Page 1 of 1
What 'look' has your OS?...
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:52 am
by inflater
...the question is given
//EDIT: My is independent, it has his own FS and binaries (under development now).
inflater
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 10:59 am
by AJ
1 vote here for independent - because it's not really at the stage of finalising any sort of gui or tui yet. I guess some things will give it a dos 'feel', as dos is the os I was brought up on.
Other things, like treating devices as a files will be more unixy. It could all change though....
Adam
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:07 pm
by frank
I'm not really modeling my OS after any other OS so I voted for Independent. However I guess the command line interface is kind of like DOS.
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:27 pm
by pcmattman
I guess until I get around to (properly) implementing the graphics side of my OS, it looks a lot like MS-DOS. The only differences would be that my OS multitasks (a nightmare on a console
) and supports logging in to the system (iirc something which DOS didn't).
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:15 pm
by Happy Egghead
I voted for 'Other OS' primarily due to the fact that my OS looks much like a Commodore 64 Basic Console.
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 7:29 pm
by Dex
I could of ticked 3, as the cli is like dos or linux and the gui can be like xp or it can be like a games console (Xbox).
Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:39 am
by pjt
Mine too is independent. I'm really trying hard, not make a POSIX or a windows like OS.
As for the CLI, the variations are quite limited, aren't they?
Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:41 pm
by Tyler
pjt wrote:Mine too is independent. I'm really trying hard, not make a POSIX or a windows like OS.
As for the CLI, the variations are quite limited, aren't they?
Why work against them? Mine is mostly independent (very easy to mimick all of the above) becasue my design made cloning one of them impossible. But if you have to actually work against yourself, it seems a waste. In the end, people will find it easier to use if it identical to windows on the front
