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??

@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".

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?

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

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

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

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

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 :)

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.

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)

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.

So you want to destroy the world??