![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
No, no, NO!
Sep. 3rd, 2010 03:00 pmI've long wanted to create an Ancient SysAdmin's RantPage. Well, it seems the place is right and now's the time. Take cover! ;)
So, Commodore will once again ship Amigas, which may be good. That AROS thing they plan to fit them with, on the other hand...
As you can read here, it's just Linux with API compatibility libraries. No good. No good at all.
Here's why. Both unixes (including Linux) and modern windows strains (distantly related to VAX VMS) are multitasking multiuser operating systems. Why would you want multiuser OS on a personal, single user machine? They're not created with a single user in mind. They have their own uses, and as far as unixes are concerned, they're fun. But they're not what you want.
Multitasking multiuser OS (MMOS) is all about hardware. It's a magnificent relic of times long gone, when giants roamed prehistoric machine rooms and datacenters-to-be. When about 11, I actually lost my way inside a computer. They were that big. And they cost insane money, too. Until the arrival of IBM PC clones, all hardware I had worked with cost more than my year's salary. More than my salary for ten years most times. MMOSes were meant to use those precious giants' capabilities best. Users could wait, it was optimal use of the hardware what mattered.
Now that even I, an inhabitant of artificial powerty striken Siberia, can in theory afford a computer or two every month, do we still need a personal computer, often used meager minutes a day, run a hardware oriented MMOS? No. We'd surely prefer an OS crafted to please our precious selves.
Only it's not an option. Sure, you can tune your Linux-based OS to behave almost like a single-user, real time OS — it's open source and free (as in "GNU GPL"). But this comes at a cost, because Linux hasn't been designed as one from ground up. Neither has been Microsoft's bugware (it's all about pumping money into shareholders' pockets, technical aspects and usability being the last of Evil Corporation's concerns.)
What we need, as home computer users, is an OS that throws all, or most, at our discretion, of the hardware's number munching powers at the single task we're working with at the moment. Only there's none available. OpenDOS maybe, but it's just a remake of another Microsoft bug-ridden sorta-OS, full of dangerous design flaws.
So, could somebody kindly put Tannenbaum's textbooks away and design a single user (at least, single user at a time) real time (at least, soft real time) OS with fine-grained process privilege and priority management?
Fat chance, I know. Most of them youngsters can't as much as imagine non-Intel processor, sane (as opposed to Dr. Frankenstein's IBM PC) hardware or detannenbaumed OS architecture. I have a few ideas of my own, but my programming days are long behind me. All hail Linux the omnipresent, Linux the ubiquitous. Bummer.
So, Commodore will once again ship Amigas, which may be good. That AROS thing they plan to fit them with, on the other hand...
As you can read here, it's just Linux with API compatibility libraries. No good. No good at all.
Here's why. Both unixes (including Linux) and modern windows strains (distantly related to VAX VMS) are multitasking multiuser operating systems. Why would you want multiuser OS on a personal, single user machine? They're not created with a single user in mind. They have their own uses, and as far as unixes are concerned, they're fun. But they're not what you want.
Multitasking multiuser OS (MMOS) is all about hardware. It's a magnificent relic of times long gone, when giants roamed prehistoric machine rooms and datacenters-to-be. When about 11, I actually lost my way inside a computer. They were that big. And they cost insane money, too. Until the arrival of IBM PC clones, all hardware I had worked with cost more than my year's salary. More than my salary for ten years most times. MMOSes were meant to use those precious giants' capabilities best. Users could wait, it was optimal use of the hardware what mattered.
Now that even I, an inhabitant of artificial powerty striken Siberia, can in theory afford a computer or two every month, do we still need a personal computer, often used meager minutes a day, run a hardware oriented MMOS? No. We'd surely prefer an OS crafted to please our precious selves.
Only it's not an option. Sure, you can tune your Linux-based OS to behave almost like a single-user, real time OS — it's open source and free (as in "GNU GPL"). But this comes at a cost, because Linux hasn't been designed as one from ground up. Neither has been Microsoft's bugware (it's all about pumping money into shareholders' pockets, technical aspects and usability being the last of Evil Corporation's concerns.)
What we need, as home computer users, is an OS that throws all, or most, at our discretion, of the hardware's number munching powers at the single task we're working with at the moment. Only there's none available. OpenDOS maybe, but it's just a remake of another Microsoft bug-ridden sorta-OS, full of dangerous design flaws.
So, could somebody kindly put Tannenbaum's textbooks away and design a single user (at least, single user at a time) real time (at least, soft real time) OS with fine-grained process privilege and priority management?
Fat chance, I know. Most of them youngsters can't as much as imagine non-Intel processor, sane (as opposed to Dr. Frankenstein's IBM PC) hardware or detannenbaumed OS architecture. I have a few ideas of my own, but my programming days are long behind me. All hail Linux the omnipresent, Linux the ubiquitous. Bummer.
