What do you want in an Operating System?

[yanike]

I would like to know what you want in an Operating System.

From graphics to effects to features to programs to the core of the OS.

What would YOU want an Operating System to be like?

Note: I'm looking for BSD Developers, Graphics Designers and more for this project. If you are interested, contact me.

[sundayx Veteran]

Experience (visual and interactivity) and efficiency (through function/features).

[ATGC]

- Zero slow downs, no loading no matter what the application. Just click and open the application.

- No start up loading, just push the start button and desktop should be ready for use in 1-5 sec.

- No slow downs turning off computer, all running programs are closed in under 1-5sec.

- OS should be able to recognize types of application being installed, so everything doesn't go into program files. Perhaps something like Installed Games, Installed Secruity, Installed Office Apps, Installed Media files, etc.

- Registry shouldn't be organized better as well.

- so many improvements can be made...I could keep going

[ring0]

- Registry shouldn't be organized better as well.

you want the registry to be less organized, eh?

[exotoxic]

i would just like to keep it simple... no bundled programs only the core OS.

More modular right from the start... make an app that you use to remove certain parts BEFORE you make the final install CD.

A default UI much like windows classic.

[devHead]

- Zero slow downs, no loading no matter what the application. Just click and open the application.

- No start up loading, just push the start button and desktop should be ready for use in 1-5 sec.

- No slow downs turning off computer, all running programs are closed in under 1-5sec.

- OS should be able to recognize types of application being installed, so everything doesn't go into program files. Perhaps something like Installed Games, Installed Secruity, Installed Office Apps, Installed Media files, etc.

- Registry shouldn't be organized better as well.

- so many improvements can be made...I could keep going

No start up loading? 1-5 seconds for an operating system to load? You do realize that with a spinning hard disk drive that has to access information for the OS and all the things than an OS has to do, that there is some time involved, right? But at the same time you want a seemingly esoteric feature of it 'knowing' magically whether a new installation is a security application or an office application?

You've likely never coded a line of anything in your life.

[markwolfe Veteran]

I want my operating system to be mine. I mean, that copy belongs to be to install as many copies as I like and use for whatever I want, without artificial limitations on features.

I want it to allow to be very modular, so it supports me removing and replacing core elements/packages/features, including the whole user interface, so I can select whatever type of system that suits me best.

If only I could find such an OS....

[what]

I want something that detects all my hardware and installs all the necessary firmware without failing.

I don't want any updates to the firmware to cause me to get black screens/BSoD/etc.

I want a simple yet elegant interface that is designed with productivity in mind. This includes using global keyboard shortcuts and hotkeys so that each key combination does the same thing in every single application. Interface customisation is not a priority if the default theme is clean enough.

I don't want excess visual effects bogging down the system by default.

There should be a decent office suite installed by default that also has a UI created with productivity in mind.

There should be a package manager which uses repositories which are not restricted by ideologies about 'free software', etc.

[markwolfe Veteran]

...

There should be a package manager which uses repositories which are not restricted by ideologies about 'free software', etc.

For the record, there are currently "nonfree" repos. Just enable it and you are good to go (Y)

Oh, and the whining about "free software" has a point. You cannot legally re-distribute software that is under someone else's copyright and license terms. That would be illegal.

[what]

For the record, there are currently "nonfree" repos. Just enable it and you are good to go (Y)

Oh, and the whining about "free software" has a point. You cannot legally re-distribute software that is under someone else's copyright and license terms. That would be illegal.

I know, and I fully understand that, but the case that springs to my mind is the way Debian chooses to use Iceweasel instead of Firefox because the icon is protected. I want to be able to choose what to use. I don't like being told what I can and can't install on my own computer.

[The2]

Must have:

- be customizable, like having just a few programs/services after first install but still have some standards (this is what Linux doesn't have, universal standards)

- clean, productivity oriented design and no bulky controls (KDE4 somebody?)

