OS2 World.Com Forum OS2 World.Com Online Discussion Forum. |
|
| Are Operating Systems getting too fat? |
|
|
Normal member in user
     posts: 15 since: 13 Aug, 2004 |
 |
1. Are Operating Systems getting too fat? |
|
|
| Mac OS X is getting more and more buggy with each releases. It goes with the whole widget approach. Everything is included. Red Hat comes on 4 CDs!!! 4 CDs!!! It's crazy. Is including everything needed for the average user any good for competition? And what about security? Before Outlook Express, everybody used Eudora (work) and Pegasus (home). MS killed the email whole market. The same for Newsgroup readers. There isn't a best of breed app on Windows because OE is good enough. In fact, Windows doesn't have *any* consumer apps that are best of breed. I was thinking of what should be included by default in a standard desktop OS. Does the user really need an email client, web browser, media player, card games, etc... Shouldn't the OS just come with a simple text editor? IMO utilities to uncompress things, "paint" apps and games should come from the web PERIOD. After a while, it becomes bloat. Should we just have it OUR way? |
| Date: 22 Nov, 2004 on 05:23 |
|
|
Premium member in staff
       posts: 2298 since: 12 Jan, 2001
 |
|
It could be why it is sometimes called 'bloatware'(?). Perhaps if we could take your ideas and incorporate them into a version or clone of OS/2(?). There is one project that is 'on againg, off again' called OSFree. It would be nice if more were able to get involved with it and promote a thin operating system instead of one that seems to incorporate more and more features (like the one from Redmond).
---
BigWarpGuy - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OS/2 Warp-ed/eComStation-ed to the very end. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
| Date: 22 Nov, 2004 on 23:56 |
|
|
Normal member in user
     posts: 15 since: 13 Aug, 2004 |
|
| It's not bloatware (not in case of Macs anyway.) I am familiar and I posted a couple of times on the OSFree Yahoo groups. Here are some ideas: - go top down and bits by bits instead of tackling the whole project at once like the Haiku folks are doing. - The Workplace Shell is probably gonna be the biggest obstacle. But if it could split into small pieces, we might even be able to get rid of the B drive that no one has.  - The Kernel could be replaced with a BSD Kernel. They did it with the Mac, why can't we do it with OS/2? - DOS and Win-OS/2 are not important pieces. Everything needs to be native. - We need UI folks. Most OS/2 applications are well programmed and stable but have miserable UIs. In fact, OS/4 Warp 4 as the worst UI EVER. Warp 3 was better in every way. Warp 4 is too Windows like. (I can do UI stuff, mockups.) - We need a cool name. The OSFree name is fugly just like the OS/2 Warp 4 desktop. And not Star Trek related and more corporate sounding. - We need new icons for each app found in Warp4. etc... |
| Date: 23 Nov, 2004 on 04:42 |
|
|
Premium member in user
     posts: 252 since: 09 Dec, 2002
 |
 |
4. Re:Are Operating Systems getting too fat? |
|
|
last updated at 24 Nov, 2004 04:55 (1 times) I think we should move on from WPS ... I know that's going on a limb, but bear with me. It has been a great vehicle, but most of it was perfected in Warp 3. Warp 4 was more or less slapped together. I thought it was a shoddy upgrade, but needed it in order to keep up with OS/2. The underlying system is pretty damn robust, and continues to work well. If the user interface was redone in a modern graphics library, perhaps with OpenGL using Scitech's developer library, we would have something that Windows users would drool over. Imagine the possibilities, of course that would put a heavy load on the video card Hoever, the 2D portion of OpenGL is decent, even on non-accelerated graphics cards. All the cool effects on MacOS (X), are done through the built in 3D graphics library built into the OS. Stappling bitmaps into DLL to have spiffed up title bars is patchwork. Is there enough interest in this? If so, that begs the question about 64-bit versions of eCS or OS/2, as Linux, MacOS, and even Windows moves on. Where does that leave us? |
| Date: 23 Nov, 2004 on 20:30 |
|
|
Normal member in user
     posts: 18 since: 23 Nov, 2004 |
|
5. Re:Are Operating Systems getting too fat? |
|
|
cyberspittle (23 Nov, 2004 20:30): [snip]The underlying system is pretty damn robust, and continues to work well. If the user intrerface was redone in a modern graphics library, perhaps with OpenGL using Scitech's developer library, we would have something that Windows users would drool over. Imagine the possibilities. Of course that would put a heavy load on the video card, but the 2D portion of OpenGL is decent, even on non-accelerated graphics cards. All the cool effects on MacOS (X), are done through the built in 3D graphics library built into the OS. Stappling bitmaps into DLL to have spiffed up title bars is patchwork. Is there enough interest in this? If so, that begs the question about 64-bit versions of eCS or OS/2, as Linux, MacOS, and even Windows moves on. Where does that leave us?
