Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Programming IT Technology

Review of AtheOS 0.3.7 172

Posted by michael from the next-linux dept.
MAIC-32 writes: "OSNews features a very informative and detailed review of AtheOS, the promising 32-bit GPL Operating System. The article describes the installation process, the GUI (screenshots included), usage, internal design, developement and much more."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Review of AtheOS 0.3.7 More

Review of AtheOS 0.3.7

Comments Filter:
  • I've always found the AtheOS approach an intriguing one, and quite reminiscent of Windows. They build and optimize for the GUI, rather than the command-line kernel with a GUI built on top (like an X11 + *NIX approach).

    It seems that one of the real growing pains for AtheOS is going to be that it's difficult to capture anything but local desktop users. It's not a good model for remote display; just like Windows.

    At the end of the day, I think it'll be a great desktop OS, but it will have the same growing pains that Windows did with remote display and cross-platfrom compatibility.

    • It seems that one of the real growing pains for AtheOS is going to be that it's difficult to capture anything but local desktop users. It's not a good model for remote display; just like Windows.

      I don't know about that one, I have a few Win2k servers in a rack that I manage with Terminal Services Client. It works extreamly well, there is nothing that I can not do with Terminal Services that I can do with a keyboard/mouse, even over a 56k dialup.

      • Re:AtheOS takes a Windows approach (Score:4, Interesting)

        by J. Random Software ( 11097 ) on Thursday November 22, 2001 @05:02AM (#2599848)
        Terminal services is really only good for remote admin. X's model (any app on any box can ask for a window on your display, and all windows are equal) is much cleaner. When you put an entire virtual display (with yet another window manager) in a window, there are bizzare rules about which events are interpreted as commands by which window manager, and you can't really fit apps on different machines on your real display at once because all your real estate is wasted on remote desktops. Then there are the implementation quirks, like services blocking on modal dialogs you can only dismiss (or even see) by using the main console (VNC is a big win here, though it's awfully high-bandwidth and slow from Win32).
      • there is nothing that I can not do with Terminal Services that I can do with a keyboard/mouse, even over a 56k dialup.



        How do you send over the Ctrl-Alt-Del when you server does the daily BSOD. Do you have a trained monkey that randomly hits the reset button every hour or so?
        • Daily reboot? On Windows 2000? I take it that you don't use Windows 2000. I've only ever seen it STOP once. And that was when I was screwing around with the disk drivers. IMHO, it is actually a good operating system. I've been stuck using NT4 at my last workplace and that was a nightmare. If I ever get into any trouble, fire up Compaq Remote Management [compaq.com] and away you go. Reboot from there. Easy. Dell and the others offer similar things - Some remote support and management features do not have to be supplied by the O/S.
          • I take it that you don't use Windows 2000.


            Well no actually, not for servers. I got sick and tired of the IIS exploit of the week, and made the switch more robust operating systems. It's a good desktop though, a shame they reiened the good design of 3.51 and started cramming the drivers into kernal space for the speed.
          • >I've only ever seen it STOP once.


            Same here. The other nine times I used it to display powerpoint in a 75 minute class, it did just fine . . .


            no :), i'm serious this time. But it still beat my first experience with NT. "uh, oh, it hung" they told me. When I asked why they didn't kill the offending task, as I'd heard NT could do, they explained that *that* was the one that hung . . .


            hawk

        • How do you send over the Ctrl-Alt-Del when you server does the daily BSOD. Do you have a trained monkey that randomly hits the reset button every hour or so?

          I know I shouldn't feed the trolls but anyway...

          In answer to your question, Ctrl-Alt-Home sends Ctrl-Alt-Delete to the remote machine

          "Daily BSOD?" - Strange, I've got 5 Win2k servers here and not one has BSODed on me since they were originaly setup (some were setup on RC2, then UGed to the production code)

          If your Win2k boxes are BSODing every day, then can I suggest that one of the following are going on:


          1.You are using really cheap, shitty hardware, with faulty RAM.
          2.You have written your own software for it and you are not much of a programmer
          3.You are a really bad at your job as a systems adamin.

          There are an execelent range of books for people just like you, its called the 'For Dummies' [amazon.com] collection.

        • You set up the system to dump memory to a tempfile and then reboot automatically. My last NT4 Server install did this out of the box, I assume that W2K Server does this as well. If not, it should be configured to do so.

          --Dan

    • Re:AtheOS takes a Windows approach (Score:5, Informative)

      by mlinksva ( 1755 ) on Thursday November 22, 2001 @04:44AM (#2599819) Homepage Journal
      The AtheOS home page [atheos.cx] says
      "The GUI is server/client like X11 but communicate through the native messaging system and the protocol is private to the server and client library and entirely hidden from the applications."
      So it may not be hard to do remote display.
      • Score: 4, Offtopic

        Since when did a forum like Slashdot make us talk ONLY about the things mentioned in the story? Threads deviate just like everyday conversation. One small thing is mentioned, and then entire conversations spawn on top of them. Just like threads.

