flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > i need an operating system

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
ManOfSteel wrote:

You misunderstood the idea. Most Windows sysadmins in the corporate world are as knowledgeable of Windows as the average user, i.e. they are self-appointed ignorants and incompetents.
Yes, I agree that we are miscommunicating, on this thread. I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that the thread began with a FASM forum member asking about an operating system for his/her own personal computer.

Regardless of whether or not I have misunderstood the original thread, I hope I have made it clear, or if not, let me try again to reiterate, I am not personally seeking an operating system which functions well, or poorly, in the corporate arena.

I am testing various nixes, with the view to replacing M$ on my desktop computers. I have been doing so, in my spare time since July. I anticipate preparing a vigorous testing methodology to apply to Google's Chrome, once it appears on the scene. I read sleepsleep's strong endorsement of Crunchbang, and attempted to use it, only to fail, and then supposed it to be as worthless as most of the other coasters.

The purpose of today's excursion into cyberspace, was to inform the world that I had erred, in my initial perception of Crunchbang as just another worthless variant of Ubuntu. I have found it to be outstanding, in every manner conceivable.

I am also fond of Puppy Linux, notwithstanding the name, and tolerate Slackware, though it is arcane.

As for the rest, they have failed, in some cases, the simplest of chores: boot up and installation. In other cases, they did connect, and react, upon my invocation of 256K OGG, the problem for those half dozen distros was that they had no streaming audio player available to receive OGG. Some of them could receive other audio streams, mp3, for example, while others (quite a few!) sent the OGG to a movie player, which yawned, and said "huh?, what's this"? Several distros asked me to select an application, and then offered none to select, though I had downloaded many, i.e. FULL, complete download. These distributions have errors in their "configuration" software.

All in all, slipshod engineering, apart from those three distros, in my opinion.

The real purpose of my post, was to throw down the gauntlet to those who believe that this or that flavor of *nix is better than some other. Please identify your algorithm for testing, and show us your results. Instead of writing "this or that distribution is lean, and crafty", or "xyz distro is superb", show us some data. Define a testing methodology, if you dislike the algorithm I chose, and test a few distros, to identify which one's work well, according to your idea of the proper way for a distribution to function.

For me, music is by far the single most important use I make of the internet, so a distro that cannot support streaming audio is useless. For you, or anyone else, music may be unimportant, but, then, something else, perhaps, IS important. Identify that parameter, and test the various distributions in their ability to carry out that function. Let us know your results....

Cheers,

Smile
Post 10 Oct 2009, 22:41
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8877
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
so far i haven't found something that may truly convert my windows, no doubt, windows xp/server & families are really good, in term of ease of use.
Post 11 Oct 2009, 07:46
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
I heard the UI design of vista was partially based on Mac...
Post 11 Oct 2009, 08:08
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8877
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
7 is nice,ui like vista almost identical.
But hooked up more resouces.
I downloaded vmware esxi free already,gonna try later.
Windows 2008 r2 hyperv also free. Maybe later i try.
But this actually open up more choices.
Those who code os specialized to run in virtual mode will win in lon run.
If we escape 2012,i predict, this new os will win if not 50 percent market share.
Post 11 Oct 2009, 08:17
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
tom tobias wrote:
Regardless of whether or not I have misunderstood the original thread

I was not talking about you misunderstanding sleepsleep's original thread, but misunderstanding my idea about the difficulty (impossibility?) of transforming a "good" system into a "user-friendly" system, and the incompatibility between having many useful features and having a user-friendly (should I say graphical) interface.
In these conditions, one is condemned to either use an easy-to-use but mediocre system, or an efficient system that requires certain efforts to setup, use and maintain. That was my point, and so far, the history of modern computing has proven it right.


tom tobias wrote:
Please identify your algorithm for testing, and show us your results. Instead of writing "this or that distribution is lean, and crafty", or "xyz distro is superb", show us some data. Define a testing methodology, if you dislike the algorithm I chose, and test a few distros, to identify which one's work well, according to your idea of the proper way for a distribution to function.

