Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


A Collaborative Free and Open-Source OS?


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
116 replies to this topic

#21 walsh06   Members   -  Reputation: 611

Posted 07 April 2014 - 03:30 AM

 

I think no one wants to rebuild 16 million lines of code from scratch again

Minus the 16M part, are you sure?

Now, I do hear the phrase "don't reinvent the wheel" a lot, but I think that there just might be more efficient.

If YOU don't see any reason to. In this case, I see a reason to and there is definitely something more efficient.

 

Whats more efficient??



Sponsor:

#22 TheComet   Members   -  Reputation: 1388

Posted 07 April 2014 - 03:36 AM

@OP

 

Don't get me wrong, but I feel you have a very naive view of the major operating systems available, and you may have misunderstood the structure of a Linux OS.

 

Mac and Windows were attrocious to use in the early 90s. So was Linux, for that matter. The only reason Apple and Microsoft became popular was through clever marketing. The reason they are popular today is because when you buy a computer, Windows/Mac is already pre-installed, and 99.9% of the population won't be bothered or don't have the knowledge to wipe the existing OS and replace it with Linux.

 

I agree with you on Ubuntu 10.10. They should never have dropped Gnome 2; that Unity interface is a step backwards IMO. But that's definitely no reason to abandon Ubuntu altogether. You could easily install a new window manager on top and you'd not lose any of the original functionality of the operating system. Doing so is as simple as typing three commands into the terminal.

 

Linux can't be defined as a single operating system, because there are so many flavours. The only thing they all have in common is the kernel, and some of the core terminal commands. And that's what makes it so powerful, you can install whatever tools you want and any combination you wish, making Linux one of the most customisable operating systems available.

 

The fact remains that an operating system is incredibly complicated, and you can't simply "get together and make one".


YOUR_OPINION >/dev/null


#23 mikeman   Members   -  Reputation: 2176

Posted 07 April 2014 - 04:49 AM

 

 

I think no one wants to rebuild 16 million lines of code from scratch again

Minus the 16M part, are you sure?

Now, I do hear the phrase "don't reinvent the wheel" a lot, but I think that there just might be more efficient.

If YOU don't see any reason to. In this case, I see a reason to and there is definitely something more efficient.

 

Whats more efficient??

 

 

J.A.R.V.I.S, of course, which Nathan2222 will make right after he finishes reading that  C++ book. smile.png

 

Though I would suggest making it multi multi multi multi-purpose, why limit yourself to just two multi's? And, may I suggest, make it(or him, or her) automatically write the driver for every device that you might plug into your PC, now or in the future. Hey, while you're at it, make it(or him, or her) rewrite himself for each architecture you might install it(or him, or her), now or in the future! Ultimate plug-and-play! Hey, if you can dream it, you can make it, right? tongue.png


Edited by mikeman, 07 April 2014 - 04:51 AM.


#24 TheComet   Members   -  Reputation: 1388

Posted 07 April 2014 - 05:15 AM

A quantum OS would be in a superposition of all possible OSes until the one you want is observed


Edited by TheComet, 07 April 2014 - 05:16 AM.

YOUR_OPINION >/dev/null


#25 Nathan2222_old   Members   -  Reputation: -400

Posted 07 April 2014 - 05:39 AM

I think no one wants to rebuild 16 million lines of code from scratch again

Minus the 16M part, are you sure?

Now, I do hear the phrase "don't reinvent the wheel" a lot, but I think that there just might be more efficient.

If YOU don't see any reason to. In this case, I see a reason to and there is definitely something more efficient.
Whats more efficient??
 
J.A.R.V.I.S, of course, which Nathan2222 will make right after he finishes reading that  C++ book. :)
 
Though I would suggest making it multi multi multi multi-purpose, why limit yourself to just two multi's? And, may I suggest, make it(or him, or her) automatically write the driver for every device that you might plug into your PC, now or in the future. Hey, while you're at it, make it(or him, or her) rewrite himself for each architecture you might install it(or him, or her), now or in the future! Ultimate plug-and-play! Hey, if you can dream it, you can make it, right? :P
What's with the him/her/himself? It's an it.
My version of J.A.R.V.I.S. not Tony Stark's J.A.R.V.I.S. except you know any need to have a weirdly powered super suit for fighting things with a cell in the user as a heart?
You don't make that by reading "that book", except you know something i don't. Just one certain kind of architecture needed and yes, "if you can dream it, you can make it".

