Why revive Amiga?

[Cymric]

Varthall wrote:
Linux: it's not standardized yet, there are many window managers around but none of them is the default one on all the Linux distros. Also, many tasks are still unnecessarily complicated (to copy files to a floppy you need to give "sync" command to fisically do it, just everything I experiment makes the system hang - I'm saying this as a Linux newbie)

I am not going to turn this into a crash course on Linux, but... excuse me? The window manager thing is unlikely to be resolved, given the fact that X is designed to be fitted with different managers. I can use a very simple or a very elaborate one. Other OSes are as closed as a clam in that regard.

However, what really made me go 'huh?' was that you somehow don't understand the reason for sync. Linux uses a buffered filesystem, so *everything* you write out to disk is cached. This allows for a great speedup of file I/O, since if the data written out is needed again, you just obtain it from RAM. There is no need at all to issue a sync manually---in fact, unmounting the floppy will do it for you. The design is to cache everything, and you can add auto-flushing capabilities later on if you so desire.

Third thing: I am *really* curious as how you manage to lock up the system 'with everything you experiment'. You can crash Linux, but it takes an effort, and to be very honest, I don't think a newbie can do it. So please, to satisfy my curiosity, what kind of experiments do you conduct?

[Cymric]

@Varthall:

Your reply is too long for me to quote in full, so I'll just make do 'blindly', I hope you don't mind.

As for the window manager thing: it's a bit complex as there is a distinction between window managers and toolkits. Window managers deal with the behaviour of the entire window, while toolkits deal with the contents of the window. The two are separate entities. While there is a certain standard a window manager has to conform to, this does not apply to the toolkits. Programs developed for one toolkit are not source-code compatible with another toolkit, but should run with any window manager. Most likely, you get the best look-and-feel if you use the toolkit's preferred manager, though. So, there's two issues: window-related actions are standardised, but things like buttons, menus, gadgets and input boxes are not. And yes, that is a big shame---for consistency it should be a toolkit or several which are so close to one another the normal user doesn't see the difference.

As for the floppies: well, this is Linux (or Unix, for that matter, as all Unices do it like this). You get used to it :-). In any case, I find your verification step rather cumbersome---why do you do that? I trust my floppy drives to write out things correctly.

Finally, regarding the crashing of Linux: what you describe is not an actual crash of Linux, where the kernel blurts out a 'kernel panic' and dumps the CPU state onto your screen. Yes, you can accidentally cause an error in a configuration file causing severe problems during the boot sequence. Rather like making a typo very early on in s:startup-sequence. (You can always recover the system with a rescue disk, a reinstallation of the OS is never necessary.) Once the system is up and running, it is solid as a rock, however. Something which can not be said for Amigas, I'm afraid, although I hear that OS4.0 is decidedly better at trapping and catching program errors without bringing down the entire system.