I don't have a fancy methodology or benchmark system, if that's what you're looking for, and I don't trust benchmarks (even "professional" ones) since they always compare systems designed for different purposes in a totally unfair way.
I don't like the GNU/Linux development model and other things about the whole project. I never advocated one distro over another (there are whole threads about that in other forums if you want) and I use FreeBSD.
As for your methodology, I criticized it because I don't think you're being fair with every part of the distro (the base system, DM, WM/DE, etc.) I don't know if you can do this with every distro (most probably you can), but you should at least try to run the WM/DE manually without letting the system autorun it and pass through a DM. This is what I naturally do everyday. When the base system boots, I login (still under the shell), then run xinit manually, which starts my fully customized WM (FVWM). I don't use neither a DM nor a full DE.
Now for the "test". Let's take the PIV as test machine. FreeBSD boots in 35-40 seconds. Sometimes it can be a little more (~45) when it takes additional time to get my DHCP lease, thanks to the crappy ISP. Note that this is a GENERIC kernel which means it contains every single device driver the FreeBSD project ever made. If I made a custom kernel with only the required drivers, it would probably save 5 seconds or so. Also note that there are two 3-seconds timeout counters/delays during startup, one of them being caused by dual-booting. xinit takes around 5 seconds to load Xorg and my WM. By that time, the whole system is loaded, and no HDD LED activity will be noticed after that (compared to Windows). Besides, this timing will never change, not even 5 years from now, as it does exponentially for Windows.


tom tobias wrote:
For me, music is by far the single most important use I make of the internet, so a distro that cannot support streaming audio is useless. For you, or anyone else, music may be unimportant, but, then, something else, perhaps, IS important. Identify that parameter, and test the various distributions in their ability to carry out that function. Let us know your results....

FreeBSD has a more limited software collection, compared to GNU/Linux distros. It "only" has 20,726 ports as of today (11 Oct 2009). There are dozens of programs that support audio/video streaming as both clients and servers, and hundreds of support libraries for every format/protocol out there.
As I already mentioned, I personally use mplayer. It supports playing local or remote files, discs (CD, DVD, VCD and DVD ISO images) and analog/digital TV/streaming. I mostly use it to watch videos (divx movies and YouTube FLV videos).
For music playing only (even though mplayer works perfectly well), I usually use moc (Music On Console), a magnificent command-line media player that can operate in daemon mode, so when I don't need to see the interface, I just quit the program and I continue hearing the music. When I want to skip a track, modify the playlist or in/decrease its volume, I just reopen the interface from any virtual console and quit again when I'm done.
BTW, both audio and video work flawlessly, even when I fast back/forward, on the 7 years old 2.4Ghz PIV, 384MB RAM.
Post 11 Oct 2009, 09:38
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
ManOfSteel wrote:
In these conditions, one is condemned to either use an easy-to-use but mediocre system, or an efficient system that requires certain efforts to setup, use and maintain.

I believe that you may be correct on this point, and I may be in error. would not be the first time that I was wrong!!!

But, can you explain to me, or perhaps you already have, and I am just so obtuse, that I can't see the answer right in front of my nose, What is it, about Puppy Linux (JWM window manager) and Crunchbang (OpenBox window manager) that you consider "mediocre"? Or, perhaps to put in a more meaningful way, What is it, about those two in particular, that you find inefficient?

For my part, I consider the end goal. I am not writing code to improve the Linux OS, so, I don't really comprehend why it is important that I know more about the OS, than what any end user needs to know.

As far as efficiency is concerned, there seem to me, without giving the matter any deep thought, two kinds of efficiency:
a. saving my time during the install process;
b. saving my time during the operation of the OS.

Well, as regards typing commands at some kind of terminal interface, I would regard that as a return to the 1970's, when that's all I had available.

With regard to the improvement, (which you assert, and which I do not contest, for I do not know whether or not you are correct, so I accept your assertion,) in the smooth running of the OS, if it has been properly configured, according to your criteria, I seriously DOUBT that I (or anyone else) would be able to detect (as opposed to measure with a stop watch) in normal usage, the difference between my installation, (on the same computer of course,) of Puppy Linux, and your installation of brand X.

Both of us would test this same computer, measuring boot time, time to get to the home page, and time to hear music playing.

I doubt that your "improvements" to the installation process, would lead to a superior result, i.e. a result that either of us could detect, if blindfolded.

I write this not because I doubt your skill, but because I think that the limited application I am making, running an audio player to listen to streaming OGG, will work about as well in any Linux environment. Now that is definitely NOT the case for Win XP. In my hands, at least, XP computers have undesirable pauses, lasting only half a second, or even a tenth of a second, occurring unpredictably, perhaps every four or five minutes, but the point is, the pauses are noticeable and disagreeable. Maybe they exist as well, under Linux, but thus far, I haven't paid sufficient attention. I will be looking for that aspect of the OS, during the next several days....

Thanks again for your many helpful comments, I found them all useful.
tom

Smile
Post 11 Oct 2009, 21:35
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Opening a terminal for making settings shows a flaw of the OS to make it easier to use.

