- Forum
- Lounge
- A new OS, a new tomorrow
- Page 2
A new OS, a new tomorrow
I don't know what uni you will be attending but ours had a course in which you developed your on OS in one semester. No it had no hardware support or command line. It was just the basics. User Input, Interrupt handling scheduling, VESA graphics, memory management (no paging). I think your University (assuming it's in engineering or informatics) should also provide such a course. I enjoyed it very much and learned a lot about os in the process.
closed account (z05DSL3A)
| darkestfright wrote: |
|---|
| Linux is a great kernel and a perfect base to implement pretty much anything, why not make better use of your time adding the useful functionality to the definitive open platform and giving back to the community instead of dilly dallying around doing something that's already been done a thousand times over. |
Linux is not very good if you want to study microkernels...and I don't like GPL.
But having said that there is nothing wrong with studying what has been done and applying it to something totally new and of your own creation.
closed account (1yR4jE8b)
Well, Linux is a monolithic kernel, so obviously not ;-P, and well...I don't really like GPL either (I'm more of an LGPL guy, but GPL really is the lesser of 2 evils).
I've already developed my own linux distro, Which I thought I made clear. I want to write it from scratch. Also I'm a HUGE proponent of the open source movement. I just don't feel like putting my code on the market. at all. It's not leaving my desk.
The open source movement is a double-edged sword. I find that the open-source code is prone to be of lower quality than a piece of code developed commercially assuming that there is a commercial alternative (exceptions exist, like GCC and Boost).
Oh... and the GPL is quite a good license to release a piece of open-source code under that you don't want corporations to take, improve, and release for $9.95 a copy.
-Albatross
Oh... and the GPL is quite a good license to release a piece of open-source code under that you don't want corporations to take, improve, and release for $9.95 a copy.
-Albatross
Last edited on
Death to the GPL! Long live the BSD!
That's just an illusion, possibly brought by the fallacy "I paid for it so it must be better".
| I find that the open-source code is prone to be of lower quality than a piece of code developed commercially |
/smack helios
You need to pause for a second there, drop your arrogance, and read this. I never said that open-source is always worse than a commercial counterpart.
When was the last time you found a piece of music-production software that was better than Logic or ProTools, or even GarageBand? Hmm?
Or a piece of photo-editing software better than Photoshop? GIMP doesn't come close, contrary to what all others say.
Mac OS X works considerably better than Ubuntu and Linux Mint. It's more stable, faster, there's more support, and if you're clever you can tweak it just as much if not more than the other two. It's a UNIX-compliant OS.
And IMO Virtual Box < VMWare.
Just a few examples.
I admit there are pieces of software that are better that most of their commercial counterparts, but...
...but the thing is that most companies have to create software they could and will rely on for their income (Microsoft is an exception, as the Windows operating systems are some of the most successful pieces of software of all time, regardless of quality). Open-source projects need not.
-Albatross
You need to pause for a second there, drop your arrogance, and read this. I never said that open-source is always worse than a commercial counterpart.
When was the last time you found a piece of music-production software that was better than Logic or ProTools, or even GarageBand? Hmm?
Or a piece of photo-editing software better than Photoshop? GIMP doesn't come close, contrary to what all others say.
Mac OS X works considerably better than Ubuntu and Linux Mint. It's more stable, faster, there's more support, and if you're clever you can tweak it just as much if not more than the other two. It's a UNIX-compliant OS.
And IMO Virtual Box < VMWare.
Just a few examples.
I admit there are pieces of software that are better that most of their commercial counterparts, but...
...but the thing is that most companies have to create software they could and will rely on for their income (Microsoft is an exception, as the Windows operating systems are some of the most successful pieces of software of all time, regardless of quality). Open-source projects need not.
-Albatross
Last edited on
@Albatross,
Woah, woah, woah; too far. Not only are you wrong on most counts, open source software not only tends to be better than proprietary software, most of the time spent on proprietary software goes into the GUI -- look at MS Office 2007 or 2010 and compare it to 2003. The major difference is in the GUI. Look at the windows XP GUI and compare it to the windows 2000 GUI -- XP was basically ME with a new GUI. The same goes for most windows releases, with the exceptions being vista (given that the entire kernel was pretty much written from scratch (not that that really worked out for them)) and 7, in which case the GUI was virtually the same but with a few cool features stolen from KDE 4. The difference is that most open source programmers have no idea how to create a decent GUI and as a result, spend most of the time on the program's stability instead (which is better).