Some of this sounds like what is located at http://frepm.sourceforge.net/ and http://sourceforge.net/projects/frepm/ Daniel Lee Kruse |
| Date: 23 Nov, 2004 on 21:23 |
|
|
Premium member in staff
       posts: 2298 since: 12 Jan, 2001
 |
 |
6. Re:Are Operating Systems getting too fat? |
|
|
We need more programmers for OSFree and FreePM. http://www.osfree.org http://frepm.sourceforge.netInstead of OSFree, how about C.O.W.S.? (corporate operating windows system?). how about B.O.S.s? (big operating systems's?) Is eComStation considered a 'corporate name' type of name?
---
BigWarpGuy - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OS/2 Warp-ed/eComStation-ed to the very end. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
| Date: 25 Nov, 2004 on 00:30 |
|
|
Normal member in user
     posts: 15 since: 13 Aug, 2004 |
|
7. Re:Are Operating Systems getting too fat? |
|
|
cyberspittle (24 Nov, 2004 04:55): The underlying system is pretty damn robust, and continues to work well. If the user interface was redone in a modern graphics library, perhaps with OpenGL using Scitech's developer library, we would have something that Windows users would drool over. Imagine the possibilities, of course that would put a heavy load on the video card Hoever, the 2D portion of OpenGL is decent, even on non-accelerated graphics cards. All the cool effects on MacOS (X), are done through the built in 3D graphics library built into the OS. Stappling bitmaps into DLL to have spiffed up title bars is patchwork. Is there enough interest in this? If so, that begs the question about 64-bit versions of eCS or OS/2, as Linux, MacOS, and even Windows moves on. Where does that leave us?
Where does that leave us? Back at in legacy mode...  Modern Graphics = 2D operations through Scitech OpenGL software mode? I was thinking more like rewriting and open sourcing (GPL and/or LGPL) some parts of OS/2 instead of adding new stuff. IMO freeing the MMPM/2 and WPS would do a world of good. |
| Date: 25 Nov, 2004 on 06:37 |
|
|
Normal member in user
     posts: 15 since: 13 Aug, 2004 |
|
8. Re:Are Operating Systems getting too fat? |
|
|
| Date: 25 Nov, 2004 on 06:39 |
|
|
Normal member in user
     posts: 15 since: 13 Aug, 2004 |
|
9. Re:Are Operating Systems getting too fat? |
|
|
BigWarpGuy (25 Nov, 2004 00:30): We need more programmers for OSFree and FreePM. http://www.osfree.org http://frepm.sourceforge.netInstead of OSFree, how about C.O.W.S.? (corporate operating windows system?). how about B.O.S.s? (big operating systems's?) Is eComStation considered a 'corporate name' type of name?
Hell no. I dislike that name. But then again. I can't seem to come up with a good name.  |
| Date: 25 Nov, 2004 on 06:41 |
|
|
Premium member in user
     posts: 252 since: 09 Dec, 2002
 |
|
10. Re:Are Operating Systems getting too fat? |
|
|
| Date: 25 Nov, 2004 on 07:23 |
|
|
Premium member in user
     posts: 252 since: 09 Dec, 2002
 |
|
11. Re:Are Operating Systems getting too fat? |
|
|
Ronald (25 Nov, 2004 06:37):
cyberspittle (24 Nov, 2004 04:55): The underlying system is pretty damn robust, and continues to work well. If the user interface was redone in a modern graphics library, perhaps with OpenGL using Scitech's developer library, we would have something that Windows users would drool over. Imagine the possibilities, of course that would put a heavy load on the video card Hoever, the 2D portion of OpenGL is decent, even on non-accelerated graphics cards. All the cool effects on MacOS (X), are done through the built in 3D graphics library built into the OS. Stappling bitmaps into DLL to have spiffed up title bars is patchwork. Is there enough interest in this? If so, that begs the question about 64-bit versions of eCS or OS/2, as Linux, MacOS, and even Windows moves on. Where does that leave us?