- good API for drivers, this is a must for wide audience, I was recently watching an video about driver development in Microsoft and now I know why Linux drivers suck

- security in mind from the start

- innovative file system (searching/indexing)

and one very special

- optimized as hell, yea, we have fast computers today, but what's all that when 2.2 core2duo begs down on Vista

and most of these are present in Linux but there is no strict way of doing some basic thing like printing, drivers, installing programs... some things just have to be like that

[Borbus]

Oh, and the whining about "free software" has a point. You cannot legally re-distribute software that is under someone else's copyright and license terms. That would be illegal.

Well that's not quite true because GNU is mostly copyright FSF, Linux is copyright thousands of people including Linus Toarvalds etc. and the rest is copyright probably millions of people. The difference is that it is licensed under a free software license like the GPL/BSD etc. instead of a restrictive proprietary license.

What I look for in an OS:

Free software

Works for my purposes

That's about it.

[markwolfe Veteran]

Well that's not quite true because GNU is mostly copyright FSF, Linux is copyright thousands of people including Linus Toarvalds etc. and the rest is copyright probably millions of people. The difference is that it is licensed under a free software license like the GPL/BSD etc. instead of a restrictive proprietary license.

...

Did you miss where I said "and license"? :whistle:

You cannot legally redistribute works under someone else's copyright, unless the license (like GNU GPL) allows it.

You may know what you are talking about, but so do I ;)

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

I know, and I fully understand that, but the case that springs to my mind is the way Debian chooses to use Iceweasel instead of Firefox because the icon is protected. I want to be able to choose what to use. I don't like being told what I can and can't install on my own computer.

That's just debian being stupid (IceWeasel doesn't support APNG's because they don't like the format apparently)

For my "perfect" OS, I want something small, highly reliable, compartmentalised and "free".

I'm waiting on HURD apparently :laugh:

[roadgeek9]

Good Performance

Good Compatibility

Good Efficiency

Free

Decent User Interface (Windows XP Classic is okay with me)

[C++]

I want my operating system to be 100% transparent, and I am not talking about the graphics. I just want it to work so well that I can forget absolutely everything about it, and be able to devote 100% of my focus to the files or programs I am working with. On a side note, the only operating system that's come close to that so far is Windows.

[4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran]

I agree with Mark about wanting a free/open source OS. This is very important, though not too many people yet recognise how important it is, and it is why I use Linux, though there are other OSes out there that are also free.

Generally though, an OS has to be secure and yet easy to use. It must make the most of your hardware. It must be easy to configure for people who want to make changes. It must be open to support any sort of desktop or other visually appealing and useful window manager you want to throw at it.

Yes, an OS is there to communicate with the hardware, to protect you from outside intrusions and to make sure your commands are obeyed. It is the base upon which any sort of desktop or window manager can be used.

That describes the Linux kernel, but I guess my real wishes at this point are mostly about Gnome, one of the many desktops available for Linux and some other OSes like OpenSolaris and FreeBSD.

I guess what I want most in an operating system is freedom and choice. The freedom to use it as I see fit. The choice to run whatever desktop I want. Linux gives me these things.

But when it comes to the desktops, they all have their good and bad points. I love Gnome but I'd like more theming options. I guess if I weren't so lazy and unknowledgeable I could theme it exactly as I'd want, because it does let me do what I want. As it is I just rely mostly on the brilliance and generosity of open source programmers. Gosh, if everyone used open source, think of the explosion of real possibilities we'd all benefit from.

I know though this question is aimed mostly at closed source OSes like Windows and Mac. Windows is way too resource-heavy so would benefit from some efficiency there. Mac is elegant but could benefit from giving users a bit more easy keyboard controls (as opposed just to mouse and a more limited range of keyboard commands). Windows and Linux are both quite good at making you work better if you can memorise the keyboard commands.

Windows could do away with the registry and go back to a better system of config files as are used in Mac and Linux. I think they don't do this because it might make closed 'trial' software have a harder time.

