Re: [Mentalunix-developers] Debate over philOSophy. =\

[CoolProgrammer <coo...@ya...>]

Ok... I'll try this again (Netscape evils--it's evil
in any OS)...

I learned a bit about the startup process from
re-configuring Slackware to allow logins from the
serial port (which later resulted in setting up a PPP
network for a more powerful setup). I agree that Linux
can be confusing--installing it on a 386 with 2MB RAM
is the ultimate confusion (figuring out how to make
swapspace when there wasn't enough ram to run mkswap).

Well, LOL--let's hope this gets out this time...

~CoolProgrammer
--- Alan Grimes <ala...@st...> wrote:
> [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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mentalunix-developers mailing list
> Men...@li...
>
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/mentalunix-developers
> .
> sers.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
> .
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/