Where does that leave us? Back at in legacy mode...  No. It gives a starting point with a graphics library that is being used. The Presentation Manager APIs have ceased development years ago. Modern Graphics = 2D operations through Scitech OpenGL software mode? Start with 2D, move on to 3D. I was thinking more like rewriting and open sourcing (GPL and/or LGPL) some parts of OS/2 instead of adding new stuff. Not adding new stuff, replace the PMSHELL with a new GUI. Call it "Spotlight", Searchlight for a file finder (explorer), and what everlights you can think of. It doesn't matter, as long as you can run with the idea it will work. IMO freeing the MMPM/2 and WPS would do a world of good.
The point I was trying to make in my earlier post, with a decent graphics library, we can make something better than we have. The graphics on OS/2 and eCS is still Presentation Manager. The Workplace Shell (WPS) is an extension of PM. Most programs are written for the Presentation Manager and do not always take advantage of the object oriented WPS. As far as GPL/LGPL, there is already enough of this with Linux and ports of it to OS/2. Look at the GIMP for OS/2. It runs on a separate GUI than the PM. MESA may be a good alternative to OpenGL (I think Scitech uses it also, along with OpenGL, depending on which APIs you are calling ... I haven't used the Scitech library and admit to deficiencies in knowledge). MESA could be GPL, I don't know. Bottom line, the Presentation Manager graphical APIs are not being developed and have ceased development for some time. By starting with the 2D aspects of Scitech, the 3D aspects can be phased in. A programmer can choose to use 3D aspects in their own program as they liked. This would provide flexibility to the programmer. Also, learning the 2D portions of a library would be faster than learning a complete 3D library as a new programmer. A "2D.dll", in a world of increasing disk sizes, would be an insignificant legacy to pass on to actual 3D GUI. |
| Date: 25 Nov, 2004 on 07:41 |
|
|
Normal member in user
     posts: 15 since: 13 Aug, 2004 |
|
12. Re:Are Operating Systems getting too fat? |
|
|
cyberspittle (25 Nov, 2004 07:41): The point I was trying to make in my earlier post, with a decent graphics library, we can make something better than we have. The graphics on OS/2 and eCS is still Presentation Manager. The Workplace Shell (WPS) is an extension of PM. Most programs are written for the Presentation Manager and do not always take advantage of the object oriented WPS.As far as GPL/LGPL, there is already enough of this with Linux and ports of it to OS/2. Look at the GIMP for OS/2. It runs on a separate GUI than the PM. MESA may be a good alternative to OpenGL (I think Scitech uses it also, along with OpenGL, depending on which APIs you are calling ... I haven't used the Scitech library and admit to deficiencies in knowledge). MESA could be GPL, I don't know. Bottom line, the Presentation Manager graphical APIs are not being developed and have ceased development for some time. By starting with the 2D aspects of Scitech, the 3D aspects can be phased in. A programmer can choose to use 3D aspects in their own program as they liked. This would provide flexibility to the programmer. Also, learning the 2D portions of a library would be faster than learning a complete 3D library as a new programmer. A "2D.dll", in a world of increasing disk sizes, would be an insignificant legacy to pass on to actual 3D GUI.
I agree with you 100%. With a new more up to date graphics library, we can have something better than what we're currently using. But without proper hardware 3D acceleration, it's useless. And I certainly don't want to run in 3D software mode.  |
| Date: 26 Nov, 2004 on 01:08 |
|
|
Normal member in user
     posts: 15 since: 13 Aug, 2004 |
|
13. Re:Are Operating Systems getting too fat? |
|
|
>> Where does that leave us? Back at in legacy mode...  > No. It gives a starting point with a graphics library that is > being used. The Presentation Manager APIs have ceased > development years ago. Why can't Presentation Manager APIs be open sourced and extended? >> Modern Graphics = 2D operations through Scitech OpenGL >> software mode? > Start with 2D, move on to 3D. Software mode is too slow and we don't have native hardware accelerated OpenGL drivers. >> I was thinking more like rewriting and open sourcing (GPL >> and/or LGPL) some parts of OS/2 instead of adding new >> stuff. > Not adding new stuff, replace the PMSHELL with a new GUI. > Call it "Spotlight", Searchlight for a file finder (explorer), and > what everlights you can think of. It doesn't matter, as long > as you can run with the idea it will work. Why replace. It works fine. The trouble is that PMShell isn't open source. And will be forever lost in about 2 or 3 years if IBM gets their way. |
| Date: 26 Nov, 2004 on 01:16 |
|
|
| Are Operating Systems getting too fat? |
|
|
| All times are CET+1. |
< Prev. | P. 1 | Next > |
|
|
|