1) no appearance customization /skinning. enforce a completely standardized user interface. I think predictability of user interface and good guidelines for coders is important.I wouldn't want your OS ;) Nice way of pointing out the direct opposites of my perfect OS :D
2) no different distributions of the OS. i recognize how cool it is that there are so many linux distributions but i just tend to prefer a more standardized controlled predictable approach to the core OS (im not saying anything about application "packs").
7) a focus on eliminating all hidden system settings.. do not use a registry system. software should be install-less, and installing a piece of software should be a simple matter of copying files to a fixed location. uninstallation would be just a matter of deleting the files.I'm all for having to do less work, but the last thing I want is a "user friendly" OS, where I'm assumed an idiot. I like to be prompted where I want things to be installed, in fact, I'd rather move it there myself. I don't trust automation. I want full control over these things. It would be OK to have the install-less software as feature for other people, but it should be optional :)
1) no appearance customization /skinning. enforce a completely standardized user interface. I think predictability of user interface and good guidelines for coders is important.
...
6) a focus on providing a clean object oriented API for programs. The entire focus of the operating system should be in providing a clean efficient interface to coders.-mouser (August 14, 2008, 01:13 AM)
error free.One can dream :) I think this is one of the most unachievable things so far :D
no surprises.
The QNX operating system is a micro-kernel operating system, which means it consists of a relatively small base of code. "Take a string of Christmas lights," said Darrin Shewchuk, head of communications with Kanata, Ont.-based QNX Software Systems Ltd. "Remember the old style of Christmas lights where you had a big long string and if one bulb burned out the whole thing burned out and you had to go through each one and find out which single bulb failed? That's Microsoft."
Canada hasn't had a meltdown yet-4wd (August 14, 2008, 08:17 PM)
"Remember the old style of Christmas lights where you had a big long string and if one bulb burned out the whole thing burned out and you had to go through each one and find out which single bulb failed? That's Microsoft."Cute analogy, but I'm afraid it doesn't really fit. Yes, you can use it as a coarse comparison between microkernels and the rest, but it isn't spot-on. If you look a recent operating systems, the lines begin to blur - NT (and linux, for that matter) are pretty monolithic kernels, but you can still have individually failing parts that are able to restart... especialy with Vista, which runs graphics as a "relatively individual part".-4wd
The Amiga system rocked - we had multitasking way before Win3.1-f0dder (August 15, 2008, 01:14 AM)
The OS-9 version 2.4 manual had this entry describing UNIX in the Glossary of Appendix C of "Using Professional OS-9":
UNIX:
An operating system similar to OS-9, but with less functionality and
special features designed to soak up excess memory, disk space and CPU
time on large, expensive computers.
Some of my thoughts, that will sound bad to many people i'm sure. I note that i am talking about a desktop operating system not an internet server OS.
1) no appearance customization /skinning. enforce a completely standardized user interface. I think predictability of user interface and good guidelines for coders is important.
2) no different distributions of the OS. i recognize how cool it is that there are so many linux distributions but i just tend to prefer a more standardized controlled predictable approach to the core OS (im not saying anything about application "packs").
3) no included applications in the OS distribution, other than the most bare minimum (basic text editor maybe, and control panel type utilities).
4) minimal user interface fancy effects -- just a personal choice that i would rather keep the visuals to a minimum.
5) a focus on clean file system -- all of the current major OS make me crazy with how messy and chaotic their file systems are.
6) a focus on providing a clean object oriented API for programs. The entire focus of the operating system should be in providing a clean efficient interface to coders.
7) a focus on eliminating all hidden system settings.. do not use a registry system. software should be install-less, and installing a piece of software should be a simple matter of copying files to a fixed location. uninstallation would be just a matter of deleting the files.-mouser (August 14, 2008, 01:13 AM)
4. All applications install in their own unique single directory. One application per directory. Each new version installs to a new directory. It would also be nice to establish a formal version numbering system. Something like nn.ss.pppp where nn is version; ss is service pack or minor version; and pppp is patch level. (Ex: Wumpus V01.02.0003 = version 1, revision 2, patch level 3)-40hz (August 17, 2008, 05:29 PM)
BTW Congrats on the 100th post!-Darwin
AFAIAC, version, revision and patch level are completely arbitrary conventions - when does a programmer decide it's no longer a patch but a revision, no longer a revision but a major version change, etc.
I've seen programs that jump version numbers because programmers decided the patch number was getting too high, (don't ask, long time ago).
My optimum version numbering system would be a lot simpler, (although it results in a longer number), and requires no input from the programmer, (the compiler does it automatically):-4wd (August 17, 2008, 07:00 PM)
1) no appearance customization /skinning. enforce a completely standardized user interface. I think predictability of user interface and good guidelines for coders is important.
