OSDev.org

ponyboy wrote:The fact that over 1 gig of my 2 gigs is system cache, and the vast amount of useless processes take half the CPU time. (XP pro SP3)

I'm pretty sure that's supposed to happen. The system should use as much free memory as it can for caches, otherwise it just goes to waste. My Linux box is currently using 1.3 GB of my 3 GB for cache and .45 GB for buffers. Only about 300 MB are actually unused.

ponyboy wrote:The fact that over 1 gig of my 2 gigs is system cache, and the vast amount of useless processes take half the CPU time. (XP pro SP3)

If the process's are useless, why don't you just kill them? Oh yeah, thats right, they're actually used for lots of things.

SuperFetch is one of my favorite features of Win7. It's not very good judging from the couple of times I've poked around as to which files are cached, but oh well, it makes use of all my idle RAM.

After being forced to restart last night, out of 12GB of RAM:
12,276 MB Total
3,862 MB Cached
7,968 MB Available
4,304 MB Free

After a couple of days of doing stupid stuff, the amount free typically levels out at about 70MB.

The original author of the post is missing since his first post.

LindusSystem wrote:The original author of the post is missing since his first post.

That is an interesting fact!

i use windows 7 about 95% of the time or more, and i generally love it. i think it's a little bloated (any modern OS is), but it's not that bad considering modern hardware. the built-in unzipping is rather slow, too. otherwise, i'm very happy with it.

if i'm not using windows, i'm using debian. my big complaint for linux is that it feels too much like a "hacker's OS" as in almost any system modification or software configuration requires at least minor, and sometimes major dicking around a command terminal. i can do it just fine, and i've been familiar with linux/unix for 8 or 9 years now.

it's just a pain in the @$$, and i like the windows approach to the user experience a lot more. that said, if i'm setting up any sort of server machine, i will always use linux.

I use Tiny Core Linux. My complaint is that it's so inconsistent. First there's everything's a file. Yes, devices are represented by files, but what about ioctl, sockets? I say, either everything's a file or smth else, or everything has it's own interface. Then there's hundreds of (bloated) libraries. The wm and some programs use FLTK (static), Skype (static, but that's my fault, i installed it : ) and something else (dynamic) in the system use qt, others use gtk. So there's library inconsistency, but that brings interface inconsistency. Also, vlc expects ALSA, but plays with installed OSS too, but always warns me, that smth is wrong with ALSA. I could probably remove that warning, but that would require some work under TCL.

Also, in general, I think it's bloated. And too many legacy cruft. "Why does a virual console need baud rate?".

Sandras wrote:I use Tiny Core Linux. My complaint is that it's so inconsistent. First there's everything's a file. Yes, devices are represented by files, but what about ioctl, sockets? I say, either everything's a file or smth else, or everything has it's own interface. Then there's hundreds of (bloated) libraries. The wm and some programs use FLTK (static), Skype (static, but that's my fault, i installed it : ) and something else (dynamic) in the system use qt, others use gtk. So there's library inconsistency, but that brings interface inconsistency. Also, vlc expects ALSA, but plays with installed OSS too, but always warns me, that smth is wrong with ALSA. I could probably remove that warning, but that would require some work under TCL.

Also, in general, I think it's bloated. And too many legacy cruft. "Why does a virual console need baud rate?".

imo, they should keep most of the legacy support. there are some odd cases where this stuff is still important, and all you have to do if you don't want it is re-compile the kernel with a custom configuration.

miker00lz wrote:

Sandras wrote:I use Tiny Core Linux. My complaint is that it's so inconsistent. First there's everything's a file. Yes, devices are represented by files, but what about ioctl, sockets? I say, either everything's a file or smth else, or everything has it's own interface. Then there's hundreds of (bloated) libraries. The wm and some programs use FLTK (static), Skype (static, but that's my fault, i installed it : ) and something else (dynamic) in the system use qt, others use gtk. So there's library inconsistency, but that brings interface inconsistency. Also, vlc expects ALSA, but plays with installed OSS too, but always warns me, that smth is wrong with ALSA. I could probably remove that warning, but that would require some work under TCL.

