what about real alternative OSs

[JerkasaurusRex]

atheOS means "an athiest" in greek. I thought that was pretty interesting.

 

[Christoph]

I might contribute to Linux, but I really need to read through all of the source code several times to check for weaknesses in the system.

The uncompressed clean sources for the 2.6.6 kernel are 213MB and ~10MB of patches/month are being added (according to LWN). It would be difficult or impossible for one person to inspect all the source before it became obselete. Is that what you meant?

basically my current opinion is that OpenSource development and procreation is good, but I don't like to see it get so main stream. I love to see the creation of great software built on other great softwares' source, but am very afraid that the "purity" of code will be tainted when they have to dumb down linux for the masses of people who either can't or won't learn.

Care to elaborate again? What's purity? If source starts under the GPL (or something similar), that's where it stays until its creator and all contributors say otherwise. Many corporations have shown that they're OK with releasing code under the GPL, and some are even discovering that it benefits them *directly* (see sig).
Most of the dumbing down occurs at the GUI level. If there's not a config file option for what you want, you've got the option of requesting it, using an older version or submitting a patch (some hackery required).

I just came across an article that mentioned Linux-Tiny. Basically, it's a project to take all bloat out of the kernel to give it a minimal size and footprint. The team (one guy, I think) has gotten the image size of a 2.6.5 kernel down to 363K (Slackware 1.1.2's ~v.99 kernel was 301K). If bloat is a big issue for you, this is a valid option.
Interestingly, the Newsforge article I read said that the bloat currently in the kernel is there because kernel hackers got better hardware.

The key is that this is free (libre) software. If you don't like it you're free to change it. Everyone's are as free to add bloat as they are to remove it.

 

[chasingapple]

Yoper

 

[XWRed1]

exactly, one has to cut it down to size to be pretty good. Some people have alerted to me that alot of my anger is not at the kernel itself, but the accessories. The main problem is that alot of the newer distro's automatically install stuff that is quite frankly not needed.

Its not just the trimming; building my own 2.4 shouldn't have ran much better except for the boot time.

Going to 2.6 is what made it noticeably faster. 2.6 has alot of interactivity boosts and things of that nature.

 

[Malakai]

I use linux for a few reasons:

a) it's fast

b) it's open

c) it does what I want it to do

I'm using linux full time now, with no concurrect windows xp install anywhere. I'm not going to jump ship anytime soon, since I've now found a distro that I live (gentoo), and Linux itself is really coming into it's own support and feature wise. Serious gaming in linux is no longer a pipe dream, as I play enemy territory, tribes 2, almost every half life mod out there (ESF, The Specialists, TFC, and CS), and a half a dozen others frequently.

The only thing really holding linux back now is ati's drivers, and the game developers/publishers. The game dev's are doing better, with more concurrent linux releases than ever before, but ati's really screwing the pooch.

Anyway I went off topic. I don't use linux to be cool or leet, I use it because it does what I want it to do and provides me with an environment that I am in full control of. And being Free as in speech just tops it all off.


edit: and though the kernel SOURCES may be huge, remember that those sources have support for almost every piece of hardware on every platform since like 1995 (and often earlier!). A compiled kernel still is usually around 1-2 megabyte. My current kernel bzImage is about 1.7mb, with about 300k more in modules.

 

[Roof Jumper]

I use it because it does what I want it to do and provides me with an environment that I am in full control of.

exact reason I am programming up my own operating system. I want to be able to look at something I made, and know every little facet of it. If I worked with current operating systems such as modern linux kernels I would have to focus on a mere section of the entire system.

 

[Malakai]

exact reason I am programming up my own operating system. I want to be able to look at something I made, and know every little facet of it. If I worked with current operating systems such as modern linux kernels I would have to focus on a mere section of the entire system.

Very true, and I applaud your efforts. However by the time you get your OS to the point where hardware vendors may start to write drivers for it, you could have learned enough about the linux kernel, or written your own desktop environment to rival gnome and kde, twice or thrice over
IMO the beauty of F/OSS is that if you have an idea of how something can be done better, and impliment it in a current system, they will usually integrate your code into the project, thus improving the software for everyone. At least you have the option of using whats already there, with proprietary software you have no choice but to start from scratch.

 

[Christoph]

I doubt that the point of writing your own OS is to use it. It's just the best way to learn.
I'm trying to get the hang of network programming, so when I write a program to send a packet to some random address, I'm not doing it because it's useful or new; I'm doing it because I can't absorb that information just by reading it. Once I get my hands dirty by debugging and having to understand everything involved, I finally start to get the picture. I could look at source code all day, but I wouldn't understand it until I'd broken something it, understood how I broke it and fixed it, ad infinitum.

If you're actually trying to make a useful OS, good luck. There aren't many geniuses, and you're going to find out if you're one of them. It doesn't take genius for one person to contribute to an OS, but building one is another story.

 

[Roof Jumper]

There aren't many geniuses, and you're going to find out if you're one of them. It doesn't take genius for one person to contribute to an OS, but building one is another story.

doesn't take a genius to make an OS either. Read the Intel IA-32 reference manuals, and one can understand everything alot better. The operating system kernel itself isn't that hard to program, provided that it is basic enough. Adding all of the support for wireless communications et al is somewhat difficult.

The secret to an Operating systems success in wide spread cooperation. Torvalds himself might of not been a genius(I mean to say that he was creative and ambitious, but not genius), but with the group effort of millions of people world wide, linux grows incredibly fast. My problem is not getting an OS off the ground, but getting the support of users who would want to add support, and many of the good programmers have already contributed too much to the linux project to quit.

.... sigh, if only I could have been born around 15 years earlier than I was.

 

[dyefade]

My problem is not getting an OS off the ground, but getting the support of users who would want to add support, and many of the good programmers have already contributed too much to the linux project to quit.

.... sigh, if only I could have been born around 15 years earlier than I was.

Well yeah, that would be a problem, but I thought that wasn't your aim? With this OS you intend to build, is it for use as a day-to-day system, or is it run just for the sake of it, in order to add to your programming skills?
If the former, I would suggest you will be working on the basics for a very long time before you get anywhere. If the latter, that's just a very cool project.