        I guess you'll have to mod me down.

        But, hey, to add something on topic, the guys at QSSL (the ones responsible for QNX) do a fine job at this with Photon. Excuse me for pointing out the obvious, but all it would take would be an intermediate layer between the client and server that would proxy info sent back and forth...via TCP/IP.

    • Re:AtheOS takes a Windows approach (Score:4, Insightful)

      by slashnik ( 181800 ) on Thursday November 22, 2001 @04:46AM (#2599822)
      nsample says "They build and optimize for the GUI, rather than the command-line How many users boot Linux straight into X? Wouldn't some of these users apreciate GUI in 6 seconds from boot and browser in 1 second

      Anyone need a thin client?

      slashnik

    • Re:AtheOS takes a Windows approach (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Bear in mind that AtheOS is simply Kurt's project to "scratch an itch" - he isn't concerned at all about "capturing" users or "cornering a market". He's been asked before what direction he sees AtheOS going in - and people have said things along the lines of "you'll have to target a specific market instead of trying to be a one-size fits all approach", or bugged him for new drivers / features. However, he just adds what he wants. The lack of IDE driver seems crazy to most people, but as he says on the AtheOS homepage, it doesn't bother or interest him, so he spends his time on other things.


      It would be great if it did get these features, but at the end of the day, the direction that AtheOS goes in is solely the one that interests Kurt the most.

    • I've always found the AtheOS approach an intriguing one, and quite reminiscent of Windows. They build and optimize for the GUI, rather than the command-line kernel with a GUI built on top (like an X11 + *NIX approach).

      I don't know what you mean by "build and optimize for the GUI". UNIX has a lot of command line utilities, but so what? Windows has a lot of command line utilities as well. Both systems can be administered from the command line, from a GUI, or from a web browser. The fact that most Windows users don't know about the command line doesn't seem to reflect on the OS, but on the user community.

    • X11 made sense in the time that client computers were expensive. These days you can have a pretty decent PC for very little money so that largely removes the need for displaying stuff remotely.

      In addition there are now alternative ways to remotely operate a computer. You could use a webserver or use some XML based messaging system (e.g. SOAP). A good example where this is applied is netware from novel. It used to depend on windows for the GUI, but the later versions have a web based GUI. No need for remote display at all.

      So seen in this light, it is a correct design decision not to build network transparency into the GUI since that introduces complexity and performance problems. For legacy X based apps you can always install an X server that runs on top of the GUI.
      • Eh? I would hardly call SOAP/XML an alternative to logging onto a remote computer typing "export display:local_ip:0" and then running programs as if I was running them on my own computer. (I have a fat pipe, so I don't notice the lag much.)

        For some things a WWW interface is sufficient, but try eg editing a file that way.
  • AtheOS has had little to no coverage in the past, so it'll be interesting to see how much development increases over the coming weeks. Its nice to see its came so far with so little, but I have a feeling we'll be seeing a lot more of this OS in the future.

    • Re:Slashdot, the catalyst (Score:3, Informative)

      by armb ( 5151 )
      > it'll be interesting to see how much development increases

      On the core OS, not much.
      http://www.atheos.cx/contribute.php

      "I don't accept changes or patches to the core OS but I will happily accept patches to existing device drivers, new device drivers, utilities, applications and plugins of most types.

      I want to keep the development of the kernel, native FS, GUI, desktop manager, and maybe a few other system components to my self"

  • Probably (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nervlord1 ( 529523 ) on Thursday November 22, 2001 @04:16AM (#2599773) Homepage
    Probably the best part about Atheos is that he ported Khtml (the konqueror rendering engine) to his OS for me atleast, and i imagine many others, a good browser is my number uno priority. Its good to see he ported such a sweet engine to his OS i can imagnie technically it would have been reasonably difficult Can we also stop with the "why another operating system?" comments? I bet linus heard all of the same drivel when he wrote linux, it didnt apply then, it doesnt apply now As far as im concerned, ill never critize anything i cant do better (its a stupid policy.. but thats me) and this guy has done alot better than most

  • This looks a lot like AmigaOS (Score:5, Informative)

    by /Wegge ( 2960 ) <awegge@gmail.com> on Thursday November 22, 2001 @04:26AM (#2599791) Homepage
    Given the immediately accessible amount of API documentation available, to me it looks like this OS has captured the same spirit that AmigaOS was built upon: A lightweight microkernel, with device drivers as a separate entity.


    I'll be very tempted to make the switch from Linux just to be reminded of the good old days of the Amiga.

    • It's only the looks.