You also say that MS is "an exception". Well, no. Most of Microsoft's software is OK -- I only dislike them for
1. Windows being really annoying, not to mention (relatively) insecure and unstable (tbh, it's not that insecure OR unstable -- I've never been cracked on windows and have only ever had a virus once, which I removed after a few minutes by creating a new account. As for stability, I rarely get "BSOD"'s and usually it's either me (playing around) or some stupid driver that causes them)
2. All of their software being proprietary (AFAIK).
Edit: Also, Firefox and Thunderbird > *.
I have no problem with the GPL -- in fact, I quite like it: it's a good idea. Do to the commercial people what they do to us.
On the other hand, the FreeBSD license suits me -- I like permissiveness. I actually only chose FreeBSD over X11 because I've used FreeBSD (the OS).
Woah, woah, woah; too far. Not only are you wrong on most counts, open source software not only tends to be better than proprietary software, most of the time spent on proprietary software goes into the GUI -- look at MS Office 2007 or 2010 and compare it to 2003. The major difference is in the GUI. Look at the windows XP GUI and compare it to the windows 2000 GUI -- XP was basically ME with a new GUI. The same goes for most windows releases, with the exceptions being vista (given that the entire kernel was pretty much written from scratch (not that that really worked out for them)) and 7, in which case the GUI was virtually the same but with a few cool features stolen from KDE 4. The difference is that most open source programmers have no idea how to create a decent GUI and as a result, spend most of the time on the program's stability instead (which is better).
You also say that MS is "an exception". Well, no. Most of Microsoft's software is OK -- I only dislike them for
1. Windows being really annoying, not to mention (relatively) insecure and unstable (tbh, it's not that insecure OR unstable -- I've never been cracked on windows and have only ever had a virus once, which I removed after a few minutes by creating a new account. As for stability, I rarely get "BSOD"'s and usually it's either me (playing around) or some stupid driver that causes them)
2. All of their software being proprietary (AFAIK).
Edit: Also, Firefox and Thunderbird > *.
| helios wrote: |
|---|
| Death to the GPL! Long live the BSD! |
I have no problem with the GPL -- in fact, I quite like it: it's a good idea. Do to the commercial people what they do to us.
On the other hand, the FreeBSD license suits me -- I like permissiveness. I actually only chose FreeBSD over X11 because I've used FreeBSD (the OS).
Last edited on
| When was the last time you found a piece of music-production software that was better than Logic or ProTools, or even GarageBand? |
| Or a piece of photo-editing software better than Photoshop? GIMP doesn't come close, contrary to what all others say. |
| that most companies have to create software they could and will rely on for their income |
1. Adding features
2. Changing interface.
If there's time left, some bugs will be fixed and some functions will be improved (e.g. in performance).
If you want your customers to keep buying new versions of the same thing, you need to make them believe that they need to. The easiest way to do that is by making easily recognizable changes. Sure, those optimizations might reduce the run time of the most common operations by 30%, but marketing has decided to put the new retina-burning neon buttons in 72pt letters on the brochure, so there won't be much space left for anything else.
Last edited on
I'd like to mention two other open source programs that beat the hell out of any proprietary equivalents: VLC and 7zip
VLC
+ Supports a multitude of audio and video formats
+ Is very easy to use
+ Is very flexible
+ Is very fast
7zip
+ Is very fast
+ Gives an extremeley high compression ratio; more than any other compressor I've ever seen. bzip2 is also excellent, it's a little faster than 7zip but the compression ratio is lower.
VLC
+ Supports a multitude of audio and video formats
+ Is very easy to use
+ Is very flexible
+ Is very fast
7zip
+ Is very fast
+ Gives an extremeley high compression ratio; more than any other compressor I've ever seen. bzip2 is also excellent, it's a little faster than 7zip but the compression ratio is lower.
