Author Topic: What would your ideal Operating System be like? (Read 54052 times)

mouser · « **on:** August 14, 2008, 12:59 AM »

We've had a few recent long threads on the differences between windows and linux and on which operating system you like best, but i thought it might be nice to discuss what we would all like to see in a perfect operating system.

Post as detailed a description as you like -- it would be nice to hear both from end users and from those who know a bit about recent developments in modern operating system internals.

mouser · « **Reply #1 on:** August 14, 2008, 01:13 AM »

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.

Gothi[c] · « **Reply #2 on:** August 14, 2008, 01:23 AM »

Free as in Freedom and Beer.
Clean, object oriented, documented code.
As customizable as possible, both with scripting and plugins on every level.
Lots of modularity and choice for different purposes. Once size does NOT fit all.
Has a mysterious new method of spreading the cpu load of applications across multiple CPU cores, on an OS level instead of an application level, so developers don't have to deal with complex threading, mutexes, etc, just to write applications that work efficiently with modern mutli-core systems. Yet the traditional threading model should still be available.
Due to it's modularity and scalability it should run on older computers as well as new hardware efficiently.

[edit]

Efficient resource usage, no waste to bloat. Ie, it doesn't make a 3GHz box feel like an old P300MHz

[/edit]

Secure, the ability to do full-disk encryption etc...
A sad reality is that it will have to have hardware compatibility with so many different types of hardware, both new and old. ( Sad because, I'd really like to see some new architectures, but the truth of the situation is that old legacy hardware is cheap, and anything new would be out of my price range )
And then, the most important thing, I guess, is not the Operating System, but the Applications. The best OS will be worth nothing without good applications written for it. But since this thread is about the Operating System, I'll stick to that and end the list here:) Though it's all just from the top of my head - i'm sure it's full of flawed logic

Gothi[c] · « **Reply #3 on:** August 14, 2008, 01:27 AM »

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").

I wouldn't want your OS

Nice way of pointing out the direct opposites of my perfect OS

Just proves that one size doesn't fit all theory

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

kartal · « **Reply #4 on:** August 14, 2008, 01:47 AM »

-no software installations
-near instant startup
-please, no registry
-simple easy cloning-mirroring of operating system on other machines
-if possible make it free

(No ads supported OS)
-security should be the most important part of the os design
-simplified hardware-driver management
-please use encrypted drives, even for system files
-better default firewall and network manager(xp and vista`s network-firewall managers are a joke compared to commercial or free firewalls)

Target · « **Reply #5 on:** August 14, 2008, 02:00 AM »

transparent
lean and mean
stable & secure (in that you can't hack it to do something it's not supposed to, not as in firewalling etc)
standard interface - no eye candy
no applications (it's an operating system, dammit!!)
single version
simple(?) API

An operating system should be just that - a platform on which applications can be run.

If you want a firewall, add one. If you want a text editor, add one. If you want a browser, add one

Do not force me to carry dozens of applications that I'll never use and which have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual operating system

zridling · « **Reply #6 on:** August 14, 2008, 03:13 AM »

Hmmm.... seems like mouser, kartal, and Target stole my thunder.

Every superfluous driver would be stripped, and every extraneous piece of code placed onto a spare DVD to be used only if we called for it.
Remove all but the core command sets. All obscure executable items and 99% of such things as fonts, sounds, and stock photos should be loaded only when requested. Ask for the media or, better yet, download it from a secure/authenticated Web site at run-time, when needed. This alone would allow most operating systems to be held on a single gigabyte USB stick. No flexibility would be denied. Bloat would evaporate.
Stability of Linux.
Speed of Windows x64 versions.
VMWare would be mandatory.
Rock-solid, stupid-easy data backup.
Choice of filesystems -- Ext3, WinFS, Reiser, or ZFS. GPL them so we no longer must appease proprietary, standards-less, incompatible applications. And make them run on all processor families (no special flavors).
The greatest text editor ever conceived by the human mind.

Eóin · « **Reply #7 on:** August 14, 2008, 04:23 AM »

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)

Not sure I agree there, sure making life easier for programmers could mean more quality programs but would it really? Honestly I don't think so.

And at the end of the day I can't see users caring how difficult or not the OS is for developers.

housetier · « **Reply #8 on:** August 14, 2008, 05:12 AM »

error free.
no surprises.

