Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => The Lounge => Topic started by: jpmarat on 7 May 2003, 07:02
-
Dude...Datacide smoked crack.
But thats ok. Anyhow, I agree that having another OS probly isn't an efficient use of his time, especially to make it in ASM...anyhow. I do find it funny that the same people post on all the boards and I see the same names over and over again. It's kinda like a group of friends though and that makes it kool. Im a n00b right now but hopefully not for much longer...
-
yeah. he was sooo butt hurt about it that he talked a bunch of shit about "us" on a couple other forums, and then came back to tell us about it. lame.
-
Shit like that dosen't help
fuck me eh! :D
-
datacide is a fucktard and if a thousand fucktards came here i would consider it a great benefit if we drove them all away.
in my opinion people should THINK.
-
http://forum.defcon.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1452 (http://forum.defcon.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1452)
quote:
0versight: One reply you should really think about is Refalm's.
Soory about that, had to post it (http://tongue.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Refalm:
http://forum.defcon.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1452 (http://forum.defcon.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1452)
Soory about that, had to post it (http://tongue.gif)
Yeah, think... About how stupid it is! HAWR HAWR HAWR! (http://smile.gif) Just kidding.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Refalm:
http://forum.defcon.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1452 (http://forum.defcon.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1452)
Soory about that, had to post it (http://tongue.gif)
Smartass! :D
-
what a fucktard. gets his pantys in a bunch over the fact that he doesn't know what he is talking about.
-
Defcon forums... is this the Defcon I think it is? If it is, why are a few of the people there showing Datacide sympathy?
-
"Duh... wunt 2 create a new OS? Oh by teh way my name means data committing suicide LOL HAHAHAHA"
-
Well Linus did it, but it took him 10(?) years, tons of effort, and indirectly recruiting an army of volunters.
-
No he didn't. Richard Stallman and an army of volunteers (one of whom turned out to be Linus Torvalds) did it.
-
Hold up here. Yes I know about the GNU thing, but what about Linux kernel and many of it's programs? I'm just being technical here, not trying to discredit others. if Linus Torvalds hadn't of gotten the idea to make his own OS, Linux would not be here.
I wanna add my two cents about Datacide. (http://smile.gif)
When he says he wants to combine the best parts of OSes, he could very well mean design principles, not stealing source code.
Also Datacide made a terrible mistake in his ideology. It's ok to want to be bigger than Microsoft, but Datacide probably fails to grasp how truly bad Microsoft is. He sees success, we see bullshit. Also, Microsoft didn't get where it was with OSes and programming languages(this is probably moot point anyways), it got there with one fuck of alot of luck and the consistent usage of dirty tricks. Datacide probably doesn't get this either.
-
Linus wrote his own *kernel*, not an OS. Writing a new operating system was Stallman's idea. And the kernel is a significantly smaller fraction of the whole system than the GNU project's contribution.
-
Ok now I'm starting to see it. (http://smile.gif)
So Stallman's idea for an OS was hurd, right? So does this mean Linus hears about HURD and starts his kernel project, or does he start his kernel project and then hear about HURD?
-
quote:
Originally posted by lazygamer:
Ok now I'm starting to see it. (http://smile.gif)
So Stallman's idea for an OS was hurd, right? So does this mean Linus hears about HURD and starts his kernel project, or does he start his kernel project and then hear about HURD?
no no no no no.... GNU HURD is not an OS, it's a kernel, like linux. Everyone was waiting for it's compleation (even today), but since it wasen't getting done in time those eeger to get on with progress snatched up the next best thing available, and a replacement for the UNIX kernel. Linux just happened to be at the right place and the right time. Furthermore, Stallman supports the HURD and may have programmed for them (I don't know about this), but he didn't come up with it, it's been in the work for years.
Linus wasen't setting out to compete against HURD he was just running a hobby project. Creating his own OS based on Minix, an x86 based UNIX used to teach students to run UNIX on big servers and mainframes.
The project was revolutionary in that it set the pressident for all webbased development like that seen in sourceforge etc. Anyway, the thing grew exponentialy, and before you knew it, it became what we know as Linux today.
