vintage though those chips were
> far less capable. 
> 
> > And you make a competant linux user by acting like a 3 year old
> > elitist idiot?
> 
> 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

> > > Unix is perverse so you'd have to re-implement almost
> > > everything...
> > 
> > This is the fundamental schism between people that know what work,
> > and people that have no idea what they are talking about.
> 
> om
> I don't care what I don't know. 
> I really don't.
> Wanna know something?
> It doesn't matter either! 
> I am going to specify a system that will work for >>> ME <<<. 
> You can either help me make it or throw me off this list and I will
> continue trying to find ways of making it happen for me. Its your
> choice. Just tell me if you do throw me off.
> 
> > 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!

> 
> > So you can have an insecure system?
> 
> Security doesn't require anything more from the kernel than a certain
> "quality of service" guarentee.
> 
> 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? 
Should I, as the all knowing and wise root, allow my users to have 
their data hidden from me? 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. 
> 
> I wouldn't be throwing security away, I'd be *ENHANCING* it, manyfold!
> 
> 
> > I say the distrobution should have *more* access control, and more
> > finely grained multiuser functionality  (with a good interface).
> 
> BUT FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE, TAKE IT OUT OF THE KERNEL FIRST!!!
> 
> > UNIX is a compromise. 
> 
> 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.

> > It's an practical implementation of what works, not what is ideal
> > (because the two are truely seperated).
> 
> 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.

> > "Re-implement everything in userspace". You are a fscking
> > microkernel advocate too I bet...
> 
> 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. Kernels == good. 
Without them, every single application has to be able to boot itself, 
control all the hardware, and run. So, you'd have to reboot to use 
any programs. The kernel has things like generic(read: standard) 
hardware interfaces, VFS(so you can use any filesystem with your app, 
and not have to care), memory management, task control, etc. YOU NEED 
A KERNEL OR ELSE THE OPERATING SYSTEM WILL NOT WORK!

> > We all know how well those proliferated... Not because it's not a
> > better idea, but because it is an ideal that makes practical matters
> > more complicated!
> 
> Perhaps, If you don't know how to design software. 
> Or are using archaic languages such as Assembly or C...
> 
C is an OS language. yeah. You use it to make an Operating System. 
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!)

> 
> > > The OS that is fundamentally easier to use is the real gold that I
> > > am seeking...
> > 
> > Well you are working with the wrong OS, UNIX makes assumptions.
> 
> That is an unsound philOSophy. =\
> 
No it isn't. So, UNIX assumes you can hit the on switch. Big deal. 
You need to learn how to use a computer to use UNIX. Just because the 
KDE and GNOME people come along as say : "Use linux as a desktop" 
doesn't mean it is suited for it. Yes, I use linux as a desktop. But, 
it is designed to be a power user and server enviroment. It is only 
now starting get a but friendly. For end users I mean. UNIX is the 
developers OS, made by developers, for developers. Now, lets see you 
write an OS and maintain a distribution.

> > Having personally wrote translators in the Hurd, and studied the
> > same ideas of making a "fundamentally easier" OS and OE I can say
> > that UNIX is by far more practical, feasable and dependable.
> 
> 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.

> >  Look at OS's that have tried to do this, Mac OSX, Windows... They
> >  are
> > easier to use, but they have sacrificed the functionality and
> > intimacy that you have in a UNIX environment.
> 
> 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.

> The only thing I don't want to do is to make another unusable OS.
> 
> > You are better off using a CORBA or other object interface at the
> > user level and hiding what is known as UNIX.
> 
> It'll still be there... 
> Like a skeletin in the closet...
> A monster under the bed...
> A curse hanging over me...
> 
> Haunting my system with all its little daemons. 
> 
> No. 
> 
> Bad idea. 
> 
> Terrible idea. 
> 
> BeOS is somewhat like that but at least its usable. ;)
> 
> Give me something clean, sane, and well designed. 
> 
> > > YOU HAVN'T LEARNED A SINGLE FUCKING THING IN THE LAST TWENTY-THREE
> > > YEARS ABOUT WHAT AN OS IS, WHAT IT SHOULD BE, OR HOW TO MAKE IT
> > > EASIER TO USE!!!
> > 
> > Are you drunk or something?
> 
> I'm as sober as I get.
> I'm just on DOS, and that gets you a little high. ;)
> 
No wonder. You must have lost a few to many brain cells.

