Does Linux have an Amiga feel?

[commodorejohn]

The question of Linux's overall quality aside, it's not a "substitute" for the Amiga because they're basically nothing alike. (And smerf's notion that the Amiga OS was based on Unix is a myth.) They don't operate in a similar way, Linux doesn't run Amiga software, etcetera.

There is some similarity of philosophy in that both are designed to be hackable, which is why classic Amiga OS has remained as usable as it has this far past its last update; however, Linux does this in typical Unix fashion, by being constructed piecemeal out of discrete components that communicate through scripts and pipes, while Amiga hacks integrate much more tightly with the system as a whole. But Linux is definitely nothing like a "substitute."

[commodorejohn]

amiwm is a fun novelty, but it doesn't come close to actually making Linux software behave like Amiga software. It is exactly and only what it intends to be: a way to throw a cute Amiga coat of paint over the windows.

[commodorejohn]

Yeah, I'm seriously not getting this notion that AmigaDOS looks anything like Unix...I mean, there's no global directory tree, everything is on separate volumes like DOS or DEC operating systems, it uses assigns like VMS (or like DOS barely had) instead of custom mount points, non-stream devices aren't represented even as pipes, let alone being found anywhere in the filesystem hierarchy, commands are full or less-abbreviated words, etcetera etcetera...about the only point of reference I can find is that the system volume has some root-level divisions-by-type with folders like /s and /c that loosely resemble Unix's traditional /etc and /bin directories...

[commodorejohn]

Well, I'm gonna disagree with you slightly, John. Is Amiga directly derived from Unix as Linux is? No. But TripOS, AmigaOS' predecessor, was designed in '76, and the best example of OS design at that time was Unix.

That's a fair point - then again, what I've seen of TriPOS looks a lot more like a seriously expanded RT-11 than Unix.

But that's what I like about AmigaOS, instead of, as Linux did, copying Unix directly, TripOS took the major concepts of that day and improved on them. Instead of anally sticking to what was, they took a step forward and improved it all.

Of course, that to me is what makes Amiga "Amiga." They didn't give us  what they could, they improved on it all and gave us quite a bit more.

Right on.

[commodorejohn]

This conversation reminds me of how much I want to see Haiku succeed.

Hear, hear. Not that it's all that similar to Amiga OS, either, but it's probably the closest thing being actively developed right now in terms of being designed as an integrated, user-focused desktop OS...

[commodorejohn]

Theoretically, but what would you gain from it? Singularity has no software and runs on a VM, which is never good for performance. The only really interesting thing about it is its eschewing memory protection for some kind of static analysis that prevents access of out-of-process memory at the code level, which is incompatible with Amiga-style message-passing anyway.

[commodorejohn]

smerf, you are in rare form today: wrong on absolutely every single count.

For one thing, as previously discussed, Amiga OS is not an offshoot of Unix; if they do share similarities, it's from Amiga OS being based on TriPOS, which spawned in the same pools of primordial mainframe ooze that Unix did. The notion that the processor (on either Unix systems or Amigas) only does things when the peripheral hardware is too busy is patently ridiculous because A. they have distinct and only partly overlapping sets of capabilities, and B. the entire point of the processor is to run software. "Time-sharing" is multitasking (often preemptive) and multiple mainframe OSes implemented it years before Unix even existed.

You have no idea what you're talking about...

[commodorejohn]

Look, not to be rude, but all the job experience in the world does not keep you from being verifiably, factually wrong here. You're right that the Amiga does have a well-designed architecture that allows the CPU and chipset to work tightly in concert; that does not mean that (as you claim) the CPU does nothing when the chipset isn't overtaxed, because the chipset doesn't even come close to covering the full functionality of the CPU (nor is it intended to.) That would be absurd and a waste of a perfectly good CPU, for one. Even with absolutely no other threads running (which is basically never going to happen outside of empty, static loading screens,) the CPU still runs the Exec scheduler and responds to interrupts. You are also wrong in claiming that Unix was the only multitasking OS back in the day; there were multiple time-sharing systems that were preemptive. Finally, you are wrong about Amiga OS being a Unix offshoot; it is not, it shares no fundamental system architecture with Unix, and this will still be the case no matter how often you insist it's otherwise. Seriously; this is stuff you can look up.

[commodorejohn]

It's a bit difficult to not draw comparisons/contrasts between the Amiga and Unixoid systems in a thread devoted to exactly that...

[commodorejohn]

That sounds interesting! AmigaOS and Linux are both offshoots of UNIX. That's what I thought.

Except for the part where it isn't, at all.

This is an amazing thread! I'm going to have to  do some research into the other operating systems mentioned here, such  as UNIX, DEC, and VAX. What hardware would I need to run any of them,  though?

Unix comes in a wide variety of vendor-specific flavors - you can of course get free clones (FreeBSD or Linux) that run on any PC, or you could dig up an SGI, Sun, or whatever Unix workstation from the '90s for fairly cheap. DEC wasn't an OS, it was a company; they made multiple lines of computers, and operating systems for them. VMS ran on their VAX hardware; you can sometimes nab a VAXStation for cheap if you're lucky, (or, as psxphill notes, you can run an emulator like SIMH,) and HP (who currently owns VMS) runs the OpenVMS Hobbyist Program, from which you can get a license to install it on whatever you get. It's interesting stuff.

