What do you need on your desktop?

[downix]

As "OO" is vastly over used and overrated, care to elaborate on what you mean?

I mean OO in a similar manner to how OS/2 had an OO desktop:  Each program was built-up from other components, and when a new program added new capabilities, those same capabilities were availible to other programs to utilize.  

Say someone makes a viewer for their newest wiz-bang compression alg for video.  In an OO system, this viewer is able to be embedded into a higher-end editor without requiring the compiling of modules to that editor, just need to be able to decode from the viewer to raw pixel data, which can then be manipulated.

In addition, this means that the ability to set preferences is built into the desktop rather than into the specific app.

[whabang]

1)A single user OS.

2)Integrated TCP/IP stack.

3)A port of Mozilla, Opera, or any equivalent browser.

4)Eye-candy. Yes, you heard me; and no I won't use Windows XP. If I wanted to use it, I'd use it allready...

5)A good, fast and native pascal compiler.

6)Some form of backward-compatability.

7)Games from this century.or at least a port of Sim City 2000.

[samdu]

I don't know if it's related to OS/2 being Object Oriented or not, but a cool feature of OS/2 that I've never seen on any other OS is that if you move a file that has a shortcut somewhere, the shortcut was smart enough to know that the file was moved and to where. That's keen.

[mikeymike]

I mean OO in a similar manner to how OS/2 had an OO desktop:  Each program was built-up from other components, and when a new program added new capabilities, those same capabilities were availible to other programs to utilize.

From that point of view you could say that Microsoft operating systems have an 'objected orientated' setup, but you'd still find that a million Java advocates would want to kill you for using the term like that.

And wasn't it you that said:

So how about we keep this focused on needs

Surely your needs are for it to all 'work properly', not to tell a load of developers who they should be doing their jobs.

[mikeymike]

@ whabang

1)A _single user_ OS.

Why does it have to be single user only?

[whabang]

mikeymike wrote:
@ whabang

1)A _single user_ OS.

Why does it have to be single user only?

I don't like to log in every time that I start my computer, and I don't like the XP-style login screen either. I want an OS which is made to be used by one user. I don't need the capability to switch from one user to another, while still running the programs from the other user. I don't need the possibility to run my computer in a major network.
On the other hand, an OS doesn't have to be designed to be a single user OS. Who knows, I might need those features one day... :-)

[Seehund]

Wayne wrote:

I need, in no particular order;

1) Wholly Integrated network stack.  
I should not have to learn how to install the Internet just to use it.

Add integrated support for a bunch of protocols apart from TCP/IP to that. SMB, NFS, SSH...

2) A 100% fully compliant browser which handles every new standard out there including CSS, Javascript, XML, and XHTML.

3) Games.  Lots of cool, NOT PORTED games to keep me occupied.

These three things I feel would drive development, much more than a word processor or even desktop video application.  What do you think?

Agreed. "The web" is a basic and probably the most used "application" and a fundamental requirement of a modern desktop system today.
While not essential for the usability of such a system, games do certainly attract/retain users and drive development. As an example, I don't think many x86 Linux users would let a Windows partition be around wasting disk space if there only were a sufficient number of games for Linux. Ports are needed too - for example,  people probably want to play the same network games with other people on other platforms.

A reasonably modern printing system, with network support and integrated postscript interpreter. People want and need to make hardcopies of their work, simple as that. CUPS is probably a bitch to implement on a single-user platform, but that'd be an example of an ideal solution IMO.

[mikeymike]

I don't like to log in every time that I start my computer, and I don't like the XP-style login screen either. I want an OS which is made to be used by one user. I don't need the capability to switch from one user to another, while still running the programs from the other user. I don't need the possibility to run my computer in a major network.
On the other hand, an OS doesn't have to be designed to be a single user OS. Who knows, I might need those features one day...

Did you know you can completely switch off the need to log in at all on Win2k/XP (and I don't mean use auto-logon)?  I can point you in the direction of all the relevant info you need to do that, if you want.

The advantages of a multi user OS may not be obvious straight away, but a decent OS security model is usually the greatest benefit, including a filesystem that allows per-user permissions (even not allowing the system to access particular files, but allowing your user to).

[mikeymike]

Add integrated support for a bunch of protocols apart from TCP/IP to that. SMB

You want integrated support for the most buggy and security-hole'd  filesharing protocol in existence?

[whabang]

Didn't you know? The fact that is unstable, unsecure and generally full of ####, automatically makes it very popular... :-D

[whabang]

Did you know you can completely switch off the need to log in at all on Win2k/XP

Not without using auto-logon... HOw do you do that?

[mikeymike]

@ whabang

:-)

What's so wrong with FTP I have to ask... and don't tell me people seriously need to directly print files to a printer on another PC... even I just FTP the file to the other PC at home and print it off from there, and both computers are running Windows! :-)

(It's been years since I've needed to print something from my Amiga)

[whabang]

and don't tell me people seriously need to directly print files to a printer on another PC

You have obviously never experienced the fun in printing pr0n to someone else's printer over an open network...  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

[Siggy]

@mikeymike

People do seriously need to directly print files to a
printer on another PC.

My wife and I both share a laser printer at home.
It's an essential bit of kit for both of our respective jobs.

Why should I spend money on TWO of these, or buggerise around
with FTP when I don't have to? When I should be able to just
hit 'print' and have it work?

Siggy.

[Seehund]

mikeymike wrote:

You want integrated support for the most buggy and security-hole'd  filesharing protocol in existence?

Yup, because in addition to being the most buggy and security-holed file/printer sharing protocol, it's the most commonly used one. There's no SANA-II implementation for all the most common OSes, or is there?

No, I don't want it and root directory sharing turned on by default.

[mikeymike]

@ whabang

Not without using auto-logon... HOw do you do that?

I don't have XP handy, but I doubt it's different from Win2k Pro in this respect.  There's two ways of changing that setting, one is when you've just reinstalled, it asks you whether you want to log in every time or not.

The other way is in Control Panel > Users & Passwords: the check box:

"Users must enter a user name and password to use this computer"

Personally I prefer having to log in as it stops other people with local access from being tempted to snoop