> > There are many ways you could alter linux to accomodate your self
> > righteous need to make the perfect OS. 
> 
> No, there aren't.
> 
> > I don't see you doing it.
> 
> Can't be done. 
> It would take a single human (well maybe a cyborg; I'm not that
> bright.) ten years to make the changes that I want made to linux, and
> still it wouldn't be perfect. =(
> 
> > 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. 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"

> -- 
> If a "bug" in one program causes another to fail, the OS is at fault.
> 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

Re: [Mentalunix-developers] More requirements:

[Alan G. <ala...@st...>]

Clinton Ebadi wrote:

yer clueless...
I'm sorry to get personal but only on rare occasions do I see such an
amazingly spectacular display of unthinking blind ignorance! 

Unfortunately all linux developers are as stupid as you are. =(



> > P - No binary distributions! Argument: When I installed Mandrake 6.5
> > my Athalon had a BogoMips rating of 799. When I recompiled the kernel
> > it jumped to 1,500. =) Therefore all software should be compiled by
> > and for the host processor.
> >
> If you read the mpkg spec,

I have never heard of mpkg. I would have no inkling that such a thing
existed for me to look for. 'mpkg' is hakish anyway.


> The time involved would not be very nice, not to
> mention some things like ACE or CORBA that require HUGE amounts of
> ram to compile(500+ MB)

Dear God!  = 0

> distribution ISOs would be in binary form(i386, i486, i586, i686,

Well I guess we're stuck with a precompiled version for every chip ever
made... =( 
The project will need a massive compile farm but it will be the fastest
out-of-the-box distribution on the planet... 

> This is where the newbie manpages come in.

I have never heard of "newbie" manpages. I wouldn't know how to look for
them and only vague notions of how to access them, assuming man was
functioning properly on whatever system I had. Linux has nothing
remotely akin to anything as helpful as "this end up".

> It's all going to be linked up to linuxnewbie(I'll talk to sensei when 
> we get ready to start it) database.

That might be helpful...

> We might as well add a whole newbie system in with it..make a new 
> shell based on bash that has newbie command aliases?

That would be pretty perverse... Simply provide commands with english
names and simple intuitive interfaces. Send everything that is not easy
and *USABLE* to /device/null, where it belongs.

> Let me explain. You type memory. It loads mem. Well, if we just aliased 
> it, you would have a huge list of aliases,

Well on my system I have several aliases for mem, each with its own
switch settings... I only use the one called "memory" though... 
I just checked my "res" directory and I see that I havn't touched any of
aliases since AUGUST OF 1996!!!!

DOS has provided a system that is so stable that I have files that have
been preserved perfectly for half a decade. There are files on my system
with date stamps of 1986.

> and you would think memory was the actual command.

It would be.... And life would be *good*. I would actually use such an
operating system. =\

>  So, with a special 
> file..maybe .newbierc with the alias in it. Here could be a sample 
> session:
> 
> user@host:~$ memory
> user, the actual command is mem.
> type: nman mem for help
> user@host:~$ mem
> You have xxxx MB of free ram....

That is disgusting. 

> The user could learn easily that way, and the commands would be more
> intuitive.

Huh, I explained 'intuitive' in my last post, you didn't listen.

> And, the user doesn't become dependent on the shortcuts..after learning 
> the command, they are a competent gnu/linux user.

Thinking like that infurriates me to the point where I want to pick up a
brick and bash it into your skull. 

THE POINT IS NOT TO MAKE THE USER A COMPETENT 'GNU/LINUX USER', YOU
STUPID SACK OF SHIT, IT IS TO MAKE A GNU/LINUX THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE
'COMPETANCE'. A COLLEGE GRADUATE WITH A DEGREE IN LIBERAL ARTS FROM 1980
SHOULD KNOW EVERYTHING HE NEEDS TO USE A COMPUTER WITHOUT *ANY*
TRAINING. THE WORLD SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BEND TO THE WHIMS OF THE POMPUS
ASSHOLES THAT MADE UNIX!!! 

If you kick me from the list for that I will be content. Please notify
me if you do. -- thanx. 
 
> and stuff like that. The app is centralized(by package name). So, you
> can just cd into the apps dir, and then the appname, and see all of
> the file associated with it. Of course, the dir would be read-only,
> and could be reconstructed if root trashed it by running some rebuild
> command in mpkg.

