[Mentalunix-developers] Debate over philOSophy. =\

[Alan G. <ala...@st...>]

[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. =\
 
> 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. =\
 
> 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


> One program caused the crash of another...

There are several techniques to preserve reliability.
The Amiga wasn't known for its crashing. ;)

> 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

> > > 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.) 

> > 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. 

> 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. ;)


> > 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.

> > 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... 

> 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. 

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.

> 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. =\ 

> 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...

> You need to learn how to use a computer to use UNIX.

And just how do you use a computer? =P

> 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. =\ 

> 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. 


> 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. =\


> > 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. =)
 

> > 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!!!
 
> > 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. 


> > > 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! 

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. 

> 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.

-- 
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.