5 ms·

Other operating systems certainly could. Work from the minimum set of tools you need to create the OS, and allow users to either build those tools they need or

by Endy 8y ago

Other operating systems certainly could. Work from the minimum set of tools you need to create the OS, and allow users to either build those tools they need or have them ready to build quickly. Keep the resolution small and the color depth shallow so that you learn to do more with less, rather than trying to always reach for the newest, latest, and greatest. Build for the oldest possible machine first, and make newer machines to reach back into the shadows of the past. There is nothing on this Earth worth doing which requires the processing power we now possess in our pockets. If you can't do it in 64Kb, I assure you, it isn't worth doing. There's also something here which Microsoft used to know in the 9x days and has since forgot (because it's not immediately profitable to remember in the current paradigm). The needs of a single-user system are different from the needs of a network terminal. Since Windows 2000, every Windows PC is a network terminal. Since OSX, every Apple PC is a network terminal. Unix-derived OSes have always been targeted at network terminals. In a network terminal, the machine might be used by more than one user; therefore, you can't allow too much customization. The data on that terminal might be needed by another user on the network; therefore you must protect a significant amount of that data and must prioritize system operation over user desire at every turn. Oh, and one more thing. Stop worrying about profit and trying to hamstring the user. Either create a good, working, product that you stand behind with every fiber of your being... or don't create a product in the first place.

hood_syntax 8y ago
> There is nothing on this Earth worth doing which requires the processing power we now possess in our pockets. If you can't do it in 64Kb, I assure you, it isn't worth doing. BS. Applications in scientific research easily blow that ridiculous limit out of the water. Your point about single vs multi user is good, but you do yourself no favors by starting off with a bad premise. And lest you say you're talking about personal OS only, that's not what you wrote at all.
- Endy 8y ago
  Part of the problem with research as it stands is that the software tools have become bloated, and are doing too much at once by having to be "commercial" and profit-motivated. If the tools were being made to do one thing well within a single discipline - or even better, to fit the needs of a single experiment, it is my belief that the processor and RAM loads would drop precipitously. They could go even further down if the tool didn't need to be pretty enough to sell to non-scientists, both in terms of money and of mentality, but rather that these research tools were focused entirely on simplicity of raw data input and clarity of data output without interpretations. Even in sciences where it shouldn't be the norm, we tend to have "dumb" people reliant on smart computers for interpretation of results, instead of smart people using dumb computers as tools to aid computation. Frankly, even if you still believe there's reason that certain research scientists would need that kind of processing power and storage at times, that doesn't excuse the fact that the OS should not be taking up that time. An OS should exist to load user programs, allow data access by users and programs, provide a platform for peripheral connections as needed, and otherwise get out of the way with a bare minimum load.
  - hazz99 8y ago
    >They could go even further down if the tool didn't need to be pretty enough to sell to non-scientists, both in terms of ... [focusing] entirely on simplicity of raw data input and clarity of data output without interpretations. Most tools within the sciences that require vast computation power aren't pretty, nor output data in a nice, readable form. What do you think university supercomputers are for? They run extremely stripped-down operating systems[0] designed for a single application & single user. I'm at a research university (as a student) and I guarantee that most home-grown tools here are not user-friendly, but exist to get the job done. This data is then interpreted in other, more user-friendly programs/environments like Tableu/Matlab/Julia/whatever. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INK_(operating_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INK_(operating_system)

by Endy 8y ago

hood_syntax 8y ago

> There is nothing on this Earth worth doing which requires the processing power we now possess in our pockets. If you can't do it in 64Kb, I assure you, it isn't worth doing. BS. Applications in scientific research easily blow that ridiculous limit out of the water. Your point about single vs multi user is good, but you do yourself no favors by starting off with a bad premise. And lest you say you're talking about personal OS only, that's not what you wrote at all.

Endy 8y ago
Part of the problem with research as it stands is that the software tools have become bloated, and are doing too much at once by having to be "commercial" and profit-motivated. If the tools were being made to do one thing well within a single discipline - or even better, to fit the needs of a single experiment, it is my belief that the processor and RAM loads would drop precipitously. They could go even further down if the tool didn't need to be pretty enough to sell to non-scientists, both in terms of money and of mentality, but rather that these research tools were focused entirely on simplicity of raw data input and clarity of data output without interpretations. Even in sciences where it shouldn't be the norm, we tend to have "dumb" people reliant on smart computers for interpretation of results, instead of smart people using dumb computers as tools to aid computation. Frankly, even if you still believe there's reason that certain research scientists would need that kind of processing power and storage at times, that doesn't excuse the fact that the OS should not be taking up that time. An OS should exist to load user programs, allow data access by users and programs, provide a platform for peripheral connections as needed, and otherwise get out of the way with a bare minimum load.
- hazz99 8y ago
  >They could go even further down if the tool didn't need to be pretty enough to sell to non-scientists, both in terms of ... [focusing] entirely on simplicity of raw data input and clarity of data output without interpretations. Most tools within the sciences that require vast computation power aren't pretty, nor output data in a nice, readable form. What do you think university supercomputers are for? They run extremely stripped-down operating systems[0] designed for a single application & single user. I'm at a research university (as a student) and I guarantee that most home-grown tools here are not user-friendly, but exist to get the job done. This data is then interpreted in other, more user-friendly programs/environments like Tableu/Matlab/Julia/whatever. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INK_(operating_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INK_(operating_system)