=\
I don't get it...
I'm a DOS user. 
cd gamez 
cd quake
quake
or 
deltree quake.
or 
cd quake 
cd id 
e quake.ini 
or 
cd quake
md newlevel
cd newlevel 
pkunzip \archive\newqkake . /d 
or .... 

Do I have the only sane computer on the planet?

> No app planned, but it is an interesting idea. Maybe a program like
> newbie xinit? A newbie init front end in Gtk that had options like
> this(to change runlevels):

Anything that is easy to use... I don't understand this shit anyway so
I'm indifferent...

[switching to single user mode] 

Multiuser mode is totally pointless on workstations.
I would remove all traces of multiuser from the base system and then
re-implement it in user-space and then provide it as an option.

Unix is perverse so you'd have to re-implement almost everything... 

> I think it would make a good program. I could sketch it out in
> glade(just the GUI, not code) later.

GUI is like a US golden dollar. It costs a buck, Looks like its worth a
lot more but in truth its WORTHLESS!!! =\ 

The OS that is fundamentally easier to use is the real gold that I am
seeking...

[console managment] 
> Really hard to do that. Programs like Xemacs on the console change
> the cursor for internal management. Please explain further what you
> mean exactly.

If the OS doesn't do that then it is not even a complete OS, and not
worth much to anyone at all. =(


> On 27 Dec 2000, at 15:20, Alan Grimes wrote:
 
[multiple editors and other redundancy]
> ? I am confused. Users need choice. The base system will either have
> nano or mcedit, to avoid the emacs / vi war. Then, vi and emacs will
> both be optional packages.

Ofcourse you can install E-macs later but I will not help in that untill
it is rewritten... E-macs is probably one of the most advanced
applications around... Its a pitty that its so difficult to use.

> A distribution is more than just the OS.

Is != should be. 
should be, um, see DOS. ;)

> It is the suite of programs that make the OS(which is GNU + linux in 
> our case) useful.

Yes, But that is not what we are working on here.
We make the system through which the computer can be applied to useful
work. BUT NOT THE APPLICATIONS THEMSELVES... =\ 

> Programs like X will be optional. Like in most distributions. Of 
> course, our install won't be very newbie friendly until I can do some > decent X programming.

THAT IS TOTALLY BASS ACKWARDS!!!!
THE SYSTEM BECOMES USABLE *THEN* YOU CUSTOMIZE YOUR USER INTERFACE. 
DON'T ANY OF YOU DIPSHITS GET IT? STUPID GUI OPTIONS IN WINDOWS 98'S
REGEDIT DO NOT MAKE THE REGISTRY ONE WIT EASIER TO USE!!! DO YOU GET IT?
NOT ONE WIT!!!! 
X XWINDOWS, "ENLIGHTENMENT" "MOTIF" "OLWM" WHATEVER I DON'T CARE!!!
THEY ARE ALL PERFECTLY FUCKING WORTHLESS. I WOULDN'T PAY HALF A CENT FOR
THEM, NOT EVEN THAT... INFACT I WOULD PAY YOU TO REFORMAT AND INSTALL
BeOS, WHICH TAKES CARE OF ITSELF REASONABLY WELL. WHEN WILL YOU
FUCKFACES LEARN???? 

YOU HAVN'T LEARNED A SINGLE FUCKING THING IN THE LAST TWENTY-THREE YEARS
ABOUT WHAT AN OS IS, WHAT IT SHOULD BE, OR HOW TO MAKE IT EASIER TO
USE!!! 

-- 
If a "bug" in one program causes another to fail, the OS is at fault.
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.

Re: [Mentalunix-developers] More requirements:

[Eric G. <em...@ly...>]

On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 07:43:31PM -0500, Alan Grimes wrote:
> Clinton Ebadi wrote:
> amazingly spectacular display of unthinking blind ignorance! 
> 
> [ ...]
> 
> > > P - No binary distributions! Argument: When I installed Mandrake 6.5
> > > my Athalon had a BogoMips rating of 799. When I recompiled the kernel
> > > it jumped to 1,500. =) Therefore all software should be compiled by
> > > and for the host processor.
> > >
> > If you read the mpkg spec,
> 
> I have never heard of mpkg. I would have no inkling that such a thing
> existed for me to look for. 'mpkg' is hakish anyway.
> 
> 
> > The time involved would not be very nice, not to
> > mention some things like ACE or CORBA that require HUGE amounts of
> > ram to compile(500+ MB)
> 
> Dear God!  = 0
> 
> > distribution ISOs would be in binary form(i386, i486, i586, i686,
> 
> Well I guess we're stuck with a precompiled version for every chip ever
> made... =( 
> The project will need a massive compile farm but it will be the fastest
> out-of-the-box distribution on the planet... 