Gothi[c] · « **Reply #9 on:** August 14, 2008, 05:16 AM »

error free.
no surprises.

One can dream

I think this is one of the most unachievable things so far

Darwin · « **Reply #10 on:** August 14, 2008, 08:05 AM »

No registry would be tops on my list while a clean and consistent UI would be right behind it. Other preferences near the top of the list would include realistic hardware requirements and, by extension, a small footprint. Free would be nice, but it is less important.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #11 on:** August 14, 2008, 08:48 AM »

One of the best OSes I have ever used was designed by Acorn Computers for their Risc based computer systems in the 80s. Unfortunately they couldn't compete.

Software installation was simplicity - just copy the software folder to the hard disc. All dependencies were included with the application and during load each app simply checked to see if the required dependencies were in memory (or newer version) and if not. All dependencies (inc. OLE) were totally modular. The best bit was to run the application you simply double clicked the application folder (which could be placed anywhere you like). Each folder had a !Run text file included which told the folder how to behave on double click (great because it meant you could easily design your own apps to work in exactly the same way).

The OS came as a set ROM chips - quick and easy to install, superbly fast boot times (practically instant) and no chance of the core system becoming corrupted by viruses/malware etc. just reboot and you have a clean system.

A very simple and easily extensible scheme.

Some ideas were used by MS when they released Windows 98.

Their desktop interface was very good too - no menus to clutter the place up. It used a 3 button mouse with the middle mouse always bringing up the application context menu.

Shame it disappeared but a small UK company couldn't compete in the PC market. They are now ubiqutous though throughout most electronics as they became ARM Ltd which seems to produce most of the world's RISC based chips for cell phones, PDAs and all sorts of devices.

housetier · « **Reply #12 on:** August 14, 2008, 09:41 AM »

Carol, rox-filer behaves similar. You have so called AppDirs which differ from normal directories by having an executable file named AppRun inside. When you "open" such an AppDir, rox-filer executes the file.

It is not an OS, just a graphical file manager: http://roscidus.com/desktop/

With 0install I can install lots of software packages via drag and drop.

The name "rox" comes from "Risc OS on X" btw

risc rocks

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #13 on:** August 14, 2008, 09:44 AM »

You can still buy RiscOS computers but I don't think they have been developed much since the 90s.

Now Risc OS on X sounds interesting. Time to play in VMWare I think ... esp. as it appears to run under Windows, Linux and MacOS !

f0dder · « **Reply #14 on:** August 14, 2008, 02:47 PM »

These are just some of my thoughts. I've tried to strike some balance between idealism and realism. I wouldn't mind getting rid of all legacy (hardware as well as software), and it'd be just wonderful if you didn't have to pay for anything and everything had source code available etc... but I do live in the real world. Sorta

POLITICS

Doesn't necessarily have to be (beer) free, but price needs to be right. Considering that this should be the OS running "everywhere", price could be low. Money helps the world go round.
I'd prefer kernel and drivers to be opensource. At the same time, I appreciate that R&D costs means that parts of especially graphics drivers might have to be closed.
ONE distribution, a sense of direction, and no great egos on the core team.

KERNEL

Modular, with ability to load/unload modules as necessary. Keep core kernel LEAN_AND_MEAN, without ability to compile modules directly into the kernel (enforce modularity). Design this to have minimal overhead.
Keep ABI stable through major versions. Ability to use new drivers/modules without having to reboot for a kernel upgrade rocks.
Kernel drivers for basic video functions (accelerated 2D, mode switching, etc.) to allow for graphical applications without the need for a full windowing system (think embedded systems, games, ...). Windowing system would obviously also use this interface, allowing windowing system and other graphical apps to coexist.
Binary interface for getting/setting system info, instead of generating/parsing textual /proc-style pseudofiles.
Fine-grained ACL-based security.
Decent native API that's powerful yet comfortable to program for.
Legacy sucks, but we can't avoid it. Support different subsystems (POSIX, WIN32?) that builds ontop of native API.

