Metanet Forums

It's about time.
In other news, gOS takes Linux in some crazy new direction. I'd like to see that on a mobile phone. It's definitely light enough.

Ah yes. gOS. I looked into this a little while ago before putting Ubuntu 8.10 on my computer. Looks pretty neat.

Am I understanding correctly that the OS is only distributed on OEM machines?

Tsukatu wrote:Am I understanding correctly that the OS is only distributed on OEM machines?

It makes sense, at least for a first go. There's a whole lot of funky stuff that happens when you change hardware even slightly (I ran into a really hard-to-find problem that came from the fact that the testing machine had a 2GB stick of memory, while the development machine had two 1GB sticks). Bigger changes lead to more problems (e.g. "Does this Intel 82551-based network interface use the 82544 driver or the 82559 driver?"), as well as more bloat in order to be able to cover every eventuality. Ultimately, it's often better to say "here's a complete package, with our software on blessed hardware" than to say "here's our software, which only runs on X hardware". If you do the latter, you'll always get people who badmouth your product because they couldn't get it to run on Y hardware (e.g. "but it says right here it has the 82544 driver; why won't it use my 82551 NIC?").

taaveti wrote:There's a whole lot of funky stuff that happens when you change hardware even slightly (I ran into a really hard-to-find problem that came from the fact that the testing machine had a 2GB stick of memory, while the development machine had two 1GB sticks). Bigger changes lead to more problems (e.g. "Does this Intel 82551-based network interface use the 82544 driver or the 82559 driver?"), as well as more bloat in order to be able to cover every eventuality.

But that defies the fun of linux, or so they say :P

I blame Vista.

I like Microsoft.

I like blue_tetris.

Therefore, I agree with his opinion.

I'm of the opinion that microsofts needs to fire the whole windows division and dump NT. hire some fresh blood and go POSIX. it worked for Apple.

Yes, because what we need is for Microsoft to get *more* proprietary and evil.

I like windows ... but id prefer if they "upped" their graphics abit so it atleast looks as sleek as mac and that gOS thing instead of having the start bar down the bottom ... it looks horrible

jackass wrote:I like windows ... but id prefer if they "upped" their graphics abit so it atleast looks as sleek as mac and that gOS thing instead of having the start bar down the bottom ... it looks horrible

Umm... have you seen Aero?

About the OS

I've used the OSX for about 10 minutes, and then changed to Vista, and (tried) did the same stuff.

The first impression I've got is that the Mac, that has a design (in my opinion) more elegant and classy, even if aged, works faster, a lot faster.
I, a Windows XP user, was impressed with it. The UI it's a lot more intuitive.
But oh well, I can't base my opinion in a 10 min test.

I can't say anything on the Linux stuff though, as I haven't tried any decent linux yet.
That gOS looks good.

A question, I heard someone here (or anywhere else) saying that Microsoft, when developing a new Windows, doesn't delete some useless crap of the previous Windows version. Is that true? Hey, I found PROGMAN.EXE in the windows dir... mmm... interesting how it turned out to do nothing when I clicked it
Go Firefox. Go conquer the world. ^^

Donfuy wrote:A question, I heard someone here (or anywhere else) saying that Microsoft, when developing a new Windows, doesn't delete some useless crap of the previous Windows version. Is that true?

In order to maintain backwards compatibility, they have to keep most of the previous version of windows, or at least rewrite old functions to do the same thing faster.
If they didn't you wouldn't be able to run WinXP stuff on Vista.

TheSeer wrote:Yes, because what we need is for Microsoft to get *more* proprietary and evil.

Windows being POSIX would be dramatically less proprietary and evil...
POSIX (Portable Operating System Interface) is an open standard for operating system kernel interactions, which UNIX, Linux, and BSD comply with. OS X is based on BSD, so it by extension is POSIX. If Microsoft were to go POSIX, they'd probably switch Windows to a Linux base, as the Linux kernel offers most all the features of the NT base.

jean-luc wrote:

TheSeer wrote:Yes, because what we need is for Microsoft to get *more* proprietary and evil.

Windows being POSIX would be dramatically less proprietary and evil...
POSIX (Portable Operating System Interface) is an open standard for operating system kernel interactions, which UNIX, Linux, and BSD comply with. OS X is based on BSD, so it by extension is POSIX. If Microsoft were to go POSIX, they'd probably switch Windows to a Linux base, as the Linux kernel offers most all the features of the NT base.

The GPL forbids linking proprietary code to linux code. Microsoft would have better luck switching to a BSD style OS like Macintosh did. Microsoft would lose something that has been very valuable to them, though: by locking people in to products that only work on Windows, they retain a lot of customers. If all Windows software could be used on Linux and *BSD, nobody would use Windows.
However, the most interesting project for them would be to switch to an OS (POSIX ofc) based on the L4 family. It's an idea they've had for a while, and the GNU project (behind gcc, emacs, and a whole ton of other stuff) has been moving in that direction too.
I don't think that the top guys in Microsoft have that kind of foresight, though, really.

scythe33 wrote:

jean-luc wrote:

TheSeer wrote:Yes, because what we need is for Microsoft to get *more* proprietary and evil.

Windows being POSIX would be dramatically less proprietary and evil...
POSIX (Portable Operating System Interface) is an open standard for operating system kernel interactions, which UNIX, Linux, and BSD comply with. OS X is based on BSD, so it by extension is POSIX. If Microsoft were to go POSIX, they'd probably switch Windows to a Linux base, as the Linux kernel offers most all the features of the NT base.

The GPL forbids linking proprietary code to linux code.