      Kurt Skauen started the project with the intent of making an Amiga clone. He says in the FAQ [atheos.cx], however, that there isn't much resemblance these days besides the window borders. The article did call him an ex-Amiga coder, he must like the look.

      This is one of those things that I keep meaning to check out. Maybe now I will.

    • A lightweight microkernel, with device drivers as a separate entity.
      Atheos is not entirely microkernel based, it is somehow a mixture of monolithic and microkernel design.
      "I often ask myself that question to :) The kernel is very modular and the it have a well defined interface between the kernel and it's device-drivers and file-systems. So given that each component communicate through a thin well defined interface, and don't know much else about each other, it ressembles a micro-kernel. I am not sure if this is the right term though, since all kernel-components lives in kernel-space and is not protected from each other, this is all properties from a monolitic-kernel. I am a bit confused :) -- atheos FAQ"
  • GNU and BSD are so huge it's difficult to contribute to them, so it's reassuring to see that it's still possible for one person to write a credible kernel. But with all the recent progress in CORBA, JVM, and CLR (the pseudo-JVM for .NET), it's a worrisome trend to see new interfaces that can be used from C++ but not from more robust languages (Eiffel, Python, Perl, Ruby, Ada...). And pressure on the GCC team against improving their ABI (because of all the underspecified interfaces that'll break) can't be good.

    • I don't think anyone has even read this guy's page. He does not want, and will not accept contributions to AtheOS. It's a hobby project for him, for fun. He doesn't want it to be the next great OS, he just wants to learn.

      • An OS written in C++ is okay with me (though I think the efficiency advantages of allowing "undefined behavior" are overblown). What worries me is that more people are going to think it's reasonable to make system interfaces (like the AtheOS GUI) that are only usable by C++ applications, making life harder for less hidebound hackers.
        • though I think the efficiency advantages of allowing "undefined behavior" are overblown

          [Note: I think you mean "implementation-defined" rather than "undefined."]

          It depends on how you define "overblown." Such advantages will never outperform an algorithmic improvement, but then no compiler transformation will do so. Implementation-defined behavior is critical for transformations like expression reassociation, partial redundancy elimination, instruction scheduling and many others. The order of expression evaluation, for example, has to be implementation-defined to allow all of these transformations or at least to improve their efficiency.

          The ABI also has to be implementation-defined because each platform has its own calling convention, linker limitations and a host of other niggly details you really don't want to have to worry about. Trust me. :)

    • In defense of C++
      C++ is not inherently more unstable than any other language. Modern C++ compilers produce good code, and library functions are not fatally flawed.
      While it may be true that other languages are more careful about type-checking, that is a choice they make which makes doing things like writing kernels more difficult.
      While C++ is far from the perfect language, so is every other programming language.
  • Am I the only one who noticed just how much the file browser (the picture showing how the screen looks if the correct font is installed) looks like X-Tree Pro for DOS?

    I mean, I used to love it 10 years ago, but surely we've move on by now.

  • enough of a difference? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mj6798 ( 514047 ) on Thursday November 22, 2001 @04:58AM (#2599844)
    Well, a kernel and GUI that is written from the ground up in C++ could be heaven or it could be hell. Properly used, C++ can help a lot with data abstraction and safety with no loss of efficiency, but poorly used, it can make things a lot worse than plain C and give you performance problems in addition. On multi-programmer problems, C++ seems to turn into hell rather than heaven more often than not.

    Altogether, I wonder whether AtheOS is sufficiently different from Linux/X11 to attract much interest. If kernel, driver, and application development for it were orders of magnitude easier, I could see switching. But given that it seems to be built using fairly traditional software technologies, why would it be all that much better?

    Time will tell, but I won't be an early adopter of this one...

    • The AtheOS kernel is written with C and some x86 assembler optimizations, not C++
    • Actually, there are several places where C++, properly used, can be much nicer than C. Take, for example, the standard Linux linked list code. When moving from entry to entry, the code uses the offsetof() macro to explicitly find the location of the "next" and "prev" pointers within an object. Templates could be used instead to make the code nicer. Actually, templates are great of generic data structures of all kinds. Instead of using callbacks (for comparison functions, for example) one can use an expression template and allow the compiler to adapt each instance to the data structure being used. This is not only more maintainable, but *faster*, since the comparison function can be inlined into the instance. Then there are all of the places (like the VFS) where a table of function pointers is explicitly initialized with callbacks. Instead, you could simply use an abstract base class for the interface and put the callbacks into the implementation.
  • General Public License Operating System; Perhaps the author meant "An Operating System licensed under the GNU GPL"?

