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.