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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #36191 > unrolled thread

I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser

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

Contents

  I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2015-01-31 22:14 -0800
    Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser lynx <rinkasu@kaze.void.null> - 2015-02-01 08:02 +0000
      Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-02-01 15:46 +0000
    Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser empty-buffers <empty.buffersYOU-DONT-WANT-THIS@gmail.NEITHER-THIS.com> - 2015-02-01 15:33 +0000
      Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2015-02-02 08:23 -0800
        Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser empty-buffers <empty.buffersYOU-DONT-WANT-THIS@gmail.NEITHER-THIS.com> - 2015-02-02 17:30 +0000
          Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-02 10:47 -0800
            Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser empty-buffers <empty.buffersYOU-DONT-WANT-THIS@gmail.NEITHER-THIS.com> - 2015-02-02 19:09 +0000
          Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser lynx <rinkasu@kaze.void.null> - 2015-02-03 00:05 +0000
    Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-02 08:02 -0800
      Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2015-02-02 08:22 -0800
      Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser empty-buffers <empty.buffersYOU-DONT-WANT-THIS@gmail.NEITHER-THIS.com> - 2015-02-02 19:36 +0000
        Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-02 12:37 -0800
          Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-02-04 15:08 +0000
            Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-02-04 16:41 +0000
              Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser Bill Fruitmaker <fruitbill@what.com> - 2015-02-04 17:02 +0000
                Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-02-04 17:14 +0000
                Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-04 10:17 -0800
                  Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-02-04 10:29 -0800
                Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-02-04 20:44 +0000
                Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-02-05 15:25 +0000
                  Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-02-05 21:10 +0000
        Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-02-02 14:03 -0800
          Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser empty-buffers <empty.buffersYOU-DONT-WANT-THIS@gmail.NEITHER-THIS.com> - 2015-02-02 22:09 +0000
            Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-02-02 15:27 -0800
              Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser empty-buffers <empty.buffersYOU-DONT-WANT-THIS@gmail.NEITHER-THIS.com> - 2015-02-03 00:43 +0000
              Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-02-03 12:34 +0000
              Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-04 19:29 -0800
                Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-02-05 04:44 +0100
                Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-02-04 21:44 -0800
              Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser Marc Olschok <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-02-08 18:41 +0000
        Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-02-02 23:14 +0100
        Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-02-03 12:31 +0000
          Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser empty-buffers <empty.buffersYOU-DONT-WANT-THIS@gmail.NEITHER-THIS.com> - 2015-02-03 12:37 +0000
            Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-02-03 12:55 +0000
              Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-03 10:49 -0800
                Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-02-03 19:31 +0000
    Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, butforthos has no chrome web browser "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-02-07 17:55 +1100
      Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, butforthos has no chrome web browser the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2015-02-06 23:51 -0800
        Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc,butforthos has no chrome web browser "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-02-08 15:35 +1100
          Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc,butforthos has no chrome web browser Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2015-02-07 20:58 -1000
            Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc,butforthos has no chrome web browser empty-buffers <empty.buffersYOU-DONT-WANT-THIS@gmail.NEITHER-THIS.com> - 2015-02-08 13:19 +0000
            Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc,butforthos has no chrome web browser Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-08 20:23 +0100
              Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc,butforthos has no chrome web browser visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-02-08 14:12 -0800
                Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc,butforthos has no chrome web browser Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-09 00:23 +0100
              Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc,butforthos has no chrome web browser "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-02-11 11:16 +1100
                Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc,butforthos has no chrome web browser Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-11 02:48 +0100
    Re: I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2015-02-07 00:00 -0800

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#36191 — I would love to switch from freebsd to forth running my pc, but forthos has no chrome web browser

if forth could just run a browser
let me save files and possibly get usb3 running to save file to external drive
run network
that would be awesome enuf to switch

esp if forth was 1000 times lighter weight

my xterm shows 72788k   is that insane?  gates once said 640k ram is enough

chuck moore said huge ram of modern computers makes os like linux un needed

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#36193

In <98bdcc17-71f8-443d-a04a-4d2d1d87b110@googlegroups.com> the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> writes:

>if forth could just run a browser
>let me save files and possibly get usb3 running to save file to external drive
>run network
>that would be awesome enuf to switch

>esp if forth was 1000 times lighter weight

>my xterm shows 72788k   is that insane?  gates once said 640k ram is enough

>chuck moore said huge ram of modern computers makes os like linux un needed

To be compatible with common people, you need common operating systems.
Figuratively speaking, what you are really saying is that you desire to
own a very fast sportscar without giving up any of the convenience &
practicality of the family sedan.