FILESYSTEM LAYOUT

Well thought out and uncluttered. No dumping of a zillion files in monolithic /bin, /etc. Each "major" app will get it's own subfolder(s) - still split binaries and config files in separate folders for ease of backing up, though.
Registry. Binary format. Not a single monolithic registry, though - there will be a registry (or "hive") for system settings, per-application global registry, and per-user registries (not per-user per-app registries though). This means backing up config is easy, you don't have to deal with a zillion different config formats, and you have a single efficient API for getting/setting config information. Not to mention secure, atomic, transactional config writes.
One layout to rule them all. No /usr, /usr/local, /var, et cetera. /bin (and per-app subfolders) for programs and static data files, /cfg for configuration (subfolders probably not necessary, since there should be one registry/hive file per app), /home with per-user subfolders. /core (or whatever name) with core OS files, possibly subfolders for drivers, boot files, et cetera. System/kernel config would still be registry/hive file in /etc.

OPERATING SYSTEM

"Roles" or "profiles" at install-time - minimal, desktop/user, desktop/developer, server, manual package selection. Manual selection should be able to start with one of the other roles for default selections so you don't have to go through everything manually. Imho one base OS image can fit everybody, if modular enough.
Powerful package manager - one core API, with possibility for both graphical and cmdline clients. Distributed repositories to balance server load, cryptographic package signing. Package system should handle both binary and source packages, so you can either grab vanilla builds or customize to your needs, but using one interface for everything, and never ending up with a screwed-up system.
ONE desktop environment to rule them all, but make it customizable enough that most people will be happy. Less headache for developers, less headache if you need to use somebody else's machine.
Default distribution media needs to come with an assortment of app binary packages. Not everybody has internet connectivity, and not everybody who does have broadband.
Keep the thing user friendly, but without dumbing-down that pisses power users off. Imho OS X dumbs things down, while linux distros still require a bit too much tinkering for "normal people" use - some are pretty friendly now, but nobody should have to drop to a shell or edit config files to get a printer, multi-monitor setup etc. working.
Integration. Everything should feel like "it belongs together" and interoperates properly. This does mean standard choice of browser/file manager, but there should be hooks so power-users can perfectly integrate their own choice of browser etc.

And as a separate point: documentation. Proper, maintained, indexed, structured, professional, up-to-date documentation for everything - kernel, libraries, applications, et cetera.

EDIT: a thing I forgot - portability. But not over-the-edge "run frigging everywhere" mentality... limit to "sane" hardware, probably setting the bar at at least 32bit architectures with proper memory-management/protection hardware. Possibly forget about supporting "big iron" machines, I'm not sure one OS can really fit everything comfortably. And portability also shouldn't mean you can't take advantage of CPU-specific optimizations where they make sense.

Oh, and another thing: designed ground-up with hypervisor and virtualization support. This can be done without much overhead, and would mean internet-facing applications (browsers, servers, you name it) can run in very secure sandboxes, without having to code a boatload of per-application sandbox code.

Darwin · « **Reply #15 on:** August 14, 2008, 06:10 PM »

Wow! That's quite a vision of your ideal OS, f0dder

- you've given this some though, haven't you

Anyway, very interesting.

4wd · « **Reply #16 on:** August 14, 2008, 08:17 PM »

QNX Neutrino RTOS - Back in my Amiga days I still remember the demo disk they had, a complete RTOS, GUI interface and web browser on a single bootable 1.44MB floppy.

I've still got the OS CD, (IIRC - a 5cm disc!), they gave out at one of the last Amiga shows around here somewhere.

Canada hasn't had a meltdown yet

I like their Microsoft analogy

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."

PS: Woohoo! Only 1 post to go!

Shades · « **Reply #17 on:** August 14, 2008, 09:05 PM »

Aaahhhh...the Amiga days, fond memories

Especially with its PFS file system (that I later bought), DirectoryOpus 5 with this filesystem, 32Mb RAM, 68030 on steroids (50MHz!!!) and a 2GByte harddisk...it was really fun playing DOOM (and others from that era) on that A1200.

EDIT:
Oops, forgot to say that I really liked the robustness from the AmigaOS...and Arexx...and text file configuration. The folder structure was also reasonably simple.

Argh, you done it...now I have to fire up Cloanto again!!!

zridling · « **Reply #18 on:** August 15, 2008, 12:34 AM »

f0dder knows of what he speaketh -- wow!

