What Would You Like to See in a OS?

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?

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

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

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.

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