OSDev.org

milyges wrote://EDIT: Yes! It's another UNIX clone

Only the mentally ill would fault you for that, no worries.

Brynet-Inc wrote:

milyges wrote://EDIT: Yes! It's another UNIX clone

Only the mentally ill would fault you for that, no worries.

Stop being a UNIX hugger. There are plenty of reasons (some mentioned on the forum) why the UNIX world is so very far from being perfect. It was designed like 40 years ago, software and hardware evolved.

Love4Boobies wrote:

Brynet-Inc wrote:

milyges wrote://EDIT: Yes! It's another UNIX clone

Only the mentally ill would fault you for that, no worries.

Stop being a UNIX hugger. There are plenty of reasons (some mentioned on the forum) why the UNIX world is so very far from being perfect. It was designed like 40 years ago, software and hardware evolved.

If Brynet-Inc and David Cutler came into contact, they would annihilate.

----

I'm gonna call mine YOWK for Yet Another UNIX Clone...

Love4Boobies wrote:Stop being a UNIX hugger. There are plenty of reasons (some mentioned on the forum) why the UNIX world is so very far from being perfect. It was designed like 40 years ago, software and hardware evolved.

None of said reasons are valid enough to warrant further discussion, now leave me alone, another non-perfect UNIX clone is being created somewhere on Earth and I AM going to hug it.

Stand back, things may get a little messy.

Well, Brendan made a good point against UNIX schedulers in this post. Priorities are very important in scheduling. But I'm not a UNIX hater, nor a Microsoft hugger; I'm agnostic. My OS will probably take over the world someday but untill then...

Love4Boobies wrote:Well, Brendan made a good point against UNIX schedulers in this post. Priorities are very important in scheduling.

Yeah well he's just fussy, there is no scheduler that everyone will be content with.. so we should make due with what time we have.

I'm scheduler apathetic.. meaning I don't give a rats @$$ if it favours I/O over CPU intensive tasks, it's not the end of the world.

He can go on and on about the flaws and how he hates Unix.. ignoring that it's continuously improved upon today, he's not going to revolutionize the industry with any of his designs, no matter how many magic shrooms' he ingests before flattening goombas.

Love4Boobies wrote:But I'm not a UNIX hater, nor a Microsoft hugger; I'm agnostic. My OS will probably take over the world someday but untill then...

Best hate everything.. except those things that you like.. I find that less confusing.

Let me know when your OS is ready, just so can prepare for my launch into deep space.. I'll probably be battling space aliens on the same day!

Looks like my joke got taken the wrong way :S

Edit: also, since when did Linux have no concept of priorities? the "nice" command
Brendan's problem may have arised from him trying to increase the priority of his threads. Everything starts at it's maximum priority (I don't know why, but -20 is highest and +19 is lowest). If you want a thread to have a higher priority than another, you have to decrease the priority of the thread that should have a lower priority.

The idea of the nice command is to be "nice" to other users by giving their processes priority over yours. Nobody ever uses it.

Unix is just xinu spelled backwards. So if you don't like unix or systems designed like it, whats a better alternative?

Schedulers suck. If only all the tasks could just run at the same time...

-JL

piranha wrote:Unix is just xinu spelled backwards. So if you don't like unix or systems designed like it, whats a better alternative?

Actually, Xinu's Not Unix

Hi,

Synon wrote:Brendan's problem may have arised from him trying to increase the priority of his threads. Everything starts at it's maximum priority (I don't know why, but -20 is highest and +19 is lowest). If you want a thread to have a higher priority than another, you have to decrease the priority of the thread that should have a lower priority.

For POSIX pthreads there's "scheduling policies" and "scheduling priorities". For Linux, the pthreads library has scheduling policies SCHED_FIFO, SCHED_RR and SCHED_OTHER. SCHED_FIFO and SCHED_RR are intended for real-time tasks and do have priorities, but the program must be running as "root" to use these scheduling policies. That only leaves SCHED_OTHER (which is the default, and the most appropriate for normal tasks including my utility). SCHED_OTHER doesn't have any priorities (the minimum priority is zero and the maximum priority is zero).

My utility is meant to be portable. I can't rely on the native kernel API for any specific OS, and (due to the way pthreads work) I can't assume that using a kernel API to control scheduling won't cause major problems (e.g. conflicts with the implementation of the pthreads library). My utility shouldn't be run as root (it scans a directory tree and deletes files that it thinks are obsolete) and it'd be a major pain in the neck to use it as root if it wasn't a security risk.

My utility uses lots of threads (over 100) and some threads can only do a small amount of work before they need to wait for other threads. If these threads were given a lower priority than the threads they need to wait for, then I could avoid lots of useless thread switches (basically, try to do the work in some threads before it's needed by other threads, so that the other threads don't do a small amount of work then wait).


Cheers,

Brendan

I am on Brynet's side, UNIX is far more superior than any OS BECAUSE is IS 40 years old and has more
experience than any OS I have seen. Besides, if it was not how would it have lasted 40 years?

Brynet-Inc wrote: another non-perfect UNIX clone is being created somewhere on Earth and I AM going to hug it.

+1

I like the idea of your logic, so I applied it to another other area of life: the mince that's been on my kitchen bench for the last 3 weeks has more experience at being meat than the meat that's been in the fridge for 3 hours, so I should eat the meat off the bench. Clearly this is false.

You may have meant that UNIX-based OS' have had more bugfixes than others. This is also false, since the code gets completely rewritten by some bored programmer every decade or so.

The petrol (gasoline) powered car has lasted 100 years. Doesn't mean it's still a good idea. We're going to have to come to grips with this very shortly, and UNIX's time is also long overdue (about the same time that we got GUIs).

Edit: Grammar fix.

JackScott wrote:The petrol (gasoline) powered car has lasted 100 years. Doesn't mean it's still a good idea.

The first cars were actually battery-powered... there's a lesson in there somewhere.

Solar wrote:

JackScott wrote:The petrol (gasoline) powered car has lasted 100 years. Doesn't mean it's still a good idea.

The first cars were actually battery-powered... there's a lesson in there somewhere.

And we're probably getting back to (hydrogen) batteries in a few years...

JackScott wrote:You may have meant that the UNIX OS because it's had more bugfixes than others. This is also false, since the code gets completely rewritten by some bored programmer every decade or so.

And that is were you have failed Every re-write it gets better and improves further than before! New ideas! new concepts! inproved ext file systems! Yeah sure it is going high level, but that can always be optimized. Besides do you
think I should throw away my PC because the x86 was made years ago? just with some rebuilds it was made better and
better until BOOM intel atom! Well you can toss your x86 out, but im keeping mine!

JackScott wrote:The petrol (gasoline) powered car has lasted 100 years. Doesn't mean it's still a good idea.

And? as long as that egine still revs up past 6000 RPM and my radio still plays "Don't stop me now" I could care less