I'm afraid it doesn't work that way . . .

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

#36201

lynx <rinkasu@kaze.void.null> writes:
>In <98bdcc17-71f8-443d-a04a-4d2d1d87b110@googlegroups.com> the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> writes:
>>my xterm shows 72788k   is that insane?

I see:

USER       PID %CPU %MEM    VSZ   RSS TTY      STAT START   TIME COMMAND
anton     2751  0.0  0.0  55936  3400 ?        S    16:30   0:00 xterm ...
anton     2813  0.0  0.0  55952  3392 ?        S    16:31   0:00 /usr/bin/xterm
anton     3084  0.0  0.0  55952  3300 ?        S    16:46   0:00 /usr/bin/xterm

The physical memory consumption is approximated by the RSS (resident
set size) field, and is about 3.3MB, which is quite a lot for what it
does, but little relative to the memory available, so there is little
incentive to make it consume less.  Also, 2.5MB of the virtual memory
size is shared, so in the best case, each additional xterm needs
800-900KB.  Another way to estimate the memory consumption is:

free; xterm & sleep 1; free

I get the output (pretty repeatable):

             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:       4063524     326644    3736880          0       8928     126648
-/+ buffers/cache:     191068    3872456
Swap:      8016352          0    8016352
[1]+  Done                    xterm
[1] 3363
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:       4063524     344536    3718988          0       8928     126648
-/+ buffers/cache:     208960    3854564
Swap:      8016352          0    8016352

According to this the new xterm consumes more than 17MB.  Hmm.

>Figuratively speaking, what you are really saying is that you desire to
>own a very fast sportscar without giving up any of the convenience &
>practicality of the family sedan.
>
>I'm afraid it doesn't work that way . . .

Sometimes you have to make a decision between two objectives, but
sometimes the current solution can be improved for both objectives at
once, either because the people who produced the solution were not
particularly interested in the objectives, or because they were not
very competent.

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/

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

#36199

In comp.lang.forth, the_gavino_himself wrote:

> if forth could just run a browser

"To run browser" nowadays means: "to interpret HTML5, Flash, Javascript and
Java" (and it all can be embedded in frames). Alas, it's not "just HTML"
(that simpler one, 20 years ago) anymore.

It's doable to create Lynx-like browser - but what will you be able to browse
using this? Maybe up to 10% of existing sites.
-- 
"Yes, this is the bad end you've come to, and two and two is - as it always
was..." - began Trurl, but just then the machine made a faint, barely audible
croaking noise and said, for the last time: "SEVEN".

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

#36221

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 10:33:47 AM UTC-5, empty-buffers wrote:
> In comp.lang.forth, the_gavino_himself wrote:
> 
> > if forth could just run a browser
> 
> "To run browser" nowadays means: "to interpret HTML5, Flash, Javascript and
> Java" (and it all can be embedded in frames). Alas, it's not "just HTML"
> (that simpler one, 20 years ago) anymore.
> 
> It's doable to create Lynx-like browser - but what will you be able to browse
> using this? Maybe up to 10% of existing sites.
> -- 
> "Yes, this is the bad end you've come to, and two and two is - as it always
> was..." - began Trurl, but just then the machine made a faint, barely audible
> croaking noise and said, for the last time: "SEVEN".

javascript and html

flash and java are not needed

at least if you can run some kinda smplayer like video player seperately on a file you download....but thats another thing not sure how handled in forth...

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

#36223

In comp.lang.forth, the_gavino_himself wrote:

> javascript and html
>
> flash and java are not needed

I don't need it, you don't need it - but someone, whose website you want
(or need) to visit, decided, that _his website_ needs it. Now what?

BTW: many websites have been created as "flash-only".
-- 
"Yes, this is the bad end you've come to, and two and two is - as it always
was..." - began Trurl, but just then the machine made a faint, barely audible
croaking noise and said, for the last time: "SEVEN".

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

#36224

On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 9:30:48 AM UTC-8, empty-buffers wrote:

> BTW: many websites have been created as "flash-only".

