How would you feel to get all small the small osses
in one BIG os??? mail me at [email protected]
NEW OS to beat XP and Blackcomb
-
The Legend
RE:NEW OS to beat XP and Blackcomb
>On 2002-03-20 07:04:19, Lord HC wrote:
>How would you feel to get all small the small osses
>in one BIG os??? mail me at [email protected]
And who decides how that new OS is going to be?
Sorry, but I think simple to go on a board and say
"Hey everybody, let's make an OS!" won't work,
you'll have to do it in an another way!
The Legend
>How would you feel to get all small the small osses
>in one BIG os??? mail me at [email protected]
And who decides how that new OS is going to be?
Sorry, but I think simple to go on a board and say
"Hey everybody, let's make an OS!" won't work,
you'll have to do it in an another way!
The Legend
-
Lord HC
RE:NEW OS to beat XP and Blackcomb
>On 2002-03-20 12:26:05, The Legend wrote:
>>On 2002-03-20 07:04:19, Lord HC wrote:
>>How would you feel to get all small the small osses
>>in one BIG os??? mail me at [email protected]
>And who decides how that new OS is going to be?
>Sorry, but I think simple to go on a board and say
>"Hey everybody, let's make an OS!" won't work,
>you'll have to do it in an another way!
>
>The Legend
But i see a lot of good experimental
operating systems, but they dont get together
I would like to see this happen!
And sorry for the repeating
>>On 2002-03-20 07:04:19, Lord HC wrote:
>>How would you feel to get all small the small osses
>>in one BIG os??? mail me at [email protected]
>And who decides how that new OS is going to be?
>Sorry, but I think simple to go on a board and say
>"Hey everybody, let's make an OS!" won't work,
>you'll have to do it in an another way!
>
>The Legend
But i see a lot of good experimental
operating systems, but they dont get together
I would like to see this happen!
And sorry for the repeating
-
Tim Robinson
RE:NEW OS to beat XP and Blackcomb
>On 2002-03-20 15:49:45, Lord HC wrote:
>But i see a lot of good experimental
>operating systems, but they dont get together
>I would like to see this happen!
OK, but who gets to lead it? Who decides how it
should work? Do you have any experience of
leading huge projects over the Internet?
>But i see a lot of good experimental
>operating systems, but they dont get together
>I would like to see this happen!
OK, but who gets to lead it? Who decides how it
should work? Do you have any experience of
leading huge projects over the Internet?
-
Guest
RE:NEW OS to beat XP and Blackcomb
>On 2002-03-21 13:01:23, Tim Robinson wrote:
>>On 2002-03-20 15:49:45, Lord HC wrote:
>>But i see a lot of good experimental
>>operating systems, but they dont get together
>>I would like to see this happen!
>
>OK, but who gets to lead it? Who decides how it
>should work? Do you have any experience of
>leading huge projects over the Internet?
Everybody gets to say somthing. And then
everybody desides what the best way is.
And yes i got experience in projects
>>On 2002-03-20 15:49:45, Lord HC wrote:
>>But i see a lot of good experimental
>>operating systems, but they dont get together
>>I would like to see this happen!
>
>OK, but who gets to lead it? Who decides how it
>should work? Do you have any experience of
>leading huge projects over the Internet?
Everybody gets to say somthing. And then
everybody desides what the best way is.
And yes i got experience in projects
-
Guest
RE:NEW OS to beat XP and Blackcomb
>Everybody gets to say somthing. And then
>everybody desides what the best way is.
>And yes i got experience in projects
How will this work? How do you intend to stick
together so many small operating systems?
Surely it makes more sense to have many people
writing on *one* OS, each doing different things.
If you combine four OS projects, you'll just have
4 boot loaders, 4 memory managers, 4 file systems,
4 keyboard drivers...
>everybody desides what the best way is.
>And yes i got experience in projects
How will this work? How do you intend to stick
together so many small operating systems?
Surely it makes more sense to have many people
writing on *one* OS, each doing different things.
If you combine four OS projects, you'll just have
4 boot loaders, 4 memory managers, 4 file systems,
4 keyboard drivers...
-
BeurreSoft
RE:NEW OS to beat XP and Blackcomb
>On 2002-03-24 12:13:19, Anonymous wrote:
>>Everybody gets to say somthing. And then
>>everybody desides what the best way is.
>>And yes i got experience in projects
>
>How will this work? How do you intend to stick
>together so many small operating systems?
>
>Surely it makes more sense to have many people
>writing on *one* OS, each doing different things.