Also, in general, I think it's bloated. And too many legacy cruft. "Why does a virual console need baud rate?".

imo, they should keep most of the legacy support. there are some odd cases where this stuff is still important, and all you have to do if you don't want it is re-compile the kernel with a custom configuration.

That's the main problem of x86 - "keep this old and deprecated feature, somebody might be still using it" -> "eh, why don't they move to new features instead of using old ones?" -> "omg, just keep that legacy stuff there, in case someone is still using ancient-enough-to-be-already-several-times-rewritten software - we don't care that new programs will still use those legacy features; does anybody out there care?".

Wrong way of thinking.

i wonder if modern x86 are actually two or more isolated cpu, corresponds to ancient real mode and (IA32+32e).
the cpu boots with "real mode" circuit, upon switch to pmode the circuit never reach the "real mode part" again (until switch back).

So they can support legacy in terms of bundling old circuits.


ps. I totally lack knowledge in CPU design, it's just my wonder.

Griwes wrote:That's the main problem of x86 - "keep this old and deprecated feature, somebody might be still using it" -> "eh, why don't they move to new features instead of using old ones?" -> "omg, just keep that legacy stuff there, in case someone is still using ancient-enough-to-be-already-several-times-rewritten software - we don't care that new programs will still use those legacy features; does anybody out there care?".

Wrong way of thinking.

There are many legitimate reasons to retain support for things like serial terminals. Further, one of the best things about Linux is it's extremely wide support for all sorts of hardware. Like I said before, nobody is forcing you to compile a kernel with legacy support code. It is entirely optional.

Saying something is the "wrong" way of thinking just because you personally don't have a use for these is a bit ignorant.

I'm talking about virtual terminals (last time I called them consoles), not serial terminals. I think that makes a difference. Correct me if I'm wrong - serial ports do have to have some sort of baud rate set, for virtual terminals don't need them. Why does a window need baud rate?

berkus wrote:So think of a virtual console on a serial link....

Hm. I'm not quite sure I understand. I thought that if you want to communicate through serial port, you'd just use /dev/ttyS*.

I run Mac OS X Lion and Ubuntu 12.04 natively, and use XP in VMware for programming.

As far as what I hate, the Ubuntu Unity desktop takes tha cake. Not really because its ugly (the ubuntu themes are always hideous) and awkward to use, but because unlike previous versions, you have almost no customization options. Really flies in the face of the linux philosophy.

Uh yeah, Gnome 3 / Unity... what a can of worms.

Solar wrote:As a Linux user, the thing I hate about my current OS is the inconsistency in user interface. That starts with very simple things on the command line (-h? --help? -v? --version?), touches things like .deb vs. .rpm vs. ./configure && make install, and doesn't end at stuff like the Gnome 3 update ( ). Masses might be able to program, but they sure can't design to save their lives.

For those who didn't follow that particular thread... the Gnome / Ubuntu dudes basically changed everything. Just for example, you no longer have that menu / taskbar in the bottom, you have one in the bottom (holding the app menu) and one at the top (holding the taskbar, plugins, and the logout / power down options). I haven't quite figured out what the rest of the bottom bar is actually for, but on a wide but small screen (like on most laptops), the two-bar design hurts ergonomics massively. And the worst thing is that you just cannot configure the interface. Not even the "favourite" apps in the app menu can be changed in any apparent way.

I usually make do with defaults, because I am frequently switching between machines and can't be bothered to keep configs in sync (or cope with different configs on each machine). But this time I made an exception and switched all my boxes to MATE (somewhat like a Gnome 2 look-and-feel emulation on the Gnome 3 backend).

The worst thing is, virtually everybody is complaining about Gnome 3 / Unity, and the maintainers just shrug and either say "you'll get used to it" or "it will become better, eventually". Makes you want to choke somebody...

Solar wrote:The worst thing is, virtually everybody is complaining about Gnome 3 / Unity, and the maintainers just shrug and either say "you'll get used to it" or "it will become better, eventually". Makes you want to choke somebody...

Or makes you just use KDE ;D