Yes but as a website professional, I can tell you that Flash is
dying out.  Its all going towards HTML5.  Also YouTube started
to default to the HTML5 player just a few days ago.

You can definitely leave Flash and Java out.

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

#36225

In comp.lang.forth, Jason Damisch wrote:

> Yes but as a website professional, I can tell you that Flash is
> dying out.  Its all going towards HTML5.  Also YouTube started
> to default to the HTML5 player just a few days ago.
>
> You can definitely leave Flash and Java out.

You mean, there's a hope, we could get rid of Java? It would be a real
relief (for both me and my machine).

Yes, I read that YouTube is moving from Flash technology - but I mean the
whole Internet: Flash most probably will be "dying out" next 10 years, or
so; it won't happen "overnight". Therefore the supposed Forth web-browser
for Gavino should rather - unfortunately - still support Flash and Java...
-- 
"Yes, this is the bad end you've come to, and two and two is - as it always
was..." - began Trurl, but just then the machine made a faint, barely audible
croaking noise and said, for the last time: "SEVEN".

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

#36239

In <slrnmcvd2c.9ud.empty.buffersYOU-DONT-WANT-THIS@Ferrycy.localdomain> empty-buffers <empty.buffersYOU-DONT-WANT-THIS@gmail.NEITHER-THIS.com> writes:

>BTW: many websites have been created as "flash-only".

This is changing.  Two years ago, I probably would not have gotten away
with it, but I've been Flash-free the past eight months or so.  I've had
no real difficulties, spare one or two sites that are obstinant that
way.

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

#36219

On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 10:14:51 PM UTC-8, the_gavino_himself wrote:

> if forth could just run a browser

Gavino, can I ask you what you personally think of Puppy Linux?

http://puppylinux.org

I find it odd that the only available OSes anywhere for anything
are C and Unix types.

Jason

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

#36220

On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 11:02:29 AM UTC-5, Jason Damisch wrote:
> On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 10:14:51 PM UTC-8, the_gavino_himself wrote:
> 
> > if forth could just run a browser
> 
> Gavino, can I ask you what you personally think of Puppy Linux?
> 
> http://puppylinux.org
> 
> I find it odd that the only available OSes anywhere for anything
> are C and Unix types.
> 
> Jason

Puppy seems interesting, I use archlinux, freebsd, openbsd, and netbsd until it started breaking a bit lately.
In fact for an old pc I am going to try "wary" version of puppy http://distro.ibiblio.org/quirky/wary-5.5/

Yes it is kind of a c and unix monopoly, I guess because so many drivers exist?

Maybe forth could do the network and disk and handle multitasking, but the browser would have to do javascript and html [to hell with java]

Maybe each part could have a open source team solving just that part.

Essentially, if the browser could work and tcp/ip and save files...and a basic vi editor...thats most of what I use anyhow on my freebsd box when I surf the net using chrome and the icewm desktop running xwindows.

I guess driving all the graphics cards is a pain too.

I wonder about pic and text being handled more simply....if html could be rendered without xwindows using more lower level stuff...

I am not sure of that territory....I just remember launching wordperfect or something from dos and am not sure if that involved the windows side equiv to xwindows all the grahphics libs..

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

#36227

In comp.lang.forth, Jason Damisch wrote:

> I find it odd that the only available OSes anywhere for anything
> are C and Unix types.

Why?

1. C has been created to write Unix with it.
2. (Almost) everyone use C(whatever) to create software.
3. In conclusion: what they should create, if decided to design a new OS,
   if not another Unix-derivative? They use tool designed to create Unices!

I was hoping Haiku shall be different - but no: when I took a peek into
file hierarchy I clearly recognized the structure and filenames I know from
Linux.

In fact, there are interesting attempts to create something different: an
example can be Kolibri OS. But it's created in assembler (and the apps for
it). As a result we can see, that's incredibly fast and resource-saving,
but of course it's not portable - married to x86 architecture forever (I
would rather prefer to see it on ARM, for example) - and of course we won't
see many applications for Kolibri very soon, because not much software
creators will decide to use assembler. E.g. to create usenet-newsreader.
-- 
"Yes, this is the bad end you've come to, and two and two is - as it always
was..." - began Trurl, but just then the machine made a faint, barely audible
croaking noise and said, for the last time: "SEVEN".