Many programmers in the project saw Linux as a place holder for HURD, others saw HURD as vaporware and Linux the replacement. HURD however still looms on the horizon, and it is technicaly supperior to linux in every way, but Linux's wide spread growth may see that HURD is not adopted quickly. Only time will tell.
[ May 11, 2003: Message edited by: psyjax: plain 'ol psyjax ]
-
Thanks for clearing that up, Psyjax. Hurd sounds quite interesting! So I ran off to it's website, and it sounds even more interesting.
HURD website (http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html#TOCintroduction)
So this will be much better than Linux?
[ May 13, 2003: Message edited by: lazygamer ]
[ May 13, 2003: Message edited by: lazygamer ]
-
no it will not. the main reason people say hurd is technically superior is that it is a microkernel, while linux is monolithic. microkernels hand off as much responsibility to other software, to optimise speed and ease of customisability for future versions. Monolithic kernels (such as linux) contain everything in the kernel, a potential headache for anybody trying to add to it or tidy it up. But wait, linux sensibly decided the linux kernel would be totally modular, meaning each module can be developed more or less in total isolation from the other parts of the kernel, also, microkernels have a habit of being flaky in practice due to several reasons. Hurd has been vapourware for twenty years, linux was in stable versions between a year and two years after it was conceived.
you might like to read this article about the history of GNU and Linux (http://promote-opensource.org/modules/xoopsfaq/index.php?cat_id=2#q8), in particular read this link which (http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/appa.html) is a transcript of the "Linux is obsolete thread on comp.os.minix, which answers most of these questions.
finally one quick word:
quote:
Creating his own OS based on Minix, an x86 based UNIX used to teach students to run UNIX on big servers and mainframes.
everything else you said is spot on, but this is not quite right. Minix was a proprietary OS that Andrew S Tanenbaum wrote for the 8088 PC (i think, it may have been the 8086 but i don't think so) as a teaching tool. He did it in his spare time and he charged money for it. Tanenbaum was famous amongst his users for hardly ever adding features that everybody was asking for, and for taking ages to upgrade when he did add new features. His arguments were always "i don't have time to add that" and "Minix would be too complicated a teaching tool if i added that". His users got very frustrated with him, and when the 80386 PC had been out for a while (the 286 was an utter disaster technologically and commercially), and it became apparent that Tanenbaum would not port his mnix system to the 386, some people got even more hot under the collar. Bruce Evans (later to work on linux) brought out a series of patches you could apply to Minix to make it work better on your 386, but tanenbaum did not endorse these and they were unsupported by him. Minix at this point is still the only unix you can run on a PC, all other unixes require you to spend another couple of thousand bucks on a sparcstation or something.
Enter Torvalds, he has upgraded from a Sinclair ZX to a 386 although he is not too happy with the intel chip architecture, he orders a copy of minix, and after a few months he writes a little terminal switcher because minix' multitasking is rubbish (the reason being that it was written for an 8088 and not a 386, which had better multitasking), so he could read his messages and work on his computer at the same time. Over a short time he adds more and more features to his multitasker and realises it could easily become a kernel on its own, since minix looks to him like it is frozen in time, he does, and he takes the unprecedented step of asking for help on comp.os.minix. He uses ftp (provided by ari lemmke of funet) to distribute his work, and accepts patches from people by email.
Both minix and linux are based on the cheap intel PCs, not mainframes. minix was designed to teach students about how unix microkernel systems work (with nice tidy subroutines et c) and linux was designed to be easy to develop in modules and most importantly to be workable now, with no difficult hurdles to overcome before it is usable.
Hurd is a microkernel. Most people who say microkernels are technically superior say it from an academic perspective with not much basis in what actually works. no offence to psyjax here however. microkernels are superior to monolithic kernels technically, but try getting one to work! also Torvalds took several noteworthy decisions which allowed his monolithic kernel to avoid the problems previous monolithic kernels had fallen prey to.
[ May 13, 2003: Message edited by: Calum: hopelessly outnumbered ]
-
quote:
microkernels are superior to monolithic kernels technically, but try getting one to work!
Very true and that's why HURD is taking so much time to complete. Apple especially was very lucky in the sense that the Mach microkernel is absolutely perfect.