    Regards, Tommy

  • silly rabbit... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Ah, it's nothing more than another attempt for a nerd to get laid; it's meant for chicks. From the atheos.cx page: "I belive this consistency is important so the user doesn't have to start from scratch each time she learns a new program to know."
  • I tried AtheOS about 6 months ago, and I was impressed. True, the install was very raw, but it was quick as a whip. I was amazed that this guy wrote the entire thing from scratch! He definitely has bragging rights for this puppy. I have tested practically every OS out there. I use Linux as my primary OS, I love Beos and QNX, and Atheos is truly impressive. It took 1,000 developers to fsck up windows, and ONE guy to make the amazing AtheOS Operating system. Evryone should at least try it out and show your friends!
  • Does anyone know if you can install AtheOS under VMWare on Windows? I have a VMWare machine at work that I am constantly "experimenting" with alternate things like this. I think if would be cool to play with, but I can't dedicate a whole machine to it.

  • GUIs are evil (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 22, 2001 @09:23AM (#2600149)
    I like what this guy says. It's a hobbyist OS and he has no intent to compete with Windows for popularity, etc. IOW if AtheOS is missing a feature and he doesn't want to add it, it ain't going in. Cool! It's about time people stopped giving a crap about what others want.

    I for one, though, think GUIs are evil, and I am releasing my own Linux distribution to address this issue. It's called Luddite Linux. Here are the features:
    * No GUI
    * No mouse driver
    * No menu-driven apps
    * The first distro will be released on CD-ROM but future releases will be released on punch cards.

    * No mail apps. Only a weak minded fool uses a mail app. Telnet to your POP server at port 110 and learn the commands to read your email that way!
    * No FTP apps. Why can't you just telnet to port 21 and download it? rz and sz are debatable so I put 'em in just because I like to err on the user convenience side :)

    * No emacs. Has drop down menus. Use vi!
    * I did include an assembler but no compiler. C is for script weeneez. Machine language is where it's at, baby

    My new OS will be out Any Time Now[tm]

    Thanks :)
    • * No mail apps. Only a weak minded fool uses a mail app. Telnet to your POP server at port 110 and learn the commands to read your email that way!

      The funny thing is... I have actually done this many times :P Usually when I do not actually have a direct way to get at the mail machine... and I have to route through many other boxen to actually GET there...

      (The pains of company firewalls :)

    • * No FTP apps. Why can't you just telnet to port 21 and download it?

      Why not? Because FTP does not only use port 21; that's just the control port. You also need a data port if you want to transfer files -- or even get a directory listing! So to speak FTP over telnet, you need at least two clients if you want to do more than just change directories.

      (Compare with HTTP which mixes control messages and data on the same port -- but which doesn't really do sessions, unless you count Keep-Alive.)

      Cheers,
      Philip.

    • until I found this line . . .


      > * No emacs. Has drop down menus. Use vi!


      IOW, the parent should have been mdded up as insightfl, rather than funny . . .


      hawk

  • most operations under AtheOS will involve the command line (however, been a modern OS, AtheOS is GUI-only, it does not offer a fullscreen text mode)

    "been" a modern OS is no excuse for *not* including something! If anything it should include *more* things. There are some people who like those full-text-screens. I don't think they are too hard to code.

    And to those of you saying that the author isn't doing this for anyone but himself, I agree, that's a good reason for doing things however he wants, but please don't say it doesn't have a text-console because it's a modern OS.
  • Sorry, I'm not trying to ridicule the authors work here - it's quite an accomplishment, but AtheOS is unlikely to draw people who area already very Unix-centric, because of its GUI-based design rather than CLI-based system. I'm not saying that a GUI system is inferior, just that it's unlikely to draw people who already happen to have a preference for something different. It is also unlikely to draw the average desktop computer user because he or she will either have never heard of it, or wouldn't perceive any personal need for it. The people that AtheOS are _MOST_ likely to draw into using it are those that are curious about different OS's and eager to always try new things. Unfortunately, this is a substantially smaller group than even the Unix-centric crowd that was originally drawn to Linux and FreeBSD. I suppose AtheOS's ability to draw people into it depends on the ability of this small group of people to convince other people that this OS's paradigm is superior.

  • atheos gui on linux (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    for those who want to try out atheos but can't for some reason (unsupported hardware, no free partitions, etc.) there is a port of the gui to linux here [tig-grr.com].
  • Are there any mirrors of the AtheOS downloads? Every time I make to install it from an @home connection, the files download halfway then bork. Anybody with similar experience?

    And why do the AtheOS parrots look disturbingly like the ViewSonic parrots?
  • If you're viewing posts 'newest first', count your blessings--you have received this warning in time. Click off this fucking discussion right now before you scroll down to the argument between the fucking idiot who wants to use a political analogy to tell us why AtheOS is bad for OS and the fucking idiot who wants to use that as an excuse to tell us why the U.S. political system is fucked up. This thread is dangerous to your mental health. It is stupid, banal, boring, whiny, and insufficiently down-moderated. Leave while you can!

Slashdot Top Deals

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Close