UNREAL ENGINE 4:
Total LOC: ~3M Lines
Total Languages: ~32
smile.png
--
GREAT QUOTES:
I can do ALL things through Christ - Jesus Christ
--
Logic will get you from A-Z, imagination gets you everywhere - Albert Einstein
--
The problems of the world cannot be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. - John F. Kennedy


#26 mikeman   Members   -  Reputation: 2176

Posted 07 April 2014 - 05:51 AM

The fictional "JARVIS" is IMO actually way more useful and impressive than the "Ironman" suit, and not really related to it, as it existed before that. It's actually nothing less than a sentient AI, a virtual person that can be a valuable assistant to an engineer, by carrying out complex tasks completely on its own, even tasks that require creative thinking, letting the engineer in charge just make the important, "big" decisions. Of course, it's just the age-old dream of a "thinking machine" that completely takes any burden off of the user. Think Space Odyssey's HAL, or any other "thinking machine" in sci-fi. They could be said to be the "ultimate OS", as an OS' purpose is to bridge the gap between the human and the machine. The unfortunate thing is, we are light years away of even seriously thinking about making such a thing. It will be made someday I guess, but most probably not in our lifetime, unless an extraordinary quantum leap happens in the field of AI. And no, many people "dream", only a very few actually build. Sci-fi writers have dreamt of and described systems and machines like JARVIS or HAL or what-have-you, they haven't built them yet smile.png


Edited by mikeman, 07 April 2014 - 05:53 AM.


#27 walsh06   Members   -  Reputation: 611

Posted 07 April 2014 - 05:55 AM

I wonder will Avengers 2 dissuade you from the idea when you see the problems that may arise.....



#28 Nathan2222_old   Members   -  Reputation: -400

Posted 07 April 2014 - 06:06 AM

Sci-fi writers have dreamt of and described systems and machines like JARVIS or HAL or what-have-you, they haven't built them yet :)

And i'm tired of waiting for them to build it. We have the same type of things. The same type of game engine (Unreal, unity), OS (windows, apple), cars (audi, ferrari), computers/phones (hp, dell, sony, samsung), tvs (lg, sony) etc. It's getting boring.
That's why i'm tired of watching movies rather than making the things in the movies (minus the lethal weapons, deadly viruses etc.).
@walsh: avengers motivates me.

UNREAL ENGINE 4:
Total LOC: ~3M Lines
Total Languages: ~32
smile.png
--
GREAT QUOTES:
I can do ALL things through Christ - Jesus Christ
--
Logic will get you from A-Z, imagination gets you everywhere - Albert Einstein
--
The problems of the world cannot be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. - John F. Kennedy


#29 mikeman   Members   -  Reputation: 2176

Posted 07 April 2014 - 06:18 AM

 

Sci-fi writers have dreamt of and described systems and machines like JARVIS or HAL or what-have-you, they haven't built them yet smile.png

And i'm tired of waiting for them to build it. 

 

 

It's not like people are sitting on their asses doing nothing, or don't daydream about all the exciting things that you do. It's just an *extremely* long road ahead, and there is likely no "royal road" to it either. 

 

And btw, we don't have the "same type" of things. Take 3D engines for example. They might seem the same to you, because you don't know what it takes to make one. A 3D engine runs on a machine with finite resources like CPU and RAM, and built by development teams with finite resources like team size, time and money. Compromises need to be made. Naturally, you'll have to decide which compromises you'll make depending on your goal. Some 3D engines focus on amazing animation, others on amazing lighting, some are better than other in physics, others handle large, streaming worlds better. An "ultimate" system/machine that takes care of every type of need is not an "idea", it's a wish. A magical reactor that harvests energy out of the vacuum is also not an idea, it's a wish. You get my point. You can spend all your days wishing for it, and imagining the day you'll have it built and be showered in global admiration and money, that won't make you any wiser on how to actually build it, or whether it's even desirable to build such a thing.

 

In short: Go write a pong clone first. (and if you don't, because you think it's mundane and "beneath" you to do the same work as all the rest "little people" before you, it's no skin off my back, it's your potential you're wasting pipedreaming, not mine) smile.png


Edited by mikeman, 07 April 2014 - 06:22 AM.


