Reinvent the OS cont

[Iggy]

I like the OS 9 microkernel approach. Should you have software to run on it as its ready? E.g. goal:
Networking
File manager
are some suggestions.

We had those running in the early 90's.
What we could have used was a better GUI.
We ported an X-windows based package called G-Windows that had been created by Steve Adams for a company that specialized in process control systems, Gespac.
It worked, but like a lot of Linux (and virtually all UNIX) derivatives you still had to use the CLI to get some things done.
Personally, while I can see the utility in a terminal window, I'd prefer that it be the instrument of last recourse (you should be able to do virtually everything you need through the GUI).

Oh, and with all deference to Staf, I'm still farting around with obscure micro kernel OS'.
We have to remember that Linux only makes up about 1% of the marketplace.
BSD, considerably less.
Amiga like OS'? Probably an insignificant percentage.
So what?
Does that mean I have to use a more common solution?
No, not if what I am using provides me with the utility I need.

I'm sorry to see good, committed AROS developers dropping out just as the project is reaching completion.

Drawing users to a new 68K OS? Probably not too realistic, but I'd like to have it to play around with. And a Coldfire version would be an easy port.
With the Coldfire V1 cpu available as a royalty free FPGA core and cores for the 68K steadily improving, future hardware could be built with better performance than our legacy hardware.

[Iggy]

I hope this question is not too outdated.
Video games aside, does the Amiga need a lot to do productivity software?
Would it need a special card for video editing and effects?
1983 posts

Yes, it requires additional hardware, but at one time the Amiga was the leader in low cost video manipulation.
Although, these days with the advent of digital video, its quite dated.

[Iggy]

Iggy, what market place? All Android devices are Linux, all ChromeOS devices are Linux, most SOHO networking gear, NAS etc are Linux... embedded Linux is taking over the world. And if it isn't Linux, it is a BSD, all iOS devices, OSX, JunOS, more SOHO equipment, storage solutions... pretty much the entire world is running on various types of *ix.
Your 1% is meaningless!

I guess I meant traditional computers.
But these days other devices have blurred that line.
I probably browse the internet on my phone more often than on my computer (and yes, its an Android phone).
And Android seems to have a lock on all tablets that aren't made by Apple.
Further, OSX is BSD, sort of anyway, although I'd tend to place it in its own category (as I would iOS).
If you start looking for UNIX everywhere you'll soon realize that even Windows has some UNIX legacy.

But does that make it good?
UNIX was designed when I was growing up, its legacy is about 50 years old.
And it never was that efficient, nor is it anything like real time.
I remember Xenix  running on 68K computers and Amigas would run circles around those in terms of performance.
And the process control OS' I used to be focused on, while having some similarity to UNIX, were all designed for real time mission critical applications.

To be pointed, I'm tired of all this monolithic buggy crap I'm being encouraged to use.
Even my Samsung phone periodically wigs out and has to be restarted.
And Windows and OSX, while not nearly as problematic as in the past, also still occasionally crash.  

As to the 1%, as a member of the definitely sub 1% (as are all Amigans), I actually feel pretty comfortable in the belief that things could be SO much better.

[Iggy]

I believe the Amiga is a great computer platform and do not want people to think that I am cutting down on it.
I believe the FPGA Amiga's are a partial answer to the lack of hardware.
Sorry, I keep defaulting back to Aros Native as an answer to modern needs.
My Christmas list is having Aros 68K or Amiga OS 3.X to have 3D acceleration in Emulation.
Then what?
More Devs?
IDK.
edit:
This is what I like about Hollywood's latest release.
I like the idea of writing software for Amiga OS and have it easily ported to Aros, etc.
I am still leaning on the idea of Aros, Amiga OS 4.x and Morph OS as being good paths to take.
Aros first because of the availability of hardware.
If Amiga OS4.X is Amiga, then Amiga still exists, at least in some form.
Unfortunately I have not had the pleasure of using Morph OS.
It would be interesting to see an ad-in card for Aros that can be a Toaster like card.
That is, it would be awesome if Aros can do 1080p and up to 4K for video editing.
Could a program made in Hollywood do this?

Well, I'm convinced that any OS following the 3.1 API is essentially Amiga.
This will offend the purists, but the hardware was getting outdated at the end of production anyway and we were moving to RTG and accelerator cards at that time.
The thing that baffles me is why more people aren't proud of the fact that, primarily through community support, we still continue to soldier on.
And thanks to Cloanto, we now have a valid source for OS3.1.
Given time, AROS 68K may become competitive with that.
And the NG machines continue to mature.
I expect to see 4K displays on all three platforms become relatively common.

[Iggy]

FYI, I did not drop out; I'm just hibernated

Hey Staf,
If it wasn't for you I never would have heard of Battle Beast, so you've got a pass.
Besides, you really put in some serious time working with others on AROS, so you ought to be allowed a break.

[Iggy]

Yes Kolla,
Many, quite rightly, pointed out NT's VMS legacy.
But VMS has, over the years, become quite similar to UNIX.
And I'm not sure that EITHER is a particularly good product.

As to what you think is good...hey opinions...you know...

And to reiterate, I would prefer a smaller, more modular approach, once again based on a micro kernel.

[Iggy]

Don't tell me you are a OpenVMS Galaxy operator as well - what on earth do you mean by "VMS has become similar to UNIX"?!