Personally I think Microsoft should do what Apple did, which is take the BSD base and put a desktop on it. This would go far to sorting out many problems Windows faces now.

On the hardware front, I think all hardware should have hardwired the code saying exactly what it does and how the OS can communicate with it. All OSes would just need to know the general language for communicating with hardware and they could get the 'drivers' straight from the hardware itself. But I guess this is really a plea for open source hardware, something only some companies are willing to do.

[markwolfe Veteran]

I agree with Mark about wanting a free/open source OS...

Just for the record, I said nothing about the source being open. Being open source and GPL-licensed helps integrate software easily in Linux and the package managers, but it isn't a requirement for me.

[digitalsoft]

Generally i'd like something that doesnt randomly hang (Randomly happens in all current OS's) - and visually pleasing, an interface thats actually been researched and not dragged accross from a previous version. - those are my only 2 main requirements.

[4CxbqFxVnstmA Veteran]

Just for the record, I said nothing about the source being open. Being open source and GPL-licensed helps integrate software easily in Linux and the package managers, but it isn't a requirement for me.

Funny I read what you said that way. I guess it was the bit about putting it on any computer you want, but that is all down to licenses, and you could of course have closed source licenses that give you that option. But closed source is by definition limited in that it limits the people who can innovate it to those who have access (a company's employees most often).

Hmmm... Yes, it is true you could in theory have a closed source license that says you can do whatever you want, as long as you don't tinker with the source (which would not be possible if it was just the compiled software). But in the reality of things as they are, it still seems what you want 'depends' on an open source model of some kind. People and companies close their source for profit, which must also be linked in realistic terms to controlling copies. That is why I read what you said as a call for open source. Sorry if I was mistaken.

Edited July 18, 2008 by James7

[kl33per]

Primarily, I would like an OS to be designed with usability as it's central theme. Mac OS X and Windows Vista do okay jobs in some parts, but alot of it is pretty horrible. Some examples include the dock and finder on the Mac side, and on the Windows side, a complete lack of any adherence to UI conventions across different programs. Many (if not most) Linux distributions are quite frankly a joke in this department.

I'd also like maximum stability and reliability. A operating system constructed from managed code, using a modular architecture, would fit this bill nicely.

[Matthew S.]

...

I'm waiting on HURD apparently :laugh:

That will be one long ass wait, when was it due? some where in the early 90's? lol

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

That will be one long ass wait, when was it due? some where in the early 90's? lol

I think it was due before I was born.

Edit: Nope, most of the components were finished before I was born, kernel development started when I was 3.

[Borbus]

I know, and I fully understand that, but the case that springs to my mind is the way Debian chooses to use Iceweasel instead of Firefox because the icon is protected. I want to be able to choose what to use. I don't like being told what I can and can't install on my own computer.

Debian isn't telling you what you can and can't install. But Debian follows a free software philosophy which means it will not have non-free software as part of the distribution and this sometimes means modifying free software to remove non-free parts. You are still completely free to install the official Mozilla build of Firefox.

I don't think the APNG thing is anything do with Debian "being stupid". Mozilla patched libpng to support APNG but libpng won't include the patch in their build for some reason... and Debian won't patch libpng themselves... Of course there is nothing stopping you downloading the source for Iceweaseal and libpng, patching libpng yourself and building against the patched libpng... just a lot more hassle.

The Hurd has been in development since about 1989 I think when they decided to use Mach as a microkernel. That's about 2 years before Linux was made using an obsolete design ie. a monolithic kernel :p The Hurd is usable today but isn't as stable and world-ready as Linux (or any of the BSD kernels for that matter).

[Bladerunner]

Stability, productivity... I don't want a sugarcoated GUI, I just want it to be productive. If the next version of Windows looked like 98 did, I wouldn't mind, as long as the OS worked well.

Macs are looking good to me, my next computer will probably be one. Macs just happen to look nice and work nice at the same time.