Last edited on
| Mac OS X works considerably better than Ubuntu and Linux Mint. It's more stable, faster, there's more support, and if you're clever you can tweak it just as much if not more than the other two. It's a UNIX-compliant OS. |
http://www.apple.com/opensource/ :
| Apple believes that using Open Source methodology makes Mac OS X a more robust, secure operating system, as its core components have been subjected to the crucible of peer review for decades. Any problems found with this software can be immediately identified and fixed by Apple and the Open Source community. |
Last edited on
| XP was basically ME with a new GUI |
As it happens, I would happen to be confusing 2000 with ME. I thought they were the same thing.
Having said that, XP is just ME with 11 added to both constants.
Having said that, XP is just ME with 11 added to both constants.
Okay then. Indeed, upon further investigation, Mac OS X is mostly open source, so I'll add another exception.
[sarcasmfreezone]Thank you for all attempting to convince me that I was wrong [/sarcasmfreezone]. Of course, I still haven't been able to find one complete open-source program (not library) that doesn't have a superior proprietary version (exceptions: Operating Systems, Web Browsers).
I recall there being some excellent shareware compression utilities somewhere... no chance of finding them now, of course, now that I mentioned them.
GPL is a decent license, though, I think.
EDIT: Oh... and XP was Microsoft's finest operating system. 7 comes close, but I don't think it's as good.
-Albatross
[sarcasmfreezone]Thank you for all attempting to convince me that I was wrong [/sarcasmfreezone]. Of course, I still haven't been able to find one complete open-source program (not library) that doesn't have a superior proprietary version (exceptions: Operating Systems, Web Browsers).
I recall there being some excellent shareware compression utilities somewhere... no chance of finding them now, of course, now that I mentioned them.
GPL is a decent license, though, I think.
EDIT: Oh... and XP was Microsoft's finest operating system. 7 comes close, but I don't think it's as good.
-Albatross
Last edited on
closed account (1yR4jE8b)
I dissagree, I would say Windows 7 is vastly superior to XP in pretty much every way. The interface is cleaner, simpler, and faster to navigate. Window Management is superior (I'd go as far to say it has better window management then any other OS out there) It is much easier to tweak the system without having to hack the registry. The scheduler is better and the filesystem is more robust. The filemanager is also vastly improved and much faster.
It even has a smaller memory footprint if you ignore it's aggressive memory caching. And performance doesn't turn to mush after being on for a few days.
It even has a smaller memory footprint if you ignore it's aggressive memory caching. And performance doesn't turn to mush after being on for a few days.
I disagree with practically everything you've said.
1. The system as a whole is slower. It's not much, but it's noticeable if you've spent a lot of time on XP. This remains even if you crank the graphics all the way down.
2. Out of the box, the interface is broken in several places. Generally speaking, it takes longer to do anything with its interface. I think my biggest complain is that I can't right-click-C a button on the taskbar to close a window anymore. I know, it something practically microscopic, but often it's the small things, that matter.
3. The only improvement on the file system I've noticed so far is that it allows symbolic links to files, not just directories.
4. Explorer is neither worse nor better than it was, but it's always been a piece of crap for anything but the most basic operations anyway.
5. It most definitely don't use less memory.
The only situation I can possibly think of where switching from XP to 7 would be an upgrade is if you need more than 3 GiB of memory.
1. The system as a whole is slower. It's not much, but it's noticeable if you've spent a lot of time on XP. This remains even if you crank the graphics all the way down.
2. Out of the box, the interface is broken in several places. Generally speaking, it takes longer to do anything with its interface. I think my biggest complain is that I can't right-click-C a button on the taskbar to close a window anymore. I know, it something practically microscopic, but often it's the small things, that matter.
3. The only improvement on the file system I've noticed so far is that it allows symbolic links to files, not just directories.
4. Explorer is neither worse nor better than it was, but it's always been a piece of crap for anything but the most basic operations anyway.
5. It most definitely don't use less memory.
The only situation I can possibly think of where switching from XP to 7 would be an upgrade is if you need more than 3 GiB of memory.