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