Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #1111 > unrolled thread

any hope of a forthos coming out to replace linux?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  any hope of a forthos coming out to replace linux? gavino <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2011-04-10 01:01 -0700
    Re: any hope of a forthos coming out to replace linux? Bluebee <visualforth@rocketmail.com> - 2011-04-10 12:39 -0700
      Re: any hope of a forthos coming out to replace linux? vandys@vsta.org - 2011-04-10 19:47 +0000
        Re: any hope of a forthos coming out to replace linux? gavino <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2011-04-10 17:15 -0700
    Re: any hope of a forthos coming out to replace linux? Bluebee <visualforth@rocketmail.com> - 2011-04-12 16:10 -0700
      Re: any hope of a forthos coming out to replace linux? gavino <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 11:34 -0700
        Re: any hope of a forthos coming out to replace linux? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-04-14 15:55 -0700
          Re: any hope of a forthos coming out to replace linux? gavino <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2011-04-17 00:17 -0700
    Re: any hope of a forthos coming out to replace linux? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 16:13 -0700
      Re: any hope of a forthos coming out to replace linux? gavino <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2011-04-17 00:16 -0700

#1111 — any hope of a forthos coming out to replace linux?

seriously

something one can download as iso
run isntaller
and get a basic gui web broswer going an prehaps a forth comamdn line
with some unix like shell

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1133

On 10 Apr., 04:01, gavino <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> seriously
>
> something one can download as iso
> run isntaller
> and get a basic gui web broswer going an prehaps a forth comamdn line
> with some unix like shell

Yes, there is: www.ForthOS.org
I checked it and it works great, seriously. No Windows needed, no
Linux needed, just plain Forth.

I don't remember if I used an USB-stick or a CD, but everything you
need you can get from http://www.forthos.org/ and from the links
there. Only a few hours IIRC and Forth was running on a normal PC or
laptop without any M$ or Linux, just plain Forth. But you have to be
careful not to use the harddisk if you like to go back later - it's
written somewhere.

What is missing in my opinion with this Forth is some kind of KDE. If
somebody would add graphics to ForthOS, that would be great!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1134

Bluebee <visualforth@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, there is: www.ForthOS.org
> I checked it and it works great, seriously. No Windows needed, no
> Linux needed, just plain Forth.
> 
> I don't remember if I used an USB-stick or a CD, but everything you
> need you can get from http://www.forthos.org/ and from the links
> there. Only a few hours IIRC and Forth was running on a normal PC or
> laptop without any M$ or Linux, just plain Forth. But you have to be
> careful not to use the harddisk if you like to go back later - it's
> written somewhere.

It uses a dedicated partition, with its own number.  So it is fundamentally
capable of co-existing with other OS installs.  But, of course, you should
keep backups in case something goes wrong.  And it is quite possible to
side-step its view of the ForthOS partition, and write directly to the
disk--which can indeed damage pretty much anything, anywhere on the disk.

> What is missing in my opinion with this Forth is some kind of KDE. If
> somebody would add graphics to ForthOS, that would be great!

On the technical side, what this calls for at this point in the technology
curve is USB support, along with mice and keyboard.  And PCI support
(partially already present, in support of PCI LAN cards).  And then the
biggest rathole is graphics cards, which even mainstream X11 has a hard time
staying on top of.  Oh, and you probably want sound, WiFi, RAID, ....

On the non-technical side, I have to ask why?  By the time you add back in
all of a KDE-like experience, you'll be back to wishing you could find a
nice, simple OS which didn't have so much baggage.

