|
|
|
Pentium
Group: Moderators
Last Login: Today @ 21:11:01
Posts: 3,182,
Visits: 3,537
|
|
Hi Tom,
Could your ultimate OS take advantage of a multi-threading and a multi-clustering environment, using the burgeoning connectivity we are beginning to see, to basically enable the interconnectiveness to produce the best result?
Could the OS of the future be a child of the sort of systems that have currently been created to control legions of Bot PCs?
That way you would add further dimensions and awesome power to an operating system.
Mad Malc
|
|
|
|
|
Pentium
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 22:46:33
Posts: 1,328,
Visits: 3,355
|
|
My biggest problem is with the repeated use of the word "Flawless"
Rubbish. Windows is as close to flawless as a turnip is to a swede.
It may do what you want it to do most of the time without major problems .
That is NOT flawless, not even close.
Windows has many flaws(I should Know, I battle with them daily).
I have never pretended that Linux is perfect.
But trying to pretend that windows operates flawlessly in any situation is just dishonest.
(hint: flawless means 100% reliable operation)
EDIT: not 99.9%, 100%. end of story.. So let us just drop this ridiculous lie, unless you are going to tell us that you never have to reboot, that your applications never lock up, or your mouse pointer is always under your control without even a seconds pause. .
EDIT2: you say that windows is not perfect. excuse me, but flawless and perfect are words with exactly the same meaning.
*************
*************
The sig between the asterisks is SO COOL that ONLY REALLY COOL people can even see it!
|
|
|
|
|
Pentium
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 16:58:03
Posts: 5,534,
Visits: 29,218
|
|
wyliecoyoteuk (25/10/2008)
My biggest problem is with the repeated use of the word "Flawless"
Rubbish. Windows is as close to flawless as a turnip is to a swede.
It may do what you want it to do most of the time without major problems .
That is NOT flawless, not even close.
Windows has many flaws(I should Know, I battle with them daily).
I have never pretended that Linux is perfect.
But trying to pretend that windows operates flawlessly in any situation is just dishonest.
(hint: flawless means 100% reliable operation)
EDIT: not 99.9%, 100%. end of story.. So let us just drop this ridiculous lie, unless you are going to tell us that you never have to reboot, that your applications never lock up, or your mouse pointer is always under your control without even a seconds pause. .
EDIT2: you say that windows is not perfect. excuse me, but flawless and perfect are words with exactly the same meaning.
*sigh*
So why do you care so much. Slipstreem finds it as "close to flawless as he needs" (read it - he didnt actually say it was flawless). My Vista system is as close to flawless as I need (really want to hammer the point home? I haven't had a crash for AGES - probably at least 6 months if not more. But that is irrelevant). Certainly it has never crashed unless I made it (or occasionally a game crashed it).
If we're being majorly pedantic about wording & language. Yes flawless does mean 100% perfect. But the pghrase was "as close to flawless as I need" - which could be 99.99% away from flawless if that is what is needed..... 
I'm still not even certain he was on about this whole stupid, childish issue - I originally thought he was directing it at my ideas about replacing the OS as we know it (in fact I think that is exactly what he meant).
I dont understand why you are so outraged at Slippys PERSONAL opinion. We dont care how much you hate Windows - please just keep the idiocy out of what *is* still (just) an interesting thread.
The reason I am cross is because NO ONE has mentioned this issue again since your last few posts - this is just a blatant attempt to bring the issue back up. Yet another attempt to soap box a thread that has no relevance to the issue.
Stay on topic or dont post pls.
------------
Malc: I think Botnets are the next way forward. Sort of a stepped up cloud. Amazon EC2, 3tera and the like already have some amazing higher-then-cloud level systems available (the sort of thing that scales as you need it). Processing power o nthat scale is *almost* at our fingertips.
I'd love to see a revolution in hardware - but I dobut it will happen for a while yet.
I think the next *major* step will be for people to own "cloud" systems. With broadband soohting up and up in speed it wont be long before latency is just not an issue if connedted (say via 4 hops) to a data centre. Is there a market for "rented" systems - with just a remote screen, router * kb/mouse at the users end. The sort of thing where you can rent edges and nodes by the bucketful.
