Re: VERY basic linux system

On Friday 27 January 2006 08:01, xlar54 stood up and spoke the following
words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.misc...:/

>> Your reasons for /plonking/ - is that even possible with Google
>> Groups?
>> - Grant Edwards are totally unfounded. He was only being truthful.
>
> TRUTHFUL? Are you kidding me? Read what he said:
>
> <
> Yes, some are. Not that you could reach that conclusion from
> reponses to your troll-post. I thought everybody was quite
> poite and helpful considering you're just trying to hank our
> collective chain.
>>
>
> Read my very first initial post. What did I say to antagonize
> ANYONE?!?!?!!? My GOD you people are paranoid. Sorry I asked!
> "Helpful, friendly linux community" my ass. This thread has gotten
> retarded, and I still fail to see what the hell has people's panties
> up in wads.

See below, please...

>> Dan C has less patience, and that is something we all know. Yet in
>> this case, he has a point.
>
> A point? Lets read HIS first response....
>
> <
> ...Yawn... Scores a 1.2 (out of 10) on the Troll-o-Meter.
>>
>
> ??? WTF ??? Are you reading the same news articles Im reading?

Yes, but the thing is that we often get posts very similar to yours, and
they are quite often - although not always - intended as trolls.

Trust me, as a GNU/Linux and Free Software advocate, I have seen all
sorts, and yours did match a lot of the criteria, even if that was
never your intention.

If I'm wrong, then I apologize.

>> You are inquiring on whether GNU/Linux can be hacked to be more like
>> Windows, which is a stupid thing to do. The simple answer is "Yes,
>> the source code is free, so it's yours to do with as you please."
>
> YOU said Windows, I didnt. I dont want a GUI. I didnt ask for a GUI.
> How is this like Windows?

I was assuming that the GUI would be part of the picture. But then what
you seem to be after would sound more like a modernized version of DOS
to me.

The only possible innovation in that area that I know of would be the
development of a 32-bit - or eventually 64-bit - version of DOS.

IBM had plans to do that once, but they never even got started. After
all, they were hoping for OS/2 to make the break. Luckily for them,
they're now betting on a much healthier horse. ;-)

>> The more complicated answer is what you got in different versions
>> from all those who replied to you - and I myself have refrained from
>> doing that as I thought (and still think) that you're just another
>> person who wants a free - whether it's as in "freedom" or as in "free
>> beer" version of Windows or DOS.
>
> Sigh... No, Im not wanting a free Windows or DOS. Im wanting to
> explore how a basic OS works. I AM a developer, so whats wrong with
> making some changes while Im in there that make sense to me? Geez... I
> didnt ask if they made sense to anyone else, all I asked is if the
> core of Linux would help me get where I want to go.

Fair enough. Well, in essence, pure Linux is only a kernel, and if
you're got at programming - the source code does contain quite a bit of
assembler, but the majority is in C - you can tweak it to your heart's
desire.

Of course, you would also need to write the utilities and libraries. In
GNU/Linux, these are basically the GNU operating system without its
native kernel - the Mach/Hurd is a microkernel design that's still not
fully functional as we speak. GNU is a Free - as in "freedom" - UNIX
clone, written from scratch by the Free Software Foundation, founded by
Richard Stallman.

Richard Stallman also wrote most of the GNU utilities himself, including
/Emacs/ and /gcc./

>> In the event that you are indeed looking for such an initiative,
>> check out FreeDows or ReactOS. Those projects are already in full
>> development and I believe beta versions may already be available.
>
> Ive looked at both, and neither are what I am aiming for. Im not
> really wanting an OS per se, but something I can work on and learn
> from myself. These systems have grown so much in complexity, that
> stripping it back down to bare essentials is the only way to really
> learn them, in my opinion.

Then why not do it right and focus on a proven design such as
UNIX/POSIX? Why drop back to drive letters and single-user
functionality?

Hmm... Actually, the original Unix as written by Ken Thompson and Dennis
Ritchie at AT&T Bell Labs already existed as a fully-functional
operating system long before CP/M did, and - as I said before - CP/M
had drive letters because it was meant to work with floppies, which
required a lot of disk swapping.

>> Most of what you say you want to do with GNU/Linux - bear in mind
>> that Linux without GNU is only a kernel - is idiotic in this day and
>> age. GNU/Linux was conceived as a UNIX-style operating system, and
>> with good reason. UNIX is the most portable, rigid, versatile and
>> flexable of all operating system architectures.
>
> Without risk of being accused of trolling again <roll eyes> why is
> trying to learn something, and possibly making something useful
> "idiotic"? Sad if they told Linus the same thing back during his
> first post. Not to mention, the last part of that statement is clearly
> biased.

Forgive me if I have offended you - as a person afflicted with Asperger
Syndrome, my communicative skills are somewhat impaired, contrary to
what my writing style might suggest - but I just can't see why you
would want to turn a perfect design into a less perfect one.

My guess would be that anyone who would want to write a new operating
system from scratch would most definitely not be throwing away all that
makes an operating system so much more functional. I would rather
expect that person to start working on improvements and enhancements to
the design, not that he strips it down.