If you make binaries optimized for i586 you are in good shape, the "extra"
microcode in newer or different processors do not always give you a speed
benefit...  

It would be wise to have different kernels available with your
system for various processors for an extra boost. It would be entirely
possible to find the make and model of the processor that is being
used and install appropriately. If I remember correctly there is a
value you can access on a certain interupt that gives you an
indication of the processor type. You can also probe the chipsets on
the motherboard to see if it's an SMP system, etc. All this has
already been done by redhat and mandrake and just about every other
vendor.

> 
> > This is where the newbie manpages come in.
> 
> I have never heard of "newbie" manpages. I wouldn't know how to look for
> them and only vague notions of how to access them, assuming man was
> functioning properly on whatever system I had. Linux has nothing
> remotely akin to anything as helpful as "this end up".
> 
> > It's all going to be linked up to linuxnewbie(I'll talk to sensei when 
> > we get ready to start it) database.
> 
> That might be helpful...
> 
> > We might as well add a whole newbie system in with it..make a new 
> > shell based on bash that has newbie command aliases?
> 
> [...]
> 
> >  So, with a special 
> > file..maybe .newbierc with the alias in it. Here could be a sample 
> > session:
> > 
> > user@host:~$ memory
> > user, the actual command is mem.
> > type: nman mem for help
> > user@host:~$ mem
> > You have xxxx MB of free ram....
> 
> That is disgusting. 

Actually, it's a pretty good idea. Something like this can only
help. I remember how long it took me to even find the man command. I
would have appreciated it the first time I was fumbling around
typing in DOS commands that I was told about man, much less the
right command to use.

> 
> > The user could learn easily that way, and the commands would be more
> > intuitive.
> 
> Huh, I explained 'intuitive' in my last post, you didn't listen.
> 
> > And, the user doesn't become dependent on the shortcuts..after learning 
> > the command, they are a competent gnu/linux user.
> 
> Thinking like that infurriates me to the point where I want to pick up a
> brick and bash it into your skull. 
> 
> THE POINT IS NOT TO MAKE THE USER A COMPETENT 'GNU/LINUX USER', YOU
> STUPID SACK OF SHIT, IT IS TO MAKE A GNU/LINUX THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE
> 'COMPETANCE'. A COLLEGE GRADUATE WITH A DEGREE IN LIBERAL ARTS FROM 1980
> SHOULD KNOW EVERYTHING HE NEEDS TO USE A COMPUTER WITHOUT *ANY*
> TRAINING. THE WORLD SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BEND TO THE WHIMS OF THE POMPUS
> ASSHOLES THAT MADE UNIX!!! 

And you make a competant linux user by acting like a 3 year old
elitist idiot?

> 
> If you kick me from the list for that I will be content. Please notify
> me if you do. -- thanx. 
>  
> > and stuff like that. The app is centralized(by package name). So, you
> > can just cd into the apps dir, and then the appname, and see all of
> > the file associated with it. Of course, the dir would be read-only,
> > and could be reconstructed if root trashed it by running some rebuild
> > command in mpkg.
> 
> [...]
>
> Do I have the only sane computer on the planet?
> 
> > No app planned, but it is an interesting idea. Maybe a program like
> > newbie xinit? A newbie init front end in Gtk that had options like
> > this(to change runlevels):
> 
> Anything that is easy to use... I don't understand this shit anyway so
> I'm indifferent...
> 
> [switching to single user mode] 
> 
> Multiuser mode is totally pointless on workstations.
> I would remove all traces of multiuser from the base system and then
> re-implement it in user-space and then provide it as an option.
> 
> Unix is perverse so you'd have to re-implement almost everything... 

This is the fundamental schism between people that know what work,
and people that have no idea what they are talking about. You could
easily remove "multiuser mode", but why would you? So you can have
an insecure system? I say the distrobution should have *more* access
control, and more finely grained multiuser functionality (with a
good interface). 

