What do you want in an Operating System?


Recommended Posts

newosgo2.jpg

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.

- 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

- 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.

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....

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.

...

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.

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.

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

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.

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 ;)

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 by James7

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.

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).

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.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • I grew up a Star Trek fan and never watched Star Wars movies. To this days I've not watched most Star Wras movies. As a result I rarely get these references, I have no idea what this post means. Given the popular reactions these get I have to accept I missed out.  
    • Spotify really have turned in to a butthole of a company. Assuming this isn't a bug then this is a low act for Premium users. Honestly, YT Premium which includes YT Music is a genuine alternative. In any event, the internet enshitification continues unabated...next up, the banning of VPN's.
    • This is why science is the only path to truth. It isn't rigid in its beliefs, rather it changes its views based on scientific discoveries.
    • A 13 billion year old secret about our Universe's origin was revealed by Sayan Sen Image by Pascal Küffer via Pexels Researchers at the Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK) in Heidelberg had recreated a key chemical reaction from the early universe, producing results that could change scientists' understanding of how the first stars formed. The study focused on the helium hydride ion (HeH⁺), which is widely regarded as the first molecule to form in the universe. Scientists believe HeH⁺ appeared around 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when the universe had cooled enough for electrons and atomic nuclei to combine into neutral atoms in a period known as recombination. This marked the beginning of chemistry in the cosmos. Immediately after the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As it expanded and cooled, hydrogen and helium became the dominant elements. Once neutral helium atoms formed, they could react with ionised hydrogen nuclei, or protons, to create helium hydride ions. Although simple in structure, HeH⁺ played an important role in the young universe. It was the first step in a chain of reactions that eventually produced molecular hydrogen (H₂), a molecule made up of two hydrogen atoms and now the most abundant molecule in the universe. Molecular hydrogen later became a key ingredient in the formation of the first stars. At the time, the universe had entered a phase often called the cosmological "dark age." Matter had become transparent to light following recombination, but there were still no stars or galaxies producing visible light. Several hundred million years would pass before the first stars appeared. For those first stars to form, large clouds of gas had to collapse under their own gravity. To do that, the gas needed to cool by releasing energy. While hydrogen atoms can help with this process at high temperatures, they become less effective below about 10,000 degrees Celsius. Molecules can continue the cooling process by releasing energy through rotational and vibrational motions. Scientists have long considered HeH⁺ a potentially important coolant because of its comparatively large dipole moment, a property that describes how electric charge is distributed within a molecule and allows it to release energy efficiently. The amount of helium hydride present in the early universe may therefore have influenced how easily the first stars could form. At the same time, HeH⁺ was constantly being destroyed. Under primordial conditions, its main destruction mechanisms were recombination with free electrons and chemical reactions with hydrogen atoms. These reactions ultimately helped produce molecular hydrogen, linking the formation and destruction of HeH⁺ to the chemistry that shaped the early universe. For many years, theoretical studies suggested that reactions between HeH⁺ and hydrogen atoms would become much slower at low temperatures. Scientists believed there was an energy barrier along the reaction pathway that reduced the chances of the reaction taking place in the cold conditions of the early universe. The new study suggests otherwise. To investigate the process, researchers recreated a closely related reaction using deuterium, a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen that contains one proton and one neutron in its nucleus. When HeH⁺ collides with deuterium, it forms an HD⁺ ion and a neutral helium atom. This allows scientists to study the reaction in a controlled way while closely mimicking the behaviour of the original reaction involving hydrogen. The experiments were carried out at the Cryogenic Storage Ring (CSR) at MPIK, a specialised facility designed to recreate conditions similar to those found in space. Researchers stored HeH⁺ ions in the 35-metre storage ring for up to 60 seconds at temperatures just a few kelvins above absolute zero and merged them with a beam of neutral deuterium atoms. By adjusting the speeds of the two particle beams, the team measured how the reaction rate changed with collision energy, which is directly related to temperature. The researchers found that the reaction rate remains almost constant as temperatures decrease. In other words, the reaction does not slow down at low temperatures as earlier models predicted. “Previous theories predicted a significant decrease in the reaction probability at low temperatures, but we were unable to verify this in either the experiment or new theoretical calculations by our colleagues,” explained Dr Holger Kreckel of MPIK. “The reactions of HeH⁺ with neutral hydrogen and deuterium therefore appear to have been far more important for chemistry in the early universe than previously assumed,” he continued. According to the researchers, the reaction appears to be barrierless, meaning there is no energy obstacle preventing it from taking place efficiently even at very low temperatures. The findings support recent theoretical work led by physicist Yohann Scribano, whose group identified an error in a widely used potential energy surface, a mathematical model used to describe how the energy of a system changes during a chemical reaction. The error appears to have caused previous studies to significantly underestimate reaction rates under primordial conditions. The new calculations closely match the experimental results. Together, they suggest that helium chemistry in the early universe may need to be re-evaluated. Because molecules such as HeH⁺ and molecular hydrogen played an important role in cooling primordial gas clouds, the findings could help scientists build more accurate models of how the first stars formed. By showing that helium hydride was likely destroyed more efficiently than previously thought, the study offers new insight into the chemical processes that shaped the universe during its earliest stages and helped set the conditions for the emergence of the first stars. Source: Max-Planck Institute, EDP Sciences This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      DrWankel earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      DrWankel earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      Supreme Spray LV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Genuinetonerink- Dubai earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      504
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      163
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      92
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      76
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!