Thread: Re: [Mentalunix-developers] Debate over philOSophy. =\

SourceForge Headquarters 225 Broadway Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 422-6466

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