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