UNIX is a compromise. It's an practical implementation of what
works, not what is ideal (because the two are truely seperated).
"Re-implement everything in userspace". You are a fscking
microkernel advocate too I bet... We all know how well those
proliferated... Not because it's not a better idea, but because it
is an ideal that makes practical matters more complicated!

> 
> > I think it would make a good program. I could sketch it out in
> > glade(just the GUI, not code) later.
> 
> GUI is like a US golden dollar. It costs a buck, Looks like its worth a
> lot more but in truth its WORTHLESS!!! =\ 
> 
> The OS that is fundamentally easier to use is the real gold that I am
> seeking...

Well you are working with the wrong OS, UNIX makes assumptions.
Having personally wrote translators in the Hurd, and studied the
same ideas of making a "fundamentally easier" OS and OE I can say
that UNIX is by far more practical, feasable and dependable. Look
at OS's that have tried to do this, Mac OSX, Windows... They are
easier to use, but they have sacrificed the functionality and
intimacy that you have in a UNIX environment. You are better off
using a CORBA or other object interface at the user level and hiding
what is known as UNIX.

> 
> [console managment] 
> > Really hard to do that. Programs like Xemacs on the console change
> > the cursor for internal management. Please explain further what you
> > mean exactly.
> 
> If the OS doesn't do that then it is not even a complete OS, and not
> worth much to anyone at all. =(
> 
> 
> > On 27 Dec 2000, at 15:20, Alan Grimes wrote:
>  
> [multiple editors and other redundancy]
> > ? I am confused. Users need choice. The base system will either have
> > nano or mcedit, to avoid the emacs / vi war. Then, vi and emacs will
> > both be optional packages.
> 
> Ofcourse you can install E-macs later but I will not help in that untill
> it is rewritten... E-macs is probably one of the most advanced
> applications around... Its a pitty that its so difficult to use.
> 
> > A distribution is more than just the OS.
> 
> Is != should be. 
> should be, um, see DOS. ;)
> 
> > It is the suite of programs that make the OS(which is GNU + linux in 
> > our case) useful.
> 
> Yes, But that is not what we are working on here.
> We make the system through which the computer can be applied to useful
> work. BUT NOT THE APPLICATIONS THEMSELVES... =\ 
> 
> > Programs like X will be optional. Like in most distributions. Of 
> > course, our install won't be very newbie friendly until I can do some 
> > decent X programming.
> 
> THAT IS TOTALLY BASS ACKWARDS!!!!
> THE SYSTEM BECOMES USABLE *THEN* YOU CUSTOMIZE YOUR USER INTERFACE. 
> DON'T ANY OF YOU DIPSHITS GET IT? STUPID GUI OPTIONS IN WINDOWS 98'S
> REGEDIT DO NOT MAKE THE REGISTRY ONE WIT EASIER TO USE!!! DO YOU GET IT?
> NOT ONE WIT!!!! 
> X XWINDOWS, "ENLIGHTENMENT" "MOTIF" "OLWM" WHATEVER I DON'T CARE!!!
> THEY ARE ALL PERFECTLY FUCKING WORTHLESS. I WOULDN'T PAY HALF A CENT FOR
> THEM, NOT EVEN THAT... INFACT I WOULD PAY YOU TO REFORMAT AND INSTALL
> BeOS, WHICH TAKES CARE OF ITSELF REASONABLY WELL. WHEN WILL YOU
> FUCKFACES LEARN???? 
> 
> YOU HAVN'T LEARNED A SINGLE FUCKING THING IN THE LAST TWENTY-THREE YEARS
> ABOUT WHAT AN OS IS, WHAT IT SHOULD BE, OR HOW TO MAKE IT EASIER TO
> USE!!! 

Are you drunk or something? There are many ways you could alter
linux to accomodate your self righteous need to make the perfect OS.
I don't see you doing it. Where is the code, dumbass?

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

Re: [Mentalunix-developers] More requirements:

[Alan G. <ala...@st...>]

Eric Gibson wrote:
> If you make binaries optimized for i586 you are in good shape, the 
> "extra" microcode in newer or different processors do not always give 
> you a speed benefit...

