Mark T.B. Carroll wrote:
Are KWrite and Kate something to do with KDE or something? One of the first things I do with a new Linux install is to dump all the KDE and Gnome stuff on the basis that it's an enormous amount of bloatware for little gain. Others may think differently! (-:
Yeah, that'll be it then. ;-) Gnome and KDE are both rather bloated... Unfortunately, nothing better exists. :-( But then, the entire Linux world is too messy for me... hence my request for a petter OS.
On 6/18/07, Andrew Coppin
Mark T.B. Carroll wrote:
Are KWrite and Kate something to do with KDE or something? One of the first things I do with a new Linux install is to dump all the KDE and Gnome stuff on the basis that it's an enormous amount of bloatware for little gain. Others may think differently! (-:
Yeah, that'll be it then. ;-)
Gnome and KDE are both rather bloated... Unfortunately, nothing better exists. :-(
But then, the entire Linux world is too messy for me... hence my request for a petter OS.
Well, since we're on the subject and it's only the Cafe list, what is it that you find messy about Linux that you would want to be solved by some hypothetical Haskell OS?
Creighton Hogg wrote:
Well, since we're on the subject and it's only the Cafe list, what is it that you find messy about Linux that you would want to be solved by some hypothetical Haskell OS?
This is drifting off-topic again, but here goes... There are lots of things to like about Linux. It doesn't cost money. It's fast. It's reliable. It's flexible. It's secure. However, unfortunately it's still Unix. In other words, it's a vast incoherant mess of largely incompatible ad-hoc solutions to individual problems implemented independently by unrelated hackers over the 40+ years of history that this software has been around. New software has to emulate quirks in old software, and client programs work around the emulated quirks in the new software to get the functionallity it actually wants. One vast tangled mess of complexity and disorder. Exhibit A: Package managers exist. Exhibit B: Autoconf exists. I rest my case. An operating system should have a simple, clear, consistent design. Not unlike a certain programming language named after a dead mathematition, come to think of it... (Have you ever programmed in C? You can certainly see where Unix gets its features from - terse, cryptic and messy.) Still, I don't have the skill to write a functioning operating system - much less one that's "ready for the desktop" - so that's that I suppose... (I did seriously investigate the task once. Indeed, I got as far as writing a bootloader. It worked too!)
Exhibit A: Package managers exist. Exhibit B: Autoconf exists. I rest my case.
no. install the latest copy of ubuntu. look for the autotools. not there? thats right. somehow debian/unbuntu and derived distros are capable of installing tens of thousands of packages without nary a compiler installed.
An operating system should have a simple, clear, consistent design. Not unlike a certain programming language named after a dead mathematition
unix is indeed largely consistent as originally conceived and executed through most of its history. simple small tools. everything is a file. ascii config files.
Still, I don't have the skill to write a functioning operating system
writing an operating system in haskell would solve absolutely nothing. in the end the userland is still a much larger portion of the codebase, or should we rewrite all of that too?
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 05:20:48PM -0700, brad clawsie wrote:
Exhibit A: Package managers exist. Exhibit B: Autoconf exists. I rest my case.
no. install the latest copy of ubuntu. look for the autotools. not there? thats right. somehow debian/unbuntu and derived distros are capable of installing tens of thousands of packages without nary a compiler installed.
An operating system should have a simple, clear, consistent design. Not unlike a certain programming language named after a dead mathematition
unix is indeed largely consistent as originally conceived and executed through most of its history. simple small tools. everything is a file. ascii config files.
Still, I don't have the skill to write a functioning operating system
writing an operating system in haskell would solve absolutely nothing. in the end the userland is still a much larger portion of the codebase, or should we rewrite all of that too?
I'd like to take this opportunity to remind the world of a piece of common sense: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Stefan
participants (4)
-
Andrew Coppin -
brad clawsie -
Creighton Hogg -
Stefan O'Rear