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

#36228

On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 11:36:55 AM UTC-8, empty-buffers wrote:

> > I find it odd that the only available OSes anywhere for anything
> > are C and Unix types.
> 
> Why?

Because in a world of many things, lets say thousands of different
species of fish, there is still room for crustaceans as well.  It
just seems a little unnatural that Unix would be the only OS in 
the world when real life tends towards multiplicity, but maybe its
just my worldview?  :^/

> Kolibri OS

I forgot about that one.  Maybe I should try it.  
Soooo many irons in the fire though!

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

#36275

Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> writes:
>Because in a world of many things, lets say thousands of different
>species of fish, there is still room for crustaceans as well.  It
>just seems a little unnatural that Unix would be the only OS in 
>the world when real life tends towards multiplicity, but maybe its
>just my worldview?  :^/

With network effects (usually present in anything related to
computing), we get winner-takes-all situations.  Even if two solutions
have the similar technical merit, the coin tends to fall on one side
or the other at some point, and everybody then flocks to that side,
because they want to benefit from all the other stuff that's available
for that OS (network effect).

In the case of Unix, the basic interface was designed by Ken Thompson,
who was (and may still be) pretty good at such things, so the Unix
interface had higher technical merit than the competing OSs had, so
many later OSs were designed to be compatible with that interface (or
acquired such an interface later), even if through an interface layer.

There are of course OSs that are radically different; e.g., EROS used
persistent main memory instead of files for persistence.  But it seems
to me that persistent main memory is not a good option for the usual
software with memory leaks etc.  Microsoft Word used to do something
like a memory dump instead of a more disciplined file representation,
but that led to problems; I guess such a program would get the same
problems if it worked with persistent main memory; and how do you
exchange documents in such a system?

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/

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

#36276

on 04/02/2015 15:08:38,  wrote:
> Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> writes:
>>Because in a world of many things, lets say thousands of different
>>species of fish, there is still room for crustaceans as well.  It
>>just seems a little unnatural that Unix would be the only OS in
>>the world when real life tends towards multiplicity, but maybe its
>>just my worldview?  :^/
> 
> With network effects (usually present in anything related to
> computing), we get winner-takes-all situations. Even if two solutions
> have the similar technical merit, the coin tends to fall on one side
> or the other at some point, and everybody then flocks to that side,
> because they want to benefit from all the other stuff that's available
> for that OS (network effect).
> 
> In the case of Unix, the basic interface was designed by Ken Thompson,
> who was (and may still be) pretty good at such things, so the Unix
> interface had higher technical merit than the competing OSs had, so
> many later OSs were designed to be compatible with that interface (or
> acquired such an interface later), even if through an interface layer.


An apocryphal story (and aren't they the best kind?).

A Professor of CS gives a presentation on how he uses Linux to teach his
undergraduates about operating systems. Someone in the audience asks "Why
use Linux rather than Plan 9?" and the professor replies; "Plan 9 looks
like it was written by experts; Linux looks like something my students
could aspire to write".


> 
> There are of course OSs that are radically different; e.g., EROS used
> persistent main memory instead of files for persistence. But it seems
> to me that persistent main memory is not a good option for the usual
> software with memory leaks etc. Microsoft Word used to do something
> like a memory dump instead of a more disciplined file representation,
> but that led to problems; I guess such a program would get the same
> problems if it worked with persistent main memory; and how do you
> exchange documents in such a system?

(Some of this is IMHO and IMNSHO, and some is what I hear & see from
others. Caveat emptor.)

The OS is becoming increasingly unimportant.

Desktops no longer require an OS with Word-like applications and files.
An example is Office 365; Microsoft's cloud based replacement (at least
in the long term) for Word, Outlook email and so on.

Key/value stores over HTTP are replacing POSIX-like file systems. NVRAM
as memory and new programming models are already here; witness
transactional memory support in Intel's latest chips. There's been a
desire for "storage class memory" for some time, and I think we're
beginning to see it with PCI based flash memory cards as the first
incarnation.

Plus lightweight virtualisation and IPC are changing the conception of an
OS and the services required; examples are CoreOS (a very lightweight
Linux based OS), Docker (containers) and D-Bus (IPC communication).