Commandline is a powerful tool, but used properly not for things that can be done with the GUI. e.g: automatic batch scripts (I use the NT one a LOT and I've been told the Unix one is even more powerful).

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 11 Oct 2009, 22:59
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
kohlrak wrote:
I heard the UI design of vista was partially based on Mac...

Water and air... Two of the Four... two sides of the same coin...
Post 12 Oct 2009, 21:28
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
tom tobias wrote:
What is it, about Puppy Linux (JWM window manager) and Crunchbang (OpenBox window manager) that you consider "mediocre"? Or, perhaps to put in a more meaningful way, What is it, about those two in particular, that you find inefficient?

That you find those efficient doesn't mean they are top quality/efficiency, or are any better at using resources than other systems.
I wasn't talking about these two systems in particular. And the WMs you mentioned are okay. It's the GNU/Linux structure and development model that I dislike. It's nearly impossible to get the system you want since you have to use the whole combination of GNU software provided by the distro, and if you try to remove and replace them, you risk compromising/breaking the entire system or causing incompatibility issues... unless you make your own distro from scratch, of course.
*BSD are very different. They provide you with a complete and fully working base system, but nothing else (not even the framework for a graphical environment), and *you* add whatever you want to it, as completely separate third-party applications.

As I already said in other posts, the user-friendliness and the highly commercial Microsoft-like strategy of constantly adding whatever new features, reinventing the wheel, aggressively releasing new versions, enabling everything by default to make things easier, etc. has caused many problems, like a more bloated kernel and drivers, longer boot time, lower/crappier security, etc.
OTOH, *BSD add features only after very long development and testing cycles, rarely recreate things (thanks to a sound initial development) and make releases only when they're ready, even if the scheduled release date is postponed by months.


tom tobias wrote:
Well, as regards typing commands at some kind of terminal interface, I would regard that as a return to the 1970's, when that's all I had available.

It has its advantages over the exclusively graphical solution. Old doesn't necessarily mean outdated and new doesn't always mean better and more efficient... (dumber, maybe?)

Read my reply to Borsuc.


tom tobias wrote:

With regard to the improvement
[...]
I doubt that your "improvements" to the installation process, would lead to a superior result, i.e. a result that either of us could detect, if blindfolded.

Um, what improvements are you talking about exactly?
Post 12 Oct 2009, 22:30
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
Borsuc wrote:
Opening a terminal for making settings shows a flaw of the OS to make it easier to use.

How so? You are still misunderstanding the whole idea about Unix-like systems, thinking in Windows terms and comparing the two systems where there's no room for comparison.

Unix-like systems are originally production systems where X and any graphical interface 1) is absent, and 2) would be a major hindrance to any administrative work and a bloat on precious memory and processing resources if it was used.
On GNU/Linux, you *may* be able to make GUI configuration tools for system settings as there's no strict separation between the base system and user space tools. On *BSD, it would be more difficult since they're complete systems that lack any graphical tool by default.
In reality, only the two major DEs, KDE and GNOME, provide such tools, and while it would be possible to make tools outside these two, it seems there has been no need for it so far... for some mysterious reason I won't disclose Cool

Personally I don't find using shells difficult at all and it has many advantages. The only thing I don't really like doing using a shell is browsing the web, but it can very well be done. This is mainly why I don't use *full* command-line 24/7. All the rest, I already do in command-line, using a terminal emulator under X: getting new programs or updating existing ones, downloading any file bigger than the average (so I don't even need a download manager), torrent protocol file down/uploading, listening to music, and most of the time, coding too.
The only thing you can't do is using any high res graphical application, duh.

If you saw how many features Unix-like systems or some software like the Packet Filter have and how infinitely flexible they can be when using the different combinations of settings, you'd understand it is simply impossible to make a usable graphical interface. You'd either have a horrible visually bloated interface, or you'd have to remove many "advanced" features or only make them available from command-line or conf file editing anyway.

You were comparing Unix-like systems to Windows. Okay, let's compare.
I want to change a system configuration. I have to logout to get administrative privileges since running programs as does not always work and can really screw things up. I open the control panel or some bloated software (or regedit, very user friendly eh!?). Dozens of clicks later through countless windows, dialog boxes and tabs, I've found THE radio button or check box. I click Apply/Ok a few times to close all the opened windows/dialogs, then logout and login back to my user. I may have to reboot too.
In a Unix-like system, I fire up a (small-memory-footprint) terminal emulator using a keyboard binding I set up, get the required privileges, type the editor's name followed by the path to the file (*very* short compared to Windows paths), find and modify a line, save the file and re/start the appropriate service/daemon. Done! I never moved my arm or clicked anything and I only typed around 5 simple commands to get the settings applied on the running system. That's what I call easy to use, fast and efficient!


