What Would You Like to See in a OS?

I've been thinking about this for a while, the dream OS. One that converges stability, compatiblity (backwards and forwards), security, looks and extendiblity. It would probably have to originate from the UNIX vein and be able to do all of the same things reguardless of the platform it's on (i386, 64-bit, Power PC).

One of the big needs would be the ablity to run all Windows NT (NT 3.1-XP), Windows 9x, DOS 1-6.22 + Windows 1-3x, Mac OS Classic and OS X, Linux programs. With this you could potentially run millions of programs past, present and future.

The other need would be a 3D GUI (with a 2D or command-line GUI as well). Since Vista will be needing DirectX 9, why can't it pull a full polygonal interface? It wouldn't take too much 3D power; and execution would be like Homeworld (the PC game), the perfect example to use. Imagine being able not to just scroll, but roatate and pan around? It would be really powerful and very nice to use.

Alas, no one would be able to pull all of this together, it'd take the combined pooling of all the current OSes source codes to be released to even come close. But there's always potential for it to happen.

What do you want in an dream OS?

Most amazing jew boots

I might be unneccessarily delving into semantics here, but I really don't believe that a user interface (flashy 3D stuff or command line regardless) should ever fall into the scope of duties of an operating system. Those functions are mere programs that run on the OS themself. It's sad that bad examples like Windows (95 and onward) became sort of the norm.

Apart from that, yes, I'd like to run a 3D interface on my OS, I'd also like to see full commitment of the hardware vendors, when it comes to drivers. Same goes for software firms who produce job-specific applications, be it book keeping, design or medicine. All in all, this is something, Linux could very well become within a couple of years (it's a cynical thing to say about both OSs, but Vista just has to suck bad enough).

How ya doing, buddy?

Just a few ideas...

-True and easy modulation of the OS. Everything and anything that isn't absolutely needed to run the OS can be removed and readded.

-Serious source code optimization. This could apply to any application as well. Why should we have to buy better hardware when programmers are too lazy to clean up their mess of code. Linux is getting pretty good, especially where XGL and a no-GUI setup are concerned.

That's all I can think of right now.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Kaiten

It would probably have to originate from the UNIX vein and be able to do all of the same things reguardless of the platform it's on (i386, 64-bit, Power PC).

I'd tell rather the contrary: quit following the UNIX vein and do something new, with less backwards "compabloatability" and more focus in modern processors' instruction sets (both 32bit and 64bit) and/or OS design paradigms.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

The one thing I would DEFINITELY drop is the universal software compliance idea. That would be an INSANE amount of bloat and slowdown that's absolutely unnecessary. I also agree that GUI should be completely seperate from kernel and am incredibly amused by everyone who wants a "3D" interface. Do you just want one that looks cool, or can you really think of some way a 3D interface could be easier or more convienient than a 2D one? It's not as simple as say "make me a 3D interface" - it has to be GOOD for something.

I was speaking idiomatically.

It might accelerate the development of a 3d input or display device which would be pretty rad.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Simply enough, it never comes up with an error or freezes up, it has the ability to block every single type of spyware known to man, and it has to say "Hello _______".


And, the OS should only install programs which are necessary and using only what is necessary what it is running.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by x86

I'd tell rather the contrary: quit following the UNIX vein and do something new, with less backwards "compabloatability" and more focus in modern processors' instruction sets (both 32bit and 64bit) and/or OS design paradigms.

If there are approaches more sophistcted AND practical (Hurd anyone?), I'd be interested to read about them. Could you provide a few keywords/links?

Originally Posted by Arainach

Do you just want one that looks cool, or can you really think of some way a 3D interface could be easier or more convienient than a 2D one? It's not as simple as say "make me a 3D interface" - it has to be GOOD for something.

Definately. Certain uses of transparency and the shrinking / enlarging of windows could help desktop navigation immensely. I'm not looking forward to a stable XGL because I want to enable every godadmn eye-candy option that becomes available with it (I certainly don't do that with all the 2D stuff I already have at my disposal). But of course, if it looks better in an elegant, unobtrusive way, I won't mind.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

(Hurd anyone?)

It's been under development for 16 YEARS and hasn't yet reached the functionality of MS-DOS. Kill it for God's sake. And it was roughly designed as a UNIX derivant except with a microkernel instead of a macrokernel anyhow.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

3D interfaces are useless until we have the ability to project them into the air and manipulate them directly with our hands. Until then, 3D interfaces are just an added layer of unnecessary complexity and resource consumption. There's no real problems with the 2D interface that can be solved by moving it to 3D but still interacting with it in 2D.

Now, when I can model with my hands in a 3D interface for Maya, or grab windows and pull them in front of or behind each other... THEN a 3D interface would be useful. But I think that's a ways off.

Cyrus, what you're suggesting is not a 3D interface, but a 2D interface that is composited/acellerated by a 3D graphics chip. So, technically it's rendered in 3D space, but it's not an actual 3D interface. And, as you pointed out, things like OS X, XGL, and Vista either have been or are going to be doing this.