[commodorejohn]

Unfortunately, I have no real idea how old any of the Sun or Silicon Graphics workstation models are, I don't know how long it would take me to find out, or how they compare to a modern equivalent. Earlier tonight, I saw someone using a Sun computer in a news story about the NSA surveillance scandal, so this made me realise that people are still using them and possibly for very demanding purposes. Here's one on eBay, but I don't know how old it is, what kind of keyboard or mouse or anything else I'd need to go with it. Perhaps you can tell me. I know it's no good comparing the specs to a PC, because the CPU is probably more powerful than an Intel x86 CPU of the same speed and any software probably takes up only about 25% of the RAM it would take under Windoze. This is the situation with the classic Amiga.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Sun-SPARCclassic-X-UNIX-Workstation-/290939712355?pt=UK_Computing_Other_Computing_Networking&hash=item43bd5bb363

As for Silicon Graphics workstations, I know they were designed mainly for doing graphics, and then sort of replaced the Amiga in this field for CGI effects. I don't know if they can do anything else apart from produce graphics, though. They may have been "fixed" to do graphics only, like with "dedicated" word processors.

I can tell you that my Sun Ultra II (2x166MHz, 128MB RAM) is pretty responsive and at a guess I'd say it's faster than a comparable x86 system (disclaimer: I've never used a dual Pentium board, I'm just extrapolating from my experience with comarably-clocked single-processor systems.) The one you linked I'd expect to probably be a little zippier than my VAX, but not especially impressive.

Never used SGI anything myself, but they weren't fixed-function systems; they were full IRIX Unixoid workstations, and they still have a following today. If you really want to get into oldschool Unix workstations, I'd talk to the guys over at the Nekochan forums; the site's specifically geared towards SGI, but the forums cover plenty of other high-end computing solutions of yesteryear.

[commodorejohn]

So, based on what you say above, this one http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Sun-Ultra-Enterprise-2-Workstation-UltraSPARC-II-296MHz-128MB-RAM-/230994413805?pt=UK_Computing_DesktopPCs&hash=item35c85708ed also looks "pretty responsive", but I still don't know how old it is or what I may need to go with it. I had a quick look at that forum, but I don't know how long it will take to find out what I need to know. Of course, I have got lots of other expenses. My social life is in ruins at the moment, so it would be a good idea for people on here to tell me why I don't really need to buy a Sun or Silicon graphics workstation.

You want to hear why you shouldn't buy one? Because Unix is, more or less, Unix (except for AIX which I gather is like Unix as implemented by space aliens from mind-probes of Unix-hacker abductees, but I've never used it.) Solaris is about like Linux or FreeBSD when you get right down to it (though CDE is the only desktop environment/application suite I've encountered on Unixoids that I thought had been at all designed with a serious or professional eye towards a good user experience - but then, it's also a very very 1994-vintage user experience.)

If you do want to pursue this, though (and that Ultra II is a hell of a deal if it works, and not much of a risk if it doesn't,) you will need, at a minimum, a serial null-modem cable so you can run a terminal emulator for console access on your PC or Amiga or whatever. More ideal would be a Sun keyboard, mouse, and a 3W13-to-VGA adapter plus a 1280x1024 display (Sun's output seems to be pretty compatible with modern displays - I had to do some hunting to get one that supports sync-on-green for my VAX, though!) Those don't tend to be terribly expensive, but of course that all depends on just how tight your finances are. You could certainly use it serial-only until you can afford them. You may also need replacement install media if someone removed the OS; I don't know anything about that, you'd have to talk to the Nekochan guys.

Addendum: you'd probably need replacement install media period if the seller doesn't have the root password for the current install.

[commodorejohn]

Hats off to you commodorejohn, you beat me this time, I will see to it that it doesn't happen again.

Hmmm the old brain is getting senile.

Aw, take heart - my memory's no great shakes either, and I don't even have age as an excuse...

[commodorejohn]

There is no real "why" to using an oldschool Unix workstation other than that you find the idea cool. As for software, I really have no idea; you'd have to ask on Nekochan. (But as for Photoshop's price tag, I imagine anything you'd be running on an old SGI would be, erm, "acquired secondhand.")

[commodorejohn]

I have a feeling Linux may get another chance at the desktop. Microsoft fired their pc software manager and they are now all under the Windows phone division. Thanks, I'll have a 27inch videophone instead of a computer.

The Windows 8 debacle is an open invitation for a good alternative OS, alright - but so was the Windows Me debacle, and the Windows Vista debacle, and Linux isn't really any better-suited to fill that gap now than it was then, because the guiding forces behind Linux still don't get usability or simplicity of design.

These are people who, faced with the problem of a complex and arcane directory structure in which any one application might conceivably have files spread across child folders of half the root-level directories in the system and installation and uninstallation is consequently a nightmare for less technical users, come up with complex package managers to automate it instead of working towards a less cryptic directory structure. Their response to needless complexity is not to simplify it, but merely to hide it behind an automated interface, because as toRus says, they're slavishly devoted to crufty legacy standards from the days when Unix was driving serial terminals on PDP-11s. Hell, they're only just now starting to move away from xserver.

These are people for whom "user-friendly" is the same thing as "idiot-oriented;" the kind of people who give the world things like Gnome 3. They don't get usability, they don't get ordinary users, and Linux is never going to get anywhere in the desktop market until they do.