2) no different distributions of the OS. i recognize how cool it is that there are so many linux distributions but i just tend to prefer a more standardized controlled predictable approach to the core OS (im not saying anything about application "packs").
3) no included applications in the OS distribution, other than the most bare minimum (basic text editor maybe, and control panel type utilities).
4) minimal user interface fancy effects -- just a personal choice that i would rather keep the visuals to a minimum.
But on the other hand, there are some things about apple and there approach that i deeply dislike. First of all, i really do not like all the focus on visuals. So I guess one thing you could say is that i do want a standardized UI but not the mac/osx one.
5) a focus on clean file system -- all of the current major OS make me crazy with how messy and chaotic their file systems are.
6) a focus on providing a clean object oriented API for programs. The entire focus of the operating system should be in providing a clean efficient interface to coders.
7) a focus on eliminating all hidden system settings.. do not use a registry system. software should be install-less, and installing a piece of software should be a simple matter of copying files to a fixed location. uninstallation would be just a matter of deleting the files.
The other thing that apple does that i very much dislike is that in their attempt to make everything "easy" and "simple", they hide everything that's going on from the user. I remember a friend who was telling me how great the apple networking was.. then there was a problem connecting, and her mac did not want to say anything about what was wrong or how to fix it.
Hardware agnostic. Yes, I'm looking at you OS X! Though I don't want Apple to get mired in the driver hell of Windows and Linux, I want to be able to run it where I want. Apple should keep making drivers only for its hardware, and let the hackers do the rest as has sustained Linux for many years.-nontroppo (August 20, 2008, 06:26 AM)
The funny thing, as I've come to realise, is that I've gotten so used to the (relative) complexity of the program files folder, common files folder, registry and various user settings folders in Windows that I get frustrated by OSX - I guess I don't trust its simplicity!-Darwin (August 20, 2008, 09:25 AM)
I think Windows is one big complicated knot, whereas OS X is several fractal-like layers.-nontroppo (August 20, 2008, 10:31 AM)
1 ) Pervasive metadata — the OS should provide not only solid metadata handling per file, but support *extensible* metadata mechanisms for any file. Tagging, file usage and history and discoverable information has to be a core OS feature, not something tacked on by 3rd-parties. The OS should provide a core search facility built robustly on this metadata, again not some proprietary 3rd-party. And this data should be accessible to the cloud through design.NTFS sorta has this, through alternate data streams... but it's in no means integrated or usable (well, there's a few standard things like "comments" and such, but meh).-nontroppo
2 ) As a consequence, folder hierarchies should lose predominance and smart folders should pervade. No OS is where I want it to be (r.e. metadata and smart folders) on this.I'm not sure if I agree on this... I find well-structured folder hierarchies easy to navigate, and they're fast and efficient. For metadata based navigation, you either need very smart indexing, very smart caching, or you will suffer abysmal speed and/or bloat. And you need to be very good at tagging your files for something like this to be useful, imho... (yeah, there's content-based search, but then you do need those huge index files).-nontroppo
3 ) Delta versioned file system. Again, this should be core OS territory (even as much as I love Filehamster!), configurable per file. The interface should allow simple searching for a file through time, and apps should allow version comparisons easily (i.e. the OS API should enforce this). Time Machine is the closest so far (great UI), but I want underlying filesystem support which HFS+ doesn't have.ZFS has this, iirc, and it's a good idea. But I see problems with it - people would feel that it's a substitute for backups. And while versioning is cool, you still need those pesky backups :)-nontroppo
5) Core support for the coming GPU revolution. I do a bunch of DV editing, and harnessing the GPU as a general purpose device would rock. I don't want a proprietary 3rd-party to do this, I want it pervasive and universally offered by the OS. Better support from multiple CPUs goes without saying, but it is depressing to see high-core machines having cores sitting idle.Get NVidia to allow people to use the CUDA interface for free, and get the other companies to use it. CUDA doesn't even need to be opensourced to do this, it's "just" the API specs (and perhaps a few internals-style things) that needs to be fully documented.-nontroppo
2 ) As a consequence, folder hierarchies should lose predominance and smart folders should pervade. No OS is where I want it to be (r.e. metadata and smart folders) on this.-nontroppo
I'm not sure if I agree on this... I find well-structured folder hierarchies easy to navigate, and they're fast and efficient. For metadata based navigation, you either need very smart indexing, very smart caching, or you will suffer abysmal speed and/or bloat. And you need to be very good at tagging your files for something like this to be useful, imho... (yeah, there's content-based search, but then you do need those huge index files).-f0dder (August 21, 2008, 09:20 PM)
5) Core support for the coming GPU revolution. I do a bunch of DV editing, and harnessing the GPU as a general purpose device would rock. I don't want a proprietary 3rd-party to do this, I want it pervasive and universally offered by the OS. Better support from multiple CPUs goes without saying, but it is depressing to see high-core machines having cores sitting idle.-nontroppo
Get NVidia to allow people to use the CUDA interface for free, and get the other companies to use it. CUDA doesn't even need to be opensourced to do this, it's "just" the API specs (and perhaps a few internals-style things) that needs to be fully documented.-f0dder (August 21, 2008, 09:20 PM)
NTFS sorta has this, through alternate data streams... but it's in no means integrated or usable (well, there's a few standard things like "comments" and such, but meh).-f0dder (August 21, 2008, 09:20 PM)
I'm not sure if I agree on this... I find well-structured folder hierarchies easy to navigate, and they're fast and efficient. For metadata based navigation, you either need very smart indexing, very smart caching, or you will suffer abysmal speed and/or bloat. And you need to be very good at tagging your files for something like this to be useful, imho... (yeah, there's content-based search, but then you do need those huge index files).