>> Flat filesystems are at best tedious if you're dealing with the great
>> amount of files in a modern operating system. Genuine multiuser
>> functionality is what makes an operating system secure and highly
>> functional - think "remote access".
>>
>> Windows drive letter designations - which date back to CP/M - are
>> simply ridiculous on any _real_ operating system. The reason they
>> were introduced in CP/M and were maintained via QDOS in MS-DOS is
>> simply that those systems were intended to be used with floppies in
>> microcomputers that did not have - and could not even use - a hard
>> disk.
>
> Good info. Thank you.

See, in UNIX, there is no need for the user to know what volume what
files are on. There is a single, hierarchic root directory, which
simply stands for "the computer", or eventually "the network".

And then, in that hierarchy, you have a designated area where the user
can write his own files. Everything else is off-limits to the user for
security reasons.

Making a distinction between physical diskdrives is only overhead.
Everything is mounted to the same hierarchic tree, whatever medium it
comes on.

You may want to check out the following link...:

http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html

>> Go ahead and /plonk/ me too if that is what you want to do - believe
>> me, I don't care if you were to - but the only thing you are showing
>> by your original post - as well as by your rather cocky way of
>> replying - is that you are just another Windows-indoctrinated person
>> who can't bring himself to accept any other operating system logic
>> than what you've been conditioned with by many years of exposure to
>> Windows.
>
> Here we go again. I have no reason to plonk you. I dont get this
> attitude against me. Geez. Who said I was a windows indoctrinated
> person? Im actually coming from an Amiga OS background. I only work on
> Windows machines. And my "cocky replying" didnt even begin until I
> started being called a troll for no reason at all other than the
> portal Im using to talk here. Im not going to let people run all over
> me, nor would you.

Again, I apologize. As for people judging you over the medium you use
for posting, disregard that. Google Groups was - and still is - known
as a tried and tested posting method for Usenet trolls, but they have
in the meantime already discovered the virtues of anonymizing proxy
servers... ;-)

>> An operating system as you suggest would not even classify as
>> reinventing the wheel. It would classify as "throwing the wheel away
>> and going back to towing stuff along in a bag over your shoulder".
>> No offense, but your vision on what a modern operating system should
>> be is simply perverse.
>
> Im not TRYING to make a "modern day perverse" operating system. Read
> my posts again.

Okay, okay, get off your horse! ;-)

But just listen to my advice before you start reinventing the wheel by
falling back to the stone age of IT... ;-þ

>> But then again, all GPL'ed code can be used freely and to your own
>> discretion, on the condition that you re-release your source code
>> under the same conditions as the GPL'ed code you're using and that
>> you make a small reference in your code to the original code you've
>> used.
>
> Understood.

As someone else has pointed out, there are multiple Free Software
licenses beside the GPL. There are also Open Source licenses which are
not necessarily Free, or less free - i.e. that allow you to use Open
Source code in proprietary software.

Best is to always check what license the original code came under, and
what that license allows you to do. The Linux kernel however and most
of the GNU/Linux operating system comes under the GPL or a compatible
other Free Software license.

>> So go ahead and do what you want to do. I doubt however as to
>> whether your operating system will ever be used by anyone other than
>> yourself, and should it ever be, then I doubt that it would ever
>> prove a usable system.
>
> When did this go into the realm of dares? Did I somehow make you
> think I could do better than Linux today?

No, no, that was not at all what I was saying. I was not challenging
you in any way, and I apologize if I made you think that I was.

I said "go ahead and do what you want to do" because nothing stops you.
The code - at least, regarding the Linux kernel - is Free, as in
Freedom.

> If thats what you think, you're WAY off.

That's not what I think. ;-)

> Im not writing something in an effort to compete with anything. Im
> learning something. Man....

I wasn't thinking along the lines of competition. I'm not into
competing myself, and I couldn't care less about market shares and
economic interests. I think in terms of science and logic.

I was however expecting your goal to be the creation of a new operating
system, one you would wish to share or sell at some point. Isn't that
what developers do and wish for? ;-)

>> To be quite honest - and I don't think there are any Free Software
>> versions of DOS - I think that what you're looking for might be just
>> a 32-bit, protected mode version of DOS.
>>
>> P.S.: You *do* know what "protected mode" is, don't you?
>
> I like the way you mask your attacks with some intelligence. Attacks
> nonetheless.Yes, I know what protected mode is. Do you?

Yup, I read a book on the Intel 80286 and 80386 and how it was used in
the IBM PS/2 series of computers, and how those CPU's offered operating
systems like OS/2 and AIX capabilities that DOS and the 8086/8088 did
not have. ;-)

My sarcasm was based upon the fact that many of today's so-called IT
specialists *don't* know what a protected or real mode is. In fact,
all they know is Microsoft Windows and other Microsoft products.

Any average UNIX administrator is more intelligent than those monkeys...
;-)

--
With kind regards,

*Aragorn*
(Registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
.

Loading