>If you combine four OS projects, you'll just have
>4 boot loaders, 4 memory managers, 4 file systems,
>4 keyboard drivers...
Yeah, and the user can choose the one he likes
Beurre
>>Everybody gets to say somthing. And then
>>everybody desides what the best way is.
>>And yes i got experience in projects
>
>How will this work? How do you intend to stick
>together so many small operating systems?
>
>Surely it makes more sense to have many people
>writing on *one* OS, each doing different things.
>If you combine four OS projects, you'll just have
>4 boot loaders, 4 memory managers, 4 file systems,
>4 keyboard drivers...
Yeah, and the user can choose the one he likes
Beurre
-
ShadowWolf
RE:NEW OS to beat XP and Blackcomb
>On 2002-03-26 17:06:18, BeurreSoft wrote:
>>On 2002-03-24 12:13:19, Anonymous wrote:
>>>Everybody gets to say somthing. And then
>>>everybody desides what the best way is.
>>>And yes i got experience in projects
>>
>>How will this work? How do you intend to stick
>>together so many small operating systems?
>>
>>Surely it makes more sense to have many people
>>writing on *one* OS, each doing different things.
>>If you combine four OS projects, you'll just have
>>4 boot loaders, 4 memory managers, 4 file systems,
>>4 keyboard drivers...
>
>Yeah, and the user can choose the one he likes
>
>Beurre
The problem with this comes in the form similarly
to Linux. Many people enjoy this OS, but the major
problem comes from the lack of uniformity. Between
two versions of Linux, they can work SOOO differently
you almost have to RELEARN that version of Linux
in order to really utilize it to it's fullest.
When you have, say, 10 people each designing their
own parts, you have problems...major problems.
Say, for example, one coder likes functions,
another likes structs, another likes only asm,
and another likes using all the code without
functions OR structs/classes. All these styles
vary and will destroy uniformity.
If you wanna see what happens when you developers
forced to use one style of coding look at Microsoft
Windows (any version) or MS-DOS.
In general, it IS better to have an open
environment where each user can individually
contribute to a primary driven project controlled
by a select few ( the OS coders ). 2 to 3 people
could EASILY code the entiry of the base OS and
have the communities really push it along.
Eventually you get corpers like RedHat &
MandrakeSoft (from Linux) who take interest, but
still you have problems that way.
You can lead a project in real life, but to lead
a project online is not only very difficult, but
very time consuming. I wonder whom out there
can really dedicate enough time to properly
manage a group of sizable people.
Not to mention, what would design goals be?
Languages used? Function Calls, Processor systems,
environments, types, etc..etc....
No project ever started without a primary goal
with some dedication has ever succeeded ( just
look, once again, at Windows ).
>>On 2002-03-24 12:13:19, Anonymous wrote:
>>>Everybody gets to say somthing. And then
>>>everybody desides what the best way is.
>>>And yes i got experience in projects
>>
>>How will this work? How do you intend to stick
>>together so many small operating systems?
>>
>>Surely it makes more sense to have many people
>>writing on *one* OS, each doing different things.
>>If you combine four OS projects, you'll just have
>>4 boot loaders, 4 memory managers, 4 file systems,
>>4 keyboard drivers...
>
>Yeah, and the user can choose the one he likes
>
>Beurre
The problem with this comes in the form similarly
to Linux. Many people enjoy this OS, but the major
problem comes from the lack of uniformity. Between
two versions of Linux, they can work SOOO differently
you almost have to RELEARN that version of Linux
in order to really utilize it to it's fullest.
When you have, say, 10 people each designing their
own parts, you have problems...major problems.
Say, for example, one coder likes functions,
another likes structs, another likes only asm,
and another likes using all the code without
functions OR structs/classes. All these styles
vary and will destroy uniformity.
If you wanna see what happens when you developers
forced to use one style of coding look at Microsoft
Windows (any version) or MS-DOS.
In general, it IS better to have an open
environment where each user can individually
contribute to a primary driven project controlled
by a select few ( the OS coders ). 2 to 3 people
could EASILY code the entiry of the base OS and
have the communities really push it along.
Eventually you get corpers like RedHat &
MandrakeSoft (from Linux) who take interest, but
still you have problems that way.
You can lead a project in real life, but to lead
a project online is not only very difficult, but
very time consuming. I wonder whom out there
can really dedicate enough time to properly
manage a group of sizable people.
Not to mention, what would design goals be?
Languages used? Function Calls, Processor systems,
environments, types, etc..etc....
No project ever started without a primary goal
with some dedication has ever succeeded ( just
look, once again, at Windows ).