As for what I'd like to see in my dream OS... I guess I really haven't thought about it much. Usually I just think of neat technologies that could be added to existing OS components or ideas to make them better or address some need I have. Most people's ideas for a "dream OS" (IT RUNS EVERYTHING ZOMG) are just unrealistic and probably won't ever be attained, so it's kind of pointless thinking about things like that.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I want a Unix-based OS with the looks and convenience of MacOSX and the software library of Windows (minus the viruses, trojans, spyware, adware, etc)

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I want better wireless support for Linux. It's a serious hassle that i've been having, setting up wireless for my Slackware.

I also want to see all main OS's to share a same theory, so that they can communicate and connect better. Everything's just so damn separate. And i want to see windows lighten up their system. Vista is only going to worsen this issue. The GUI and windows manager and work environment are only going to demand more and more resources...leading to higher requirements and more expensive rigs.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by killmoms

Cyrus, what you're suggesting is not a 3D interface, but a 2D interface that is composited/acellerated by a 3D graphics chip. So, technically it's rendered in 3D space, but it's not an actual 3D interface. And, as you pointed out, things like OS X, XGL, and Vista either have been or are going to be doing this.

You have a point there but until an actual 3D environment becomes viable for desktop computers, the 3D-enhanced-2D-formula remains very attractive on it's own. Sadly, it's not like concepts such as this one are looming right around the corner. By the way, did you notice that the amazing looking sci-fi-desktop in Minority Report was essentially just 2D as well? I find that quite hilarious.

Originally Posted by Arainach

It's been under development for 16 YEARS and hasn't yet reached the functionality of MS-DOS. Kill it for God's sake.

On top of that, the most popular Unix derivat is struggeling with mass adoption and hardware support as it is. It is highly doubtful that Hurd will turn any heads at all once it becomes somewhat usable.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

is struggeling [sic] with ... hardware support

I'm always sick of hearing this. You do realize that the Linux kernel supports a HELL of a lot more hardware than Windows ever has?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Of course I do.
When I was building my own kernel for the first time I was like "wooaahh, stop right there!" because the config menu seemed to list like every single piece of computer hardware ever built. But how good is that to a newbie with a printer unknown to Cups and produced by some backwater company that doesen't give a damn about Linux? "Next time you just buy a printer listed here and here...", isn't really something the average would-be-convert from the Windows camp wants to hear.

Personally, I select new hardware by these criteria, even avoiding certain brands (like LG after the Mandrake 9.2 thing) but it's an ordeal to explain these circumstances to someone new to a non-monopoly OS.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Magic

I want a Unix-based OS with the looks and convenience of MacOSX and the software library of Windows (minus the viruses, trojans, spyware, adware, etc)

I should also add "free" to this list.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Magic

I want a Unix-based OS with the looks and convenience of MacOSX and the software library of Windows (minus the viruses, trojans, spyware, adware, etc)

OS X is UNIX-based.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Concerning backward-compatibility: Implement the functionality either in a wine-fashion or using a vm-environment (when architecture isn't compatible).

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Arainach

OS X is UNIX-based.

Alright, then Linux-based or whatever. I still wanna be able to hit ctrl-alt-F1 to go to a VTerminal. Sometimes I just prefer the real thing to an emulator.

Oh, and making the UI completely keyboard accessible would be another plus. Works better on a laptop that way, and some days I just feel lazier than others.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Well personally I think a lot of OS's have their ups and downs. I however wouldn't mind using them all at once which is why I bring you the following link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vaCn...search=fast-os

If you do a search for fast-os on youtube most of the other videos are of instantly switching between OS's on a mac but this video is on a pc laptop so at least we know it's not just a mac thing. What I want to know is where the hell we can find out more about it b/c I wouldn't mind having windows and linux on the same box if I could instantly switch between the two.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

The only things gentoo linux is lacking for being a perfect os for me are:
- ALSA support for the hda-intel soundcodec is far from finished (volume control is flawed and only produces very low volume output)
- a replaygain-enabled mp3 plugin for audacious (that works the same way foobar2000 does - writing APEv2 headers to the file)
- maybe a port of foobar2000 (i'm not really pleased with audio players on unix)
- better hibernation support

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by AcerBandit

Well personally I think a lot of OS's have their ups and downs. I however wouldn't mind using them all at once which is why I bring you the following link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vaCn...search=fast-os

If you do a search for fast-os on youtube most of the other videos are of instantly switching between OS's on a mac but this video is on a pc laptop so at least we know it's not just a mac thing. What I want to know is where the hell we can find out more about it b/c I wouldn't mind having windows and linux on the same box if I could instantly switch between the two.

Virtual computers has never been a new idea, and has been in use for years.

It's only until recently has it become more practical, with dual-core processors, and with the release of processors with virtualization extentions.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Cool. Do you know anything about fast-os though? I google searched for it and didn't really find anything.

FELIPE NO

That's not the name of any Virtual computer software.

Common Windows ones are VMWare and Microsoft VirtualPC.

When you see one on an Intel Mac, it's usually Parallels Desktop.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

For some reason my old link doesn't work anymore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vaCnaUq8L8

So what are they using in this to switch between Windows and Linux?

Jam it back in, in the dark.