Ah, you DO know at least one of my causes of disdain for VMS' creators.
That tendency absorb what they didn't originate.
Come to think of it, that's a LOT like Windows.

But if that reflects badly on VMS, how do you excuse Linux?
Since it is a blatant copy of UNIX.

And damn man, UNIX just isn't that great.

All of this tends to point to one problem, a serious lack of real creativity.

Everyone copying from each other.

There are times when I have a hard time telling modern OS' from the Sun systems some of my supervisors were using 20 years ago.

[Iggy]

@ Thomas

I appreciate the history lesson, but I lived through that period, so I've already got plenty of memories of it.
I don't really think that NT derived OS' have a true DOS legacy, they are actually pretty bad at running DOS applications. Not that that is a bad thing. I had to work with early PCs and frankly DOS was dreadful.
One time, I remember typing in a long string of commands that should have worked, only to find that DOS (unlike any decent OS) couldn't handle complex command lines.
Come to think of it, I'm that impressed with NT use of flat data bases/registries. DLLs are a total pain in the ass.

And you're right, the Amiga kernel leaves much to be desired (as does large parts of the OS), which is why I'm using MorphOS (not Amiga OS4).
Which could bring me back to raving about micro kernels...but even I'm bored with that.

Actually, I'm not THAT negative about UNIX/BSD/Linux. Compared to the alternatives, there are clear advantages.

Its just that I CAN see where a smaller, more tightly constructed, modular OS would have its advantages.

[Iggy]

Nice to see you guys still knocking this one back and forth.

I like Kimmok's ideas.
Extending the 68K's addressing capability to 64 bits could get tricky, but legacy compatibility IS slowing us down.
I'd also really like to know what the max speed of a 68K core would be with a better grade FPGA or dedicated silicon.

[Iggy]

Iggy did you get my pm?

Sorry for the delay. I just noticed that.

Oh, and these last few posts only reinforce my  opinion that some things should not be in the kernel.
And Thomas is 100% correct, the interface should be stable and completely documented for programmers.
If the core is changed regularly, what does it point to other than it had issues or simply wasn't what it could be.

Carve it down to its minimum, and move anything unnecessary to loadable modules.
It would have lots advantages, but Torvalds doesn't understand this.
And THAT makes me distrust his skill as a software engineer.

Copying an OS is easier than creating one.
Even with all the constant change, I don't see that much improvement in Linux.

[Iggy]

Linux, for some strange reason, runs on just about anything, despite these so called flaws that you point out, flaws that btw you pretty much have made up in your fantasies.

Unless you show the world a better way yourself, you are in no position to question the software engineering skills of Torvalds, whos software projects reach world wide, affecting almost everyone's lives at these point.

Actually, I feel I have EVERY right to question Torvalds, since he's merely ripped off UNIX, a project that took Bell and Universities across the United States years to create.
And his position on micro kernel OS' is assinine.
I've noticed that as Linux has moved forward, that there has been an attempt to absorb features from better structured OS' like the ability to dynamically load and unload some drivers.
But, for the most part, its still an oversized, poorly structured mess.
Oh, and those devices you think I'm benefiting from?
Experience with Android may be the one thing that could drive me to buy a new Apple product.
The only "fantasy" I have is that all the deluded fanboys of this crap wake up.
There is a reason its free, most people would not pay for crap like that.

BTW - I've actually had a hand in creating real hardware and software, so attacking my ego won't work. My opinions come from real experience.

[Iggy]

Any reinvention of the Amiga OS should not use/copy anything from Linux. You will never find a more wretched hive of clump and complexity.

I use it for servers. When I did use it for desktops I spent too much time in Linux forums instead of actually being productive. I look forward to trying SteamOS; Perhaps the folks at Valve have abstracted all the crap I don;t want to deal with.

"wretched hive of clump and complexity" - Nice turn of phrase, I like it.

OK, now to address the two prior post, Kolla, Karlos, I know you both use Linux and It is not my intent to disturb your "universal scheme of things".
But Torvald's kernel is intended to be the core of a UNIX clone.
This HAS resulted in something that at times definately rises above what Microsoft has managed to do.
Could it be a lot better?
Considering its origin, probably not.
But if your argument is that its better than the alternatives, well that's a tough argument to counter.
Still, we have been retreading ideas with roots from over forty years ago.

With the hardware resources currently at hand, its easier to generate oversized, inefficient code than it is to create the tighter work our much more limited hardware encouraged in the past.

I've mentioned Xenix in this thread once before, because Linux REALLY reminds me of it.
Large, cumbersome, and incapable of true real time response.

Finally, this was started as a discussion on the merits of recreating the OS.
I didn't intend it to subvert it into a discussion on the merits of Linux or any other OS.
It has just been my contention that we could do better by avoiding using a monolythic kernel.

[Iggy]

So, considering Thomas issues, is anyone ready to admit that I might be right and that driver don"t belong inside the kernel.
I think these issues clearly illustrate one of the major weaknesses of a monolythic kernel.
Beyond the fact that the ever changing kernel makes ever new revision a chore to adapt to.
This is far different in a micro kernel OS where core processes are relatively stable and the external modules are well documented.

[Iggy]

Actually it has always been my experience that micro kernel OS' have significantly better real time response. And its an obvious fact that monolithic kernels are far too large.