Kolibri and POSIX-like OSes are dead in the water unless they support
these kinds of functionality.

> 
> - anton

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

#36277

On 2015-02-04, Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote:

>> In the case of Unix, the basic interface was designed by Ken Thompson,
>> who was (and may still be) pretty good at such things, so the Unix
>> interface had higher technical merit than the competing OSs had

That's a tough sell. We would have to know which ones you're talking about
because from here it looks very much like UNIX won because it is free as in
beer. If that doesn't convince you then Linux should.

> Desktops no longer require an OS with Word-like applications and files.
> An example is Office 365; Microsoft's cloud based replacement (at least
> in the long term) for Word, Outlook email and so on.

What about the large number of desktops that aren't Windows or won't buy
into Microslopware?

> Kolibri and POSIX-like OSes are dead in the water unless they support
> these kinds of functionality.

Dare to dream! Nothing would make me happier than reading Linus threw
himself off the Empire State Building or equivalent and that everybody who
ever worked on Bell Labs UNIX and everything that ever descended from it (if
that is even possible, all things considered) died of old age and they lost
all their code, so...

;-)

Bill

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

#36278

on 04/02/2015 17:02:24, Bill Fruitmaker wrote:
> On 2015-02-04, Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote:
> 
>>> In the case of Unix, the basic interface was designed by Ken Thompson,
>>> who was (and may still be) pretty good at such things, so the Unix
>>> interface had higher technical merit than the competing OSs had
> 
> That's a tough sell. We would have to know which ones you're talking
> about because from here it looks very much like UNIX won because it is
> free as in beer. If that doesn't convince you then Linux should.
> 
>> Desktops no longer require an OS with Word-like applications and files.
>> An example is Office 365; Microsoft's cloud based replacement (at least
>> in the long term) for Word, Outlook email and so on.
> 
> What about the large number of desktops that aren't Windows or won't
> buy into Microslopware?

Android, iOS. Look at the apps for iOS; most are cloud based, snce who
wants to pay Apple a gigadollar per byte to hold stuff on their iPhone
when it can be on the cloud for pennies per terabyte? The same is true of
horsepower; to get watch sized or smaller, they will be largely interface
only with compute in the cloud. 

> 
>> Kolibri and POSIX-like OSes are dead in the water unless they support
>> these kinds of functionality.
> 
> Dare to dream! Nothing would make me happier than reading Linus threw
> himself off the Empire State Building or equivalent and that everybody
> who ever worked on Bell Labs UNIX and everything that ever descended
> from it (if that is even possible, all things considered) died of old
> age and they lost all their code, so...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> Bill

Linux is evolving. KolibriOS might be lightweight, but it's a throwback
to MS-DOS -- and MS-DOS is definitely dead.

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

#36280

On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 9:02:24 AM UTC-8, Bill Fruitmaker wrote:

> Dare to dream! Nothing would make me happier than reading Linus threw
> himself off the Empire State Building or equivalent and that everybody who
> ever worked on Bell Labs UNIX and everything that ever descended from it (if
> that is even possible, all things considered) died of old age and they lost
> all their code, so...

Yeah, I'm sure that there are still a few people around here that wish that
things would have turned out differently.  I for one would have liked to
have seen a viable Forth OS Cell Phone and TV-Box.  But noooo.....

:^(

Jason

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

#36282

On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 1:17:01 PM UTC-5, Jason Damisch wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 9:02:24 AM UTC-8, Bill Fruitmaker wrote:

> Yeah, I'm sure that there are still a few people around here that wish that
> things would have turned out differently.  I for one would have liked to
> have seen a viable Forth OS Cell Phone and TV-Box.

There is only one way: to do it!

Did anyone in this group add something in this direction?
Did anyone in this group add anything?

Is there still anything which can be done?

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

#36284

On Wed, 4 Feb 2015 17:02:20 +0000 (UTC), Bill Fruitmaker
<fruitbill@what.com> wrote:

>That's a tough sell. We would have to know which ones you're talking about
>because from here it looks very much like UNIX won because it is free as in
>beer. If that doesn't convince you then Linux should.

The problem is that between Windows, OS X and Linux, by far the most
expensive overall is Linux. YMMV.

Stephen

-- 
Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691
web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web