#30 walsh06   Members   -  Reputation: 611

Posted 07 April 2014 - 06:33 AM

 

Sci-fi writers have dreamt of and described systems and machines like JARVIS or HAL or what-have-you, they haven't built them yet smile.png

And i'm tired of waiting for them to build it. We have the same type of things. The same type of game engine (Unreal, unity), OS (windows, apple), cars (audi, ferrari), computers/phones (hp, dell, sony, samsung), tvs (lg, sony) etc. It's getting boring.
That's why i'm tired of watching movies rather than making the things in the movies (minus the lethal weapons, deadly viruses etc.).
@walsh: avengers motivates me.

 

So you want to destroy the world??



#31 Nathan2222_old   Members   -  Reputation: -400

Posted 07 April 2014 - 06:38 AM

So you want to destroy the world??


No!!! The tech does not the "kill'em all weapons" or super arrow/shield thingies.

UNREAL ENGINE 4:
Total LOC: ~3M Lines
Total Languages: ~32
smile.png
--
GREAT QUOTES:
I can do ALL things through Christ - Jesus Christ
--
Logic will get you from A-Z, imagination gets you everywhere - Albert Einstein
--
The problems of the world cannot be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. - John F. Kennedy


#32 walsh06   Members   -  Reputation: 611

Posted 07 April 2014 - 06:52 AM

 

So you want to destroy the world??


No!!! The tech does not the "kill'em all weapons" or super arrow/shield thingies.

 

My point was that in Avengers 2, its heavily implied that Tony is creating Ultron (not Hank) and the fact that Jarvis is also getting a body sort of, seems to imply it will go evil.



#33 phantom   Moderators   -  Reputation: 6805

Posted 07 April 2014 - 06:59 AM

Sci-fi writers have dreamt of and described systems and machines like JARVIS or HAL or what-have-you, they haven't built them yet smile.png


We are getting closer, MS' Cortana has taken some good steps forward in vocal recognition and human interaction - still someway off a full blown AI but getting closer.

Of course what people like Nathan2222 seem to skip over is that even developing something like Cortana, which is a forerunner to stuff like that, has taken millions, if not billions, of dollars and many many years to do - one kid sitting in a bedroom dreaming on a forum is never going to be able to do it on their own.

#34 mdwh   Members   -  Reputation: 828

Posted 07 April 2014 - 07:06 AM

Apple hit it bigger than Windows? Not last time I checked on Mac market share :) On mobile compared to Windows Phone, yes, but then Android (and Symbian before) hit it much bigger than IOS. Android and Windows are the ones to beat today on mobile and PCs.

Personally I find Android user friendly as anything else with a touchscreen. But I'd be wary of equating success with user-friendliness (consider, if you think Android isn't user friendly, then how do you account for its massive dominance?) Whilst Linux distributions have had problems with user friendliness for years, I don't think that's the stumbling block to mainstream usage. The problem is one of marketing and distribution - no advertising, hardly any computers shipping with Linux, it's not going to be used by anyone but geeks.

Though possibly I'm misreading you, and by "beat" etc, you mean make something which is the best. In which case, fine, though another problem is that there's lots of disagreement about what is the best, and what makes something good (e.g., all of us buying Windows PCs or Android devices, while you think Apple are the best:)).

What you describe is what people are already doing with Linux distributions. It's also what companies are doing with Android (whether the customisations by Samsung, HTC etc, or the usage of AOSP by Nokia, Ouya, Amazon).


http://erebusrpg.sourceforge.net/ - Erebus, Open Source RPG for Windows/Linux/Android
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark.harman/conquests.html - Conquests, Open Source Civ-like Game for Windows/Linux

#35 mikeman   Members   -  Reputation: 2176

Posted 07 April 2014 - 07:23 AM

 


We are getting closer, MS' Cortana has taken some good steps forward in vocal recognition and human interaction - still someway off a full blown AI but getting closer.

 

 

Sure, vocal recognition is a vital step towards that direction, but the question is, how much closer does that bring us to a truly intelligent digital assistant that can actually serve to, say, a researcher as a "subsitute" for a grad student, at least in some aspects. One you can instruct "research the biblography on X and write me a 12-page comparative synopsis on the matter I can read". Is that truly only "someway off", or like the saying goes, we are like the man who claims is making progress towards reaching the moon because he's climbed onto a tree?


Edited by mikeman, 07 April 2014 - 07:28 AM.