-- 
Andy Valencia
Home page: http://www.vsta.org/andy/
To contact me: http://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1137

On Apr 10, 12:47 pm, van...@vsta.org wrote:
> Bluebee <visualfo...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, there is:www.ForthOS.org
> > I checked it and it works great, seriously. No Windows needed, no
> > Linux needed, just plain Forth.
>
> > I don't remember if I used an USB-stick or a CD, but everything you
> > need you can get fromhttp://www.forthos.org/and from the links
> > there. Only a few hours IIRC and Forth was running on a normal PC or
> > laptop without any M$ or Linux, just plain Forth. But you have to be
> > careful not to use the harddisk if you like to go back later - it's
> > written somewhere.
>
> It uses a dedicated partition, with its own number.  So it is fundamentally
> capable of co-existing with other OS installs.  But, of course, you should
> keep backups in case something goes wrong.  And it is quite possible to
> side-step its view of the ForthOS partition, and write directly to the
> disk--which can indeed damage pretty much anything, anywhere on the disk.
>
> > What is missing in my opinion with this Forth is some kind of KDE. If
> > somebody would add graphics to ForthOS, that would be great!
>
> On the technical side, what this calls for at this point in the technology
> curve is USB support, along with mice and keyboard.  And PCI support
> (partially already present, in support of PCI LAN cards).  And then the
> biggest rathole is graphics cards, which even mainstream X11 has a hard time
> staying on top of.  Oh, and you probably want sound, WiFi, RAID, ....
>
> On the non-technical side, I have to ask why?  By the time you add back in
> all of a KDE-like experience, you'll be back to wishing you could find a
> nice, simple OS which didn't have so much baggage.
>
> --
> Andy Valencia
> Home page:http://www.vsta.org/andy/
> To contact me:http://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html

icwm not kde

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1186

On 10 Apr., 04:01, gavino <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> seriously
>
> something one can download as iso
> run isntaller
> and get a basic gui web broswer going an prehaps a forth comamdn line
> with some unix like shell

This is a real interesting question!
At the German Chapter Forth Conference in Nuremberg 1993 Mr. Wagner
told me, that Forth and Linux fit together. I never forget this.

Today, sneaking into the history of c.l.f., looking at the year with
the highest number of comments, I accidentally found this - may be
this is a solution:

On 5 Mrz. 2002, 03:16, big_boy_to...@yahoo.com (Todd Nathan) wrote:
Andreas Klimas <kli...@k-r.de> wrote in message <news:3C84309A.
587F9EF8@k-r.de>...
> Hi,

> I had some AHA effects while programing with Forth
> and Unix. I wrote some interfaces to typical Unix
> system calls and made them available to Forth. then
> I have played around with them.

Or other systems, UNIX is nice, and I have loved it since
I first was exposed in 1989, yet I prefer non-OS system
specifics when I working with a language.  C, albeit
independant of an OS, is much more suited for UNIX than
other OSes, IMHO.  C with UNIX in other words to me is
just not C.  FORTH on the other hand, well it is FORTH
regardless of the OS and the hardware, or should be. :o)

> Forth is highly interactive and so these systemcalls
> might be used in an educational way. for example
> one can explore how shared memory in Unix works -
> interactively ! this is even possible for message
> queues, semaphores, sockets, fork and many other
> things. I have instructed systemprogramming for Unix
> and this alway were quite abstract. okay with sample C
> programs but still abstract. with Forth I think such
> a training could become much more plastic. hence, Forth
> could act as a _system_ shell.

I do agree, UNIX interactivity, without the standard edit
compile and test cycle, would be VERY cool and much faster
to learn and understand with a FORTH-UNIX shell available,
ie. the UNIX interface I think you are suggesting.

> this could probably even true for M$, but I think
> there are too many system calls, I don't know.

> this might could be a good reason why to propose Forth -
> as a tool to explore the system. I think I like this
> idea :-)