Borsuc wrote:
I use the NT one a LOT and I've been told the Unix one is even more powerful).

It's not only the high quality of the shells themselves (that have been maturing for 30+ years), but also the power of piping *any* input and output between the shell and any of the very powerful base system tools. Scripting is even used deep down in the system which makes every process highly customizable.
Post 12 Oct 2009, 22:31
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8877
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
idk if i am infected with some kinda weird sickness.
i don't like OS that contained lot of files which i have no idea what is what and they are sitting inside the drive.
i am more to a minimalistic person, (idk if that is a weird sign or something)

i couldn't find an OS in current market which is based on common sense. common sense mean, one automatically know how to use it based on his/her life experience.

eg. like when you see a cat/dog in a drain, you will try think and find a way to get that animal out.

imo, every rules in OS should based on human life learned experience and common sense.

eg. when you go to restaurant and want to order food, you write *($@#*(&%$#& inside the order bill (like in console), or just tick watever you want (like the checkbox & listbox & dropdown combo).

am i weird, i guess so.
Post 09 Nov 2009, 22:43
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
sleepsleep wrote:
i couldn't find an OS in current market which is based on common sense. common sense mean, one automatically know how to use it based on his/her life experience.

Please try Puppy Linux, and let us know the result...
Smile
Post 10 Nov 2009, 02:17
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
TmX



Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 821
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
TmX
sleepsleep wrote:

am i weird, i guess so.


no, you're not weird at all.
give debootstrap a try... Wink
Post 10 Nov 2009, 14:34
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Raedwulf



Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 375
Location: United Kingdom
Raedwulf
I keep thinking of using FreeBSD - might be a good idea for my router/server/gateway/jukebox which im planning to stick two 80gb disks in - I'll be reformatting it.
For day to day use I use Archlinux (which has been compared favourably as the linux flavour that resembles Freebsd).

I'm defining GUI as a HCI application with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Common_User_Access style interface.
In that respect, I use 1 GUI application - which is firefox.
This is slowly being replaced by the use of UZBL which is another browser.

Semi-GUI apps are irssi, mutt and vim. I.e. interactive applications within a console/terminal.

I don't really use anything else.

@ManOfSteel: I wish freebsd x86_64 had nvidia drivers (though I did hear thats coming soon!) and it would be nice if CUDA was ported (unlikely to be soon).
These are the main reasons holding me back - I do game development in my free time - www.urbanterror.net - and need it to run OpenGL 2.1 stuff.

Freebsd i386 isn't really an option - i have 4gb RAM and x86_64 itches and there's still no CUDA.

An interesting thought though, freebsd supports running different branded *.so . In theory, at least, taking CUDA binaries from linux and doing some assembly magickery - there maybe a chance that you can force linkage to a linux branded dll and let it run.

Calling conventions - afaik x86_64 on *nixes are compatible!

Problem: I need to reformat my computer (I made a FakeRaid RAID0 setup to support drive sharing between win and linux).
Next time I won't make that mistake - I hardly ever use drives from each other anyway - and its easily rectified with my new portable harddisk.
But... full backups are not fun...
Post 11 Nov 2009, 12:49
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
Real men use BefOS. Laughing
Post 12 Nov 2009, 15:42
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
o_O

The kernel is smaller than one of those little demos they used to make for DOS!

_________________
Post 12 Nov 2009, 22:54
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
kalambong



Joined: 08 Nov 2008
Posts: 165
kalambong
rugxulo wrote:
Real men use BefOS. Laughing


Hmm.... have to wonder how far you can actually use it in the real world™.
Post 08 Apr 2010, 23:05
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8877
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
latest haiku,,, time to spend sometime to test it...
Post 10 Apr 2010, 17:30
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
kalambong wrote:
rugxulo wrote:
Real men use BefOS. Laughing


Hmm.... have to wonder how far you can actually use it in the real world™.


Not very far unless somebody decides to extend it to Befunge98 (unlikely but possible, but not by me).
Post 11 Apr 2010, 06:47
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8877
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
ubuntu 10.04 LTS
http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu/1004features

more and more like mac os.. huhhuuuuhuu

gonna download them later and try.
Post 30 Apr 2010, 01:56
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.