Thats a start, But the entire distribution needs to be optomized too. 
Otherwise you only get the benefit of the kernel using 1% of the
processor where it otherwise would have taken 5%, and all your other
stuff taking the same ammount of time it always had...

>  If I remember correctly there is a
> value you can access on a certain interupt that gives you an
> indication of the processor type.

There is an instruction with the mnemonic "CPUID" that does that
function. It was first implemented on the Pentium classic and also
appears on AMD 5x86 chips of a similar vintage though those chips were
far less capable. 

> And you make a competant linux user by acting like a 3 year old
> elitist idiot?

No, nor do I ever intend to become a unix/linux user. *shrug*

> > Unix is perverse so you'd have to re-implement almost everything...
> 
> This is the fundamental schism between people that know what work,
> and people that have no idea what they are talking about.

om
I don't care what I don't know. 
I really don't.
Wanna know something?
It doesn't matter either! 
I am going to specify a system that will work for >>> ME <<<. 
You can either help me make it or throw me off this list and I will
continue trying to find ways of making it happen for me. 
Its your choice. 
Just tell me if you do throw me off.

> You could easily remove "multiuser mode", but why would you?

To make the kernel simpler, dummy.

> So you can have an insecure system?

Security doesn't require anything more from the kernel than a certain
"quality of service" guarentee.

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).


I wouldn't be throwing security away, I'd be *ENHANCING* it, manyfold!


> I say the distrobution should have *more* access control, and more 
> finely grained multiuser functionality  (with a good interface).

BUT FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE, TAKE IT OUT OF THE KERNEL FIRST!!!

> UNIX is a compromise. 

I don't like compromises.

> It's an practical implementation of what works, not what is ideal 
> (because the two are truely seperated).

Then we need to find a way to make the ideals work, shouldn't we? ;)

> "Re-implement everything in userspace". You are a fscking
> microkernel advocate too I bet...

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.

> We all know how well those proliferated... Not because it's not a 
> better idea, but because it is an ideal that makes practical matters 
> more complicated!

Perhaps, If you don't know how to design software. 
Or are using archaic languages such as Assembly or C...


> > The OS that is fundamentally easier to use is the real gold that I am
> > seeking...
> 
> Well you are working with the wrong OS, UNIX makes assumptions.

That is an unsound philOSophy. =\

> Having personally wrote translators in the Hurd, and studied the
> same ideas of making a "fundamentally easier" OS and OE I can say
> that UNIX is by far more practical, feasable and dependable.

Oh, If the hurd is intended to be "fundamentally easier" then please
subscribe me to that mailinglist. ;)

>  Look at OS's that have tried to do this, Mac OSX, Windows... They are
> easier to use, but they have sacrificed the functionality and
> intimacy that you have in a UNIX environment.

Well then implement the functionality you want on those OSes while
maintaining their current level of usability. 

The only thing I don't want to do is to make another unusable OS.

> You are better off using a CORBA or other object interface at the user 
> level and hiding what is known as UNIX.

It'll still be there... 
Like a skeletin in the closet...
A monster under the bed...
A curse hanging over me...

Haunting my system with all its little daemons. 

No. 

Bad idea. 

Terrible idea. 

BeOS is somewhat like that but at least its usable. ;)

Give me something clean, sane, and well designed. 

> > YOU HAVN'T LEARNED A SINGLE FUCKING THING IN THE LAST TWENTY-THREE 
> > YEARS ABOUT WHAT AN OS IS, WHAT IT SHOULD BE, OR HOW TO MAKE IT 
> > EASIER TO USE!!!
> 
> Are you drunk or something?

I'm as sober as I get.
I'm just on DOS, and that gets you a little high. ;)

> There are many ways you could alter linux to accomodate your self 
> righteous need to make the perfect OS. 

No, there aren't.

> I don't see you doing it.

Can't be done. 
It would take a single human (well maybe a cyborg; I'm not that bright.)
ten years to make the changes that I want made to linux, and still it
wouldn't be perfect. =(

> Where is the code, dumbass?

That's the $5,000,000 question. -<sob>- Money (capital)...

-- 
If a "bug" in one program causes another to fail, the OS is at fault.
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.

Re: [Mentalunix-developers] More requirements:

[Clinton E. <men...@cr...>]

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.
> 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

Re: [Mentalunix-developers] More requirements:

[Eric G. <em...@ly...>]

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