Darwin · « **Reply #19 on:** August 15, 2008, 12:49 AM »

Canada hasn't had a meltdown yet
-4wd (August 14, 2008, 08:17 PM)

You obviously haven't been paying much attention to the Olympics then! Ouch! Did I say that out loud?

]

BTW Congrats on the 100th post!

f0dder · « **Reply #20 on:** August 15, 2008, 01:14 AM »

"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."
-4wd

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".

Makes one think pretty hard about whether to go for pure computer science ideals, or for stuff that works. Pure microkernels are lovely conceptually, but have too much overhead (imho). Striking a balance between concept and implementation is the thing to do.

The Amiga system rocked - we had multitasking way before Win3.1 and Desqview arrived (well, that's how I remember things, being in europe and pre-teen without a spending budget). Amiga had really cool hardware layout with specialized chips, which meant the relatively underpowered 68k hardwared (along with the special chips) did better than the x86 machines at the time. On the other hand, there was no proper memory isolation etc. in the lower-end 68k chips, so when something went wrong, you got a total guru meditation. Amiga was the system that taught me to <hotkey-save> after entering a sentence.

We need to shun sentimental memories (but still remember the past - good as well as bad), be as objective as we can about current affairs (drop the fanboyism and admit flaws of our favorite OS... there's a lot of them for all of them, and we won't agree on everything

), et cetera. I feel my ideas are relatively agreeable in general, but I know that not everyone will agree - there are pretty strong opinions in this field. It's probably even worse than politics.

Anyway, I wish that people would start writing portable software (and not that autoconfig junk), and that we'd see things like ZFS and XFS ported to Windows... NTFS is cool but pretty ancient, and I'd love to see some realistic head-to-head benchmarks.

Whereismyangel · « **Reply #21 on:** August 15, 2008, 06:22 AM »

Mind reading !!!

40hz · « **Reply #22 on:** August 15, 2008, 03:23 PM »

The Amiga system rocked - we had multitasking way before Win3.1
-f0dder (August 15, 2008, 01:14 AM)

OS-9 had it before that. I remember seeing it run on a Tandy/Radio-Shack CoCo.
http://en.wikipedia....-9#21st_century_uses

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.

I just discovered OS-9 is still available (in a vastly updated form) for embedded systems:

http://www.microware...uctdatasheetsid=1412

Edvard · « **Reply #23 on:** August 15, 2008, 05:56 PM »

I remember the QNX demo. And a great article here.
BeOS employed some nice buzzwords that should be de facto part of any modern operating system: pervasive multithreading, preemptive multitasking, full memory protection, etc.
But enough nostalgia...

I fully agree with f0dder. I would add that the printing subsystem should be self-contained. One of my personal gripes about Linux is I found out that most printer functions beyond basic text and paper sizes in Linux are dictated either by the application or the widget set.

QT, I'm looking at YOU!

I was doing some work in QCad and was trying to print my drawings to American Architectural paper sizes. Guess what? There were none. Someone at the QCad forums suggested that the unsupported page sizes are "exotic" and maybe we should be satisfied with Letter or Tabloid sizes.
Excuse me? Like A0 (841 × 1189mm) isn't 'exotic', but Arch D (610 × 914mm) is?
Whatever...
After some Googling around, I found out that it was actually a component of the QT widget set (qprinter.cpp, specifically) that defined paper sizes.

I got brave and typed in some American paper sizes and tried to compile it.
No dice.
I'm still waiting for an answer back from Trolltech...

It would be much better to have a completely separate printing subsystem that all applications could communicate with.

I've often wondered what the big deal was between micro and monolithic kernels. Guess I got some reading to do...

urlwolf · « **Reply #24 on:** August 16, 2008, 06:04 AM »

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)

hmm, mouser, most of your features remind me of OSX. And that cannot be as I know you don't particularly like OSX. The GUI is standards-heavy; install seems to be drag and drop , etc.

But again, I've never used OSX so I have no idea what I'm talking about.

I can see the point of the standards for GUI/windowing systems.
I wanted to code up something similar to intellicomplete for linux... only to realize that it's impossible; such a huge variety of windowing systems/toolkits (Qt, GTK, etc). Something like ahk (which is a hack, but does wonders) is not possible on linux I'd say.

I once discussed with my partner how a REST-based OS would work. That is, there are basic operations that all devices/files should know how to do -CRUD-. That's maybe a good topic for a post...