I do also, hurra!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1209

On Apr 12, 4:10 pm, Bluebee <visualfo...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On 10 Apr., 04:01, gavino <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > seriously
>
> > something one can download as iso
> > run isntaller
> > and get a basic gui web broswer going an prehaps a forth comamdn line
> > with some unix like shell
>
> This is a real interesting question!
> At the German Chapter Forth Conference in Nuremberg 1993 Mr. Wagner
> told me, that Forth and Linux fit together. I never forget this.
>
> Today, sneaking into the history of c.l.f., looking at the year with
> the highest number of comments, I accidentally found this - may be
> this is a solution:
>
> On 5 Mrz. 2002, 03:16, big_boy_to...@yahoo.com (Todd Nathan) wrote:Andreas Klimas <kli...@k-r.de> wrote in message <news:3C84309A.
>
> 587F9...@k-r.de>...
>
> > Hi,
> > I had some AHA effects while programing with Forth
> > and Unix. I wrote some interfaces to typical Unix
> > system calls and made them available to Forth. then
> > I have played around with them.
>
> Or other systems, UNIX is nice, and I have loved it since
> I first was exposed in 1989, yet I prefer non-OS system
> specifics when I working with a language.  C, albeit
> independant of an OS, is much more suited for UNIX than
> other OSes, IMHO.  C with UNIX in other words to me is
> just not C.  FORTH on the other hand, well it is FORTH
> regardless of the OS and the hardware, or should be. :o)
>
> > Forth is highly interactive and so these systemcalls
> > might be used in an educational way. for example
> > one can explore how shared memory in Unix works -
> > interactively ! this is even possible for message
> > queues, semaphores, sockets, fork and many other
> > things. I have instructed systemprogramming for Unix
> > and this alway were quite abstract. okay with sample C
> > programs but still abstract. with Forth I think such
> > a training could become much more plastic. hence, Forth
> > could act as a _system_ shell.
>
> I do agree, UNIX interactivity, without the standard edit
> compile and test cycle, would be VERY cool and much faster
> to learn and understand with a FORTH-UNIX shell available,
> ie. the UNIX interface I think you are suggesting.
>
> > this could probably even true for M$, but I think
> > there are too many system calls, I don't know.
> > this might could be a good reason why to propose Forth -
> > as a tool to explore the system. I think I like this
> > idea :-)
>
> I do also, hurra!

something like desktop or even desktop through the web broswer would
work.
peple jsut want web broswer mostly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1212

On Apr 14, 2:34 pm, gavino <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> something like desktop or even desktop through the web broswer would
> work.
> peple jsut want web broswer mostly

why not forth on linux, then?
forth is fine for lots of browse-in-system applications.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1238

On Apr 14, 3:55 pm, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 2:34 pm, gavino <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > something like desktop or even desktop through the web broswer would
> > work.
> > peple jsut want web broswer mostly
>
> why not forth on linux, then?
> forth is fine for lots of browse-in-system applications.

gforth on archlinux is best I can get now.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1220

On Apr 10, 4:01 am, gavino <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> seriously
>
> something one can download as iso
> run isntaller
> and get a basic gui web broswer going an prehaps a forth comamdn line
> with some unix like shell

Isn't that what they did in the pre-browser days?  I seem to recall
that telnet used to be the big thing in the early 90's.

Oh, you want a command line, but with a GUI browser?

When it comes to the software bloat, I feel your pain.  I remember
when we first got Internet at work and they bought a "power house"
Pentium 233 MHz machine to handle the graphics for the GUI.  Now I'm
running a dual core barn burner and for some reason I end up waiting
on the machine rather than the other way around...  the hardware gets
faster and the software more than compensates.

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1237

On Apr 15, 4:13 pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 4:01 am, gavino <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > seriously
>
> > something one can download as iso
> > run isntaller
> > and get a basic gui web broswer going an prehaps a forth comamdn line
> > with some unix like shell
>
> Isn't that what they did in the pre-browser days?  I seem to recall
> that telnet used to be the big thing in the early 90's.
>
> Oh, you want a command line, but with a GUI browser?
>
> When it comes to the software bloat, I feel your pain.  I remember
> when we first got Internet at work and they bought a "power house"
> Pentium 233 MHz machine to handle the graphics for the GUI.  Now I'm
> running a dual core barn burner and for some reason I end up waiting
> on the machine rather than the other way around...  the hardware gets
> faster and the software more than compensates.
>
> Rick

mays law

yeah it sucks

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web