With cheaper and cheaper hardware I dont see why that shouldn't prove to be too expensive to the end user.
Cheers,
Tom
My Crime is that of curiosity, my crime is that of outsmarting you
|
|
|
|
|
486
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 21:53:58
Posts: 807,
Visits: 823
|
|
Tom Morton (25/10/2008)
*sigh*
So why do you care so much. Slipstreem finds it as "close to flawless as he needs" (read it - he didnt actually say it was flawless).
This is what Slipstreem wrote:
"Almost everything else has always worked faultlessly as-is, with the obvious exception of specialist hardware such as TV cards. As this is a one-off per install, I consider it a tiny penalty to pay for an OS that works flawlessly with the hardware in question."
So in this statement, we have the contradictory claims that specialist TV cards don't work, but the OS works flawlessly.
If the OS doesn't work with the PC card as it is supposed to, because presumably the PC card came with Windows drivers, (I've yet to see a box marked Warning: this component will not work with Windows) how can the word "flawless" be used to describe it's limited abilities?
And before you go off on one (again), yes, all Operating Systems have their flaws.
|
|
|
|
|
Pentium
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 16:58:03
Posts: 5,534,
Visits: 29,218
|
|
I give up.
Once again thread hijacked... 
Cheers,
Tom
My Crime is that of curiosity, my crime is that of outsmarting you
|
|
|
|
|
386
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 20:25:59
Posts: 586,
Visits: 1,439
|
|
Maybe the topic heading was partly to blame, as it seems to raise unnecessarily defensive reactions in some quarters (a bit worrying really as my cynical mind always murmurs - methinks he doth protest too much!).
To diffuse all this, perhaps it would be better to address what you would like an OS to be capable of doing then see how Linux could perhaps respond. If you accept this approach it boils down to what you would like a personal computer to be capable of doing.
My definition of the ultimate PC would be a "friendly advisor" capable of anticipating my moods, and also capable of helping me in my activities as well as providing entertainment when I'm bored. Under this definition, it would be a constant companion, so its interface with me and the outside world would have to be very different from any OS currently in existence. It would need a brain-wave actuator something like this (but more sophisticated), and a visual feedback system like one of those described under the general heading of wearable computers. Included in all this would be some sort of continuous gigabandwidth internet connection. In order to avoid such systems being hijacked by hardware driver economics, Linux would need to set up a wearable computer project in the same way they approached mobile phones.
Software to go with all this would need to be multi-threaded capable of monitoring both the wearer and the environment e.g. lower/raise the music when the boss/wife is talking! Software would therefore need to have a high degree of artificial intelligence using hidden layer neural networks coupled with Bayesian analysis of feedbacks. Entertainment under such a system could be as wild as your imagination allows if you extend it to stimulation of neural pleasure centres! If this capability was extended to the system independently searching the internet and then proffering advice/support, such a pc would be indispensable, and totally unlike any OS you can obtain today!
Totally wild? Not really, trawl around some of the publically available information on US DOD activities and you will find some of these capabilities already under development (albeit as more efficient ways of killing people).
|
|
|
|
|
Pentium
Group: Moderators
Last Login: Today @ 21:11:01
Posts: 3,182,
Visits: 3,537
|
|
Hi EdP,
I must say your comment makes some sort of sense, but also raises the prospect of some sort of Cyborg like experience.
With a future operating system using neural networks together with feedback stimulation to neural receptors, the damage that could be done to the wearer/user might be immense!
Imagine what a rogue virus might make of such a development, it could literally be mind blowing..
Mad Malc
|
|
|
|
|
Pentium
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 22:46:33
Posts: 1,328,
Visits: 3,355
|
|
Sorry Tom, I just got irritated by what I saw as a hijack in the first place.
I repeat what I said earlier:
The hardware is a limiting factor.
I386 is a dead end, and the end is getting closer all the time.
Any OS is limited by the underlying hardware platform.
Maybe Cell processors are the answer, or maybe some new divergence based on a totally new technology.
*************
*************
The sig between the asterisks is SO COOL that ONLY REALLY COOL people can even see it!
|
|
|
| | |