The GPL states no such thing. It prevents incorporation of GPL code in to proprietary software. It does not ban the use of proprietary software alongside GNU systems. Microsoft could not modify the Linux Kernel to their needs and then call it proprietary, but they could build applications (desktop managers and all) on top of the Linux kernel and keep them proprietary without violating the GPL.
The issue with MS software working on all Linux and OS X machines - there are two primary issues with that
A) if MS really makes that many changes to a Linux to declare it Windows, dependencies will prevent the average user from even considering using Windows-only software on non-Windows machines. They would serve as a significant annoyance to advanced users.
B) that's a crappy reason not to do something - that should be a reason to do something. Intercompatibility of software is good for everyone. Users have full choice of operating systems and software, software companies can market to all computer users, and operating system makers are free to focus on the operating system itself over software for it. It would put a dent in MSs monopoly, but it'd be fantastic for everyone else.

I think Linux is a better choice than really any other POSIX-compliant core because it is currently the 'gold standard' of POSIX operating systems. Systems administrators and engineers are already comfortable working with Linux, as it's already widely implemented on servers and computing grids, and it's starting to make inroads to the desktop environment.

And notice the whole .NET thing - I think it's abundantly clear from how MS is pushing .NET that they're planning to switch away from the NT core sometime fairly soon. although most expect that the move will be to MinWin, this represents a good opportunity to look at switching to a POSIX base. Not that MS will, though. They have a vested interest in keeping their monopoly.

jean-luc wrote:

scythe33 wrote:

jean-luc wrote: Windows being POSIX would be dramatically less proprietary and evil...
POSIX (Portable Operating System Interface) is an open standard for operating system kernel interactions, which UNIX, Linux, and BSD comply with. OS X is based on BSD, so it by extension is POSIX. If Microsoft were to go POSIX, they'd probably switch Windows to a Linux base, as the Linux kernel offers most all the features of the NT base.

The GPL forbids linking proprietary code to linux code.

The GPL states no such thing. It prevents incorporation of GPL code in to proprietary software. It does not ban the use of proprietary software alongside GNU systems. Microsoft could not modify the Linux Kernel to their needs and then call it proprietary, but they could build applications (desktop managers and all) on top of the Linux kernel and keep them proprietary without violating the GPL.

Hogwash. Code that dynamically links to GPL code can be considered derivative and must be GPL'd itself. If Microsoft used a Linux-based Windows, they'd have little more freedom than the developers of SuSE and Red Hat.

The issue with MS software working on all Linux and OS X machines - there are two primary issues with that
A) if MS really makes that many changes to a Linux to declare it Windows, dependencies will prevent the average user from even considering using Windows-only software on non-Windows machines. They would serve as a significant annoyance to advanced users.
B) that's a crappy reason not to do something - that should be a reason to do something. Intercompatibility of software is good for everyone. Users have full choice of operating systems and software, software companies can market to all computer users, and operating system makers are free to focus on the operating system itself over software for it. It would put a dent in MSs monopoly, but it'd be fantastic for everyone else.

It would put a dent in MS's monopoly

Which is exactly why they wouldn't do it.

I think Linux is a better choice than really any other POSIX-compliant core because it is currently the 'gold standard' of POSIX operating systems. Systems administrators and engineers are already comfortable working with Linux, as it's already widely implemented on servers and computing grids, and it's starting to make inroads to the desktop environment.

Good because it's popular? Linux is a great system, but what happened the last time we used that logic? I think L4 and *BSD are more promising directions, really. I mean, how many times did Linuxes make this list, compared to BSDs?

And notice the whole .NET thing - I think it's abundantly clear from how MS is pushing .NET that they're planning to switch away from the NT core sometime fairly soon. although most expect that the move will be to MinWin, this represents a good opportunity to look at switching to a POSIX base. Not that MS will, though. They have a vested interest in keeping their monopoly.

Exactly.

Tsukatu wrote:

jackass wrote:I like windows ... but id prefer if they "upped" their graphics abit so it atleast looks as sleek as mac and that gOS thing instead of having the start bar down the bottom ... it looks horrible

Umm... have you seen Aero?

I've seen screenshots of it, I haven't seen a computer fast enough to run it yet. :/ [ yes, that is exaggeration. Thank you. ]
I mean, it's nice to have a cool computer. Like, if it doesn't eat all of your resources just to run the freaking GUI. And if it didn't cause periodic but serious lag in N.
It's probably just a preference thing, but I do indeed like Leopard better, and as soon as ShapeShifter's out I'm gonna use the GAIA guiKit instead.

Aero's just...over-the-top. Like they gave a six-shot espresso to a gloss freak graphic designer and told him to make a user interface.

I've seen screenshots of it, I haven't seen a computer fast enough to run it yet. :/

You must have seen some pretty poor computers in your time, then. I don't at all have a top-of-the-range one, but it runs fine on mine.

And I live in a desert.

Spawn of Yanni wrote:

I've seen screenshots of it, I haven't seen a computer fast enough to run it yet. :/

You must have seen some pretty poor computers in your time, then. I don't at all have a top-of-the-range one, but it runs fine on mine.

And I live in a desert.

That was...kinda...an overstatement of the case.

/me edits post

incluye wrote:

Tsukatu wrote:

jackass wrote:I like windows ... but id prefer if they "upped" their graphics abit so it atleast looks as sleek as mac and that gOS thing instead of having the start bar down the bottom ... it looks horrible

Umm... have you seen Aero?

And if it didn't cause periodic but serious lag in N.

There was a update, forgot which, that quickly removed lag from v1.4. And there's virtually no lag in nReality.

I stand corrected.