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/