ZFS has this, iirc, and it's a good idea. But I see problems with it - people would feel that it's a substitute for backups. And while versioning is cool, you still need those pesky backups :)
Get NVidia to allow people to use the CUDA interface for free, and get the other companies to use it. CUDA doesn't even need to be opensourced to do this, it's "just" the API specs (and perhaps a few internals-style things) that needs to be fully documented.
Just give me the Opera equivalent of an OS. Customizeable, lightweight, secure and disposable.-Paul Keith (September 02, 2008, 11:49 PM)
What we need is an OS that doesn't include anything except for the absolute bare bones and is lightening fast.-Carol Haynes (September 04, 2008, 01:47 AM)
So for my ideal OS, I want a well-defined database backend and a set of standard APIs for all, yes *all* these common tasks. One spellchecker. One database for addresses. One for bookmarks, one for to-dos, one for multimedia metadata, one for my email archive, and so on. No matter what email program I use, it should store the email and the addresses in the same one place, so that I can swap clients easily without affecting the data. And all browsers shouls share the same database of bookmarks. And each applications should be able to easily look up phone numbers in a system-wide database. And each application could spellcheck each and every little textbox by hooking up to the integrated spellchecker.-tranglos (September 04, 2008, 08:15 AM)
And oh yes, metadata for absolutely everything.-tranglos (September 04, 2008, 08:15 AM)
What's bothering me is the humongous proliferation of redundant, incompatible solutions to the same common tasks, repeated over and over. Quick check: how many applications do you have installed that carry their own independent spellchecker?
this is exactly the kind of thing that is most important for the OS to get right -- a common interface/api for all of these things that should be sharead/common throughout all applications.-mouser (September 04, 2008, 12:03 PM)
Just give me the Opera equivalent of an OS. Customizeable, lightweight, secure and disposable.-Paul Keith (September 02, 2008, 11:49 PM)
Ah ... so you want an OS that doesn't work properly a lot of the time [runs and ducks for cover ....]
What we need is an OS that doesn't include anything except for the absolute bare bones and is lightening fast. It should be possible of new 64-bit multicore technology so why does my system feel the same speed as it always has back to PIII days ?
Opera would be a bad model to use as the one thing such an operating system would need is a way to write extensions.-Carol Haynes (September 04, 2008, 01:47 AM)
And Opera being a bad model for extensions is also for me one of the things that it would make a perfect model for a perfect OS. Think about it. No matter how perfect an OS, if there are less than perfect programmers working on it than don't you risk breaking it now and again?-Paul Keith (September 04, 2008, 04:57 PM)
And Opera being a bad model for extensions is also for me one of the things that it would make a perfect model for a perfect OS. Think about it. No matter how perfect an OS, if there are less than perfect programmers working on it than don't you risk breaking it now and again?-Paul Keith (September 04, 2008, 04:57 PM)
Is there such a beast as a "perfect programmer" - even in the Opera team.
Without extensibility an OS would be dead in the water - there is no way that anyone will use an OS that tries to do everything internally.
What about applications - aren't they in effect extensions to the operating system - do you want a self contained turn key system that can't have any additional apps added? That would be SO proprietary as to be next to useless.-Carol Haynes (September 04, 2008, 06:22 PM)
So for my ideal OS, I want a well-defined database backend and a set of standard APIs for all, yes *all* these common tasks-tranglos
well underway in the semantic desktop crowd-urlwolf (November 01, 2008, 06:35 AM)