#36 FableFox   Members   -  Reputation: 487

Posted 07 April 2014 - 07:42 AM


Good idea? Bad Idea? Yeah, right?

 

In a perfect world, what you said makes perfect sense. There will come a time you no longer repair your car, just buy a new one.

 

While Joel on Software did say that code does not rust, you still have legacy code and old architecture. Like code to handle diskette, cga / ega graphic mode, etc.

 

So to start a brand new OS while salvaging whatever linux code that is useful would be a great idea. Wrapper code and built in compiler can help in this regard.

 

However, in this world, the biggest problem you would have is hardware support. Drivers. It was a problem for Linux for a long time because no hardware manufacture think its worth their time to write a linux driver. So if you plan to start a new OS from scratch, then you will have this problem. 

 

So the next best thing is to reuse Linux for your purpose, like Valve did with SteamOS.


Fable Fox is Stronger <--- Fable Fox is Stronger Project

#37 Nathan2222_old   Members   -  Reputation: -400

Posted 07 April 2014 - 07:56 AM

Sci-fi writers have dreamt of and described systems and machines like JARVIS or HAL or what-have-you, they haven't built them yet smile.png

We are getting closer, MS' Cortana has taken some good steps forward in vocal recognition and human interaction - still someway off a full blown AI but getting closer.

Of course what people like Nathan2222 seem to skip over is that even developing something like Cortana, which is a forerunner to stuff like that, has taken millions, if not billions, of dollars and many many years to do - one kid sitting in a bedroom dreaming on a forum is never going to be able to do it on their own.

It's also taken thousands of people who are paid salaries and earn a living from this job to do that (which is where most of the billions comes in). I WILL still do it and the assumption of doing it alone is interesting.

UNREAL ENGINE 4:
Total LOC: ~3M Lines
Total Languages: ~32
smile.png
--
GREAT QUOTES:
I can do ALL things through Christ - Jesus Christ
--
Logic will get you from A-Z, imagination gets you everywhere - Albert Einstein
--
The problems of the world cannot be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. - John F. Kennedy


#38 Olof Hedman   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2665

Posted 07 April 2014 - 08:05 AM


It's also taken thousands of people who are paid salaries and earn a living from this job to do that (which is where most of the billions comes in). I WILL still do it and the assumption of doing it alone is interesting.

 

Go for it.

You are both closer to it and further from it then you think.

Closer since there is lots of work done in the field already, which you are obviously not aware of, and which you should research, since it will cut down on development time a lot.

Further since the work needed is still in the magnitude of hundreds of a thousand man years.

 

Oh, and make sure to not dismiss the scores of people currently living already researching and working on it, it could be a good idea to consolidate your forces.


Edited by Olof Hedman, 07 April 2014 - 08:20 AM.


#39 Tutorial Doctor   Members   -  Reputation: 1441

Posted 07 April 2014 - 08:33 AM

Now that I think about it, perhaps an OS with AI would be the best OS.

I used this software once that I can't find anyone called Cynthia 3.0. It was pretty much a chat bot whose image and animation you could change. You could teach it like:

"The sun is a big ball of burning gas in the sky."

This information would be saved to a text file.

Then you could type "what is a sun?"

And it would respond "The sun is a big ball of burning gas in the sky."

Creating a useful enough AI for such a system as seen in sic-fi movies doesn't seem far off with technology like this around, other than voice recognition files, and realistic text to speech recordings.

I myself am working on a pretty realistic AI system that started as a way to detect objects like we do in real life using senses.

I just picked up a new term called "fuzzy logic." That is what such a system as JARVIS would need to use.

To make such AI, You would need the most skilled people in every major science, medical, and artistic field (artistic if you want to make an iron man suit). And you'd need a good and simple yet effective plan.

Perhaps you'd need a cross of augmented reality and virtual reality to get sight right for iron man.

This topic has turned rather fantastic. Haha.

They call me the Tutorial Doctor.


#40 Tutorial Doctor   Members   -  Reputation: 1441

Posted 07 April 2014 - 08:41 AM

What could be more efficient than the wheel? I could brainstorm..

Magnetized roads and cars (same charge to make it hover, and using a type of potentiometer to gradually change the strength of the magnet to land). And perhaps propelled by magnetism also? A tilted magnet in the back to propel it forward. Perhaps railing and dividers on the road to keep cars in their lane?

Or perhaps you can use friction force?

They call me the Tutorial Doctor.





Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS