Related
I would like to know if freedos is better than windows or not, and why, I mean in terms of operability and development capacity using one or the other.
And finally which onw would you use and why.
Thanks for your support,
John.
This mainly would depend on what you're goal is for your operating system. If you're goal is to play some classic games or run legacy software, sure you would probably appreciate FreeDOS, as for anything else... Windows definitely wins out. In terms of development, Windows has a lot more active community and you will likely find more tools and resources on it. If you are looking for an similar open source OS, consider looking into Linux or even Kali Linux if you are familiar with that. The command line utility with those type of operating systems have a lot more flexibility and isn't as limited as FreeDOS.
So overall, Windows definitely wins out in terms of ease-of-use and development capacity.
On Linux there exists a thing called a User Mode Linux kernel, which is a kernel built in such a way that it will run as an ordinary, unprivileged user process (not even needing root). It's a cheap and easy virtualisation method that'll even run on non-Linux platforms (e.g. CoPilot is based around UML built for Windows).
Does such a thing exist for the BSD world? I don't mind which OS.
I've had a look myself but 'user mode bsd' is a completely ungoogleable term. I've discovered NetBSD rump kernels, but they seem to be solving a different problem --- it looks like it's not possible to run arbitrary process trees on them.
I think DragonFly BSD's vkernel is what you are looking for.
NetBSD has usermode too. I don't know how to configure/build it.
Look :
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2015/02/06/msg026632.html
The best true virtualisation tool in the NetBSD world is Xen.
It's not all that difficult to set up any more either. Don't get put off by the length and volume of information in the "how-to" -- the basics boil down to a few simple steps.
NetBSD/xen HowTo
In the FreeBSD world I've heard good things about The BSD Hypervisor
DragonFly BSD's vkernel is indeed similar to User-Mode-Linux, but from what I've heard it wouldn't be very suitable as a "cheap and easy" virtualisation method. It is actually intended for the same types of uses as NetBSD's rump kernels, though it does seem to go so far as supporting a full virtual OS environment. The performance will likely be pitiful though.
It probably wouldn't hurt to pester the VirtualBox folks about supporting VBox as an application on the BSDs too, but don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen.
On FreeBSD you have jails. They basically are a (almost) no-overhead virtual machine running on the same kernel as the host.
Are there any technical benefits to Windows/Microsoft as a platform to use while developing, over a Unix dialect such as Linux or Solaris?
I know that companies choose Microsoft at times because there's simply not enough programmers available that know Unix, or that these programmers are much more expensive to hire.
So assuming all developers knew Unix and Microsoft equally well, would there still be cases where you are better off developing in Windows?
To me there's only two arguments for using Windows as a dev platform:
You have to because you're doing .Net/Windows development (or because the company simply gives you no choice); or
The apps, specifically Microsoft Office/Exchange. I'm sorry but OpenOffice is dreadful in comparison to Word/Excel.
Apart from that imho Linux has every other advantage including:
MUCH faster filesystem (particularly important when dealing with lots of small files). Last year I went from a build time of 8-10 minutes to 2-3 just by this switch (ant build of same code base);
Typically your dev environment then matches your production environment (if you're production environment is Windows your dev environment will be Windows almost guaranteed), which can be useful. We've had issues with Java classpath visibility because of differences between JBoss on Windows and Linux; and
A much better set of command line tools (yes I knwo you can use Cygwin, etc but it's not as good).
That's one reason why I find the idea of a Mac as my next dev workstation so appealling: you can look it as either Unix with applications (ie Office) or Windows with a decent filesystem (will be even better if/when OSX adopts ZFS), either way it's a win. The only thing that's really put me off is that Apple does stupid things like delay Java 6 release by a year just so they can put the Leopard Look and Feel in.
Just off the top of my mind:
.NET (even though mono is really great)
Visual Studio - probably the best IDE around
Excellent documentation (The MSDN Library is way much more developer friendly than man pages in my opinion)
Huge userbase (that's more like a business thing but still it is a very important factor)
Binary compatability (it's much easier to support 4-5 kernels and standard C library versions than the infinite number of combinations you can find in Linux distros)
One of the best things you can do is keep your options open. Chopse a platform independant technology and you'll be able to have software for any O/S or implementation. From a technical standpoint, this makes a lot of sense as well as from a business one.
As for specific technical advantages to the Windows platform, other than the large developer community and development information store and widely supported IDE's like Visual Studio, I'd say you'll be hard pressed to find one. Even there, Eclipse can do just as good a job with a platform independant technology.
Microsoft systems tend to have much better integration between different parts - there's a lot less heterogeneity to worry about if you're using binary-only software (x86 and comctl3d is a lot easier to support than everything *nix runs on).
The learning curve on Windows is shallow to begin with but has a longer overall distance. On Unix/Linux the beginning is a struggle but getting stuff done becomes easier later on, when the inner workings of the OS begin to make sense.
At least that's been my experience with them. Windows for quick payoff, Linux if you're going to be doing something much longer-term. And virtual machines if you can't decide :)
I think this question presents a false dichotomy. There's no reason you have to choose windows over unix or vice versa. Virtualization is free and easy. It's the best of both worlds!
One reason we have Windows development platforms (even though our production is on Linux or Solaris) is common environment for all.
That means all the different populations involved in the realization of a softwares:
are not all developers (business, functional people are also concerned with a working environment)
are all on the same platform (Windows)
use all the same tools to write/communicate (as in Word, PowerPoint)
can have their same environment on laptop
In short: uniformity of environment for all (developers and non-developers alike).
The other reason is depreciation: it is easy to manage depreciation for PCs, where the services are lighter than a full-scale Unix server (like a Sun Fire, a F15K or F50K, ...): the latter needs some expensive assistance service contracts (like "bronze", "silver" or "gold" depending on the level needed). A PC is easier to fix/replace, and is not as critical is a developer "mess up" on it and crash it utterly ;)
That being said, the downside of this is you do not change PC every day: it means managing a large parc of desktops, you cannot just decide to upgrade like that (and that goes for Os too).
So where the other answers are all about "virtual machine" whereas your set of PCs is from 2003, with only 40Go of hard-drive and 1, may be 2Go of memory..., you realize "virtualization" is not always an obvious solution.
Hence, some Unix "integration" server are required for developers to test their products in an environment closer to the target. In a way, this is better, since those integration servers are managed in a uniformed way, avoiding the syndrome of "it works for meTM", as opposed to virtual machine, where each developer is the own root/administrator of one's own little world/server ;).
I can give you a common arguments that Windows folks might make, though not one I necessarily agree with.
People sometimes think that Windows boxes at production time are easier to maintain and deploy. That is because there are a lot of visual tools available to the admin. Therefore they prefer .Net or a Windows-specific development language for easy integration.
If your customers or internal clients use all windows desktop computers, some would argue that its less legwork to do stuff with Windows servers. This includes stuff for Microsoft Office document sharing (i.e. sharepoint) or stuff with Windows File Sharing. Obviously its easier to write a .Net application to deal with such Microsoft-specific constraints.
I can't really think of any other reasons. The latter one is probably the most valid -- there just might be some microsoft-specific technology that is hard to integrate with unless you use MSFT development tools.
Peripheral reasons for some specific kinds of development:
you need to see how things look in both firefox and explorer
you're working with flash (which AFAIK you can't develop on linux, and the players are terrible).
you're working on a project that involved MS office integration
you're office has some godawful mail or notes system that you can't log into any other way. ditto for some vpn setups.
I consider all of these things to be regrettable.
Why not use both?
In either scenario, you could use a virtual machine in either Windows or Linux/Unix for basically nothing using Virtual Box or Vmware player. Or you could remote desktop/vnc to the other platform from your development box. If you develop in .net you would probably be better off on Windows for dev. If you develop for LAMP, either Windows/*nix would be fine.
give me apache mysql (ok postgres in a pinch) php and eclipse .. who cares about the OS ..
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I am toying with the idea of creating an completely new operating system and would like to hear what everyone on this forums take is on that? First is it too late are the big boys so entrenched in our lives that we will never be able to switch (wow - what a terrible thought...). But if this is not the case, what should a operating system do for you? What features are the most important? Should all the components be separate installations (in other words - should the base OS really have no user functionality and that gets added on by creating "plug-ins" kind of like a good flexible tool?)
Why do I want to do this... I am more curious about whether there is a demand and I am wondering, since the OSes we use most today (Linux, Windows, Mac OS X (Free BSD)) were actually written more than 20 years ago (and I am being generous - I mean dual and quad cores did not exist back then, buses were much slower, hardware was much more expensive, etc,...), I was just curious with the new technology if we would do anything differently?
I am anxious to read your comments.
To answer the first question: It's never too late. Especially when it comes to niche market segments and stuff like that.
Second though, before you start down the path of creating a new OS, you should understand the kind of undertaking it is: it'd be a massive project.
Is it just a normal programmer "scratch the itch" kind of project? If so, then by all means go ahead -- you might learn alot of things by doing it. But if you're doing it for the resulting product, then you shouldn't start down that path until you've looked at all the current OSes under development (there are alot more than you'd think at first) and figured out what you'd like to change in them.
Quite possibly the effort would be better spent improving/changing an existing open source system. Even for your own experimentation, it may be easier to get the results you want if you start out with something already in development.
First, a little story. In 1992, during the very first Win32 ( what would become the MS Professional Developers Conference ) conference, I had the opportunity to sit with over some lunch with one Mr. Dave Cutler ( Chief Architect of what most folks would now know as Windows NT,Windows 2000, XP, etc. ).
I was at the time working on the Multimedia group at IBM Boca Raton on what some of you might remember, OS/2. Having worked on OS/2 for several years, and recognizing "the writing on the wall" of where OSes were going, I asked him, "Dave, is Windows NT going to take us into the next century or are there other ideas on your mind ?". His answer to me was as follows:
"M...., Windows NT is the last operating system anyone will ever develop from scratch !". Then he looked over at me, took a sip of his beer, and said, "Then again, you could wake up next Saturday after a particularly good night out with your girl, and have a whole new approach for an operating system, that'll put this to shame."
Putting that conversation into context, and given the fact I'm back in college pursuing my Master's degree ( specializing in Operating Systems design ), I'd say there's TONS of room for new operating systems. The thing is to put things into perspective. What are your target goals for this operating system ? What problem space is it attempting to service ?
Putting this all into perspective will give you an indication of whether you're really setting your sights on an achievable goal.
That all being said, I second an earlier commenters note about looking into things like "Singularity" ( the focus of a talk I gave this past spring in one of my classes .... ), or if you really want to "sink your teeth into" an OS in its infancy....look at "ReactOS".
Then again, WebOSes, like gOS, and the like, are probably where we're headed over the next decade or so. Or then again, someone particularly bright could wake up after a particularly fruitful evening with their lady or guy friend, and have the "next big idea" in operating systems.
Why build the OS directly on a physical machine? You'll just be mucking around in assembly language ;). Sure, that's fun, but why not tackle an OS for a VM?
Say an OS that runs on the Java/.NET/Parrot (you name it) VM, that can easily be passed around over the net and can run a bunch of software.
What would it include?
Some way to store data (traditional FS won't cut it)
A model for processes / threads (or just hijack the stuff provided by the VM?)
Tools for interacting with these processes etc.
So, build a simple Platform that can be executed on a widely used virtual machine. Put in some cool functionality for a specific niche (cloud computing?). Go!
For more information on the micro- versus monolithic kernel, look up Linus' 'discussion' with Andrew Tanenbaum.
I would highly suggest looking at an early version on linux(0.01) to at least get your feet wet. You're going to mucking about with assembly and very obscure low-level stuff to even get started (especially getting into protected mode, multi-tasking, etc). And yes, it's probably true that the "big boys" already have the market cornered. I'm not telling you NOT to do it, but maybe doing some work on the linux kernel would be a better stepping stone.
Check out Cosmos and Singularity, these represent what I want from a futuristic operating system ;-)
Edit :
SharpOS is another managed OS effort. Suggested by yshuditelu
An OS should have no user functionality at all. User functionality should be added by separate projects, which does not at all mean that the projects should not work together!
If you are interested in user functionality maybe you should look into participating in existing Desktop Environment projects such as GNOME, KDE or something.
If you are interested in kernel-level functionality, either try hacking on a BSD derivate or on Linux, or try creating your own system -- but don't think too much about the user functionality then. Getting the core of an operating system right is hard and will take a long time -- wanting to reinvent everything does not make much sense and will get you nowhere.
You might want to join an existing OS implementation project first, or at least look at what other people have implemented.
For example AROS has been some 10 or more years in the making as a hobby OS, and is now quite usable in many ways.
Or how about something more niche? Check out Symbios, which is a fully multitasking desktop (in the style of Windows) operating system - for 4MHz Z80 CPUs (Amstrad CPC, MSX). Maybe you would want to write something like this, which is far less of a bite than a full next-generation operating system.
Bottom line...focus on your goals and even more importantly the goals of others...help to meet those needs. Never start with just technology.
I'd recommend against creating your own Operating System. (My own geeky interruption...Look into Cloud Computing and Amazon EC2)
I totally agree that it would first help by defining what your goals are. I am a big fan of User Experiences and thinking of not only your own goals but the goals of your audience/users/others. Once you have those goals, then move to the next step of how to meet it.
Now days what is an Operation System any way? kernal, Operating System, Virtual Server Instance, Linux, Windows Server, Windows Home, Ubuntu, AIX, zSeries OS/390, et al. I guess this is a good definition of OS... Wikipedia
I like Sun's slogan "the Network is the computer" also...but their company has really fallen in the past decade.
On that note of the Network is the computer... again, I highly recommend, checking out Amazon EC2 and more generally cloud computing.
I think that building a new OS from scratch to resemble the current OSes on the market is a waste of time. Instead, you should think about what Operating System will be like 10-20 years from now. My intuition is that they will be so different as to render them mostly unrecognizable by today's standards. Think of frameworks such as Facebook (gasp!) for models of how future OSes will operate.
I think you're right about our current operating systems being old. Someone said that all operating systems suck. And yes, don't we have problems with them? Call it BSOD, Sad Mac or a Kernel Panic. Our filesystems fail, there are security and reliability problems.
Microsoft pursued interesting approach with its Singularity kernel. It isolates processes in software, using a virtual machine similar to .NET, and formal verification methods. Basically all IPC seems to be formally specified and verified, even before a program is ran.
But there's another problem with it - Singularity is only a kernel. You can't run application not designed for it on it. This is a huge penalty, making eventual transition (Singularity is not public) quite hard. If you manage to produce something of similar technical advantages, but with a real transition plan (think about IPv4->IPv6 problems, or how Windows got so much market share on desktop), that could be huge!
But starting small is not a bad choice either. Linux started just like this, and there are many cases when it leads to better design. Small is beautiful. Easier to change. Easier to grow. Anyway, good luck!
checkout singularity project,
do something revolutionary
I've always wanted an operating system that was basically nothing but a fresh slate. It would have built in plugin support which allow you to build the user interface, applications, whatever you want.
This system would work much like a Lua sandbox to a game would work, minus the limitations. You could build a plugin or module system that would have access to a variety of subsystems that you would use. For example, if you were to write a web browser application, you would need to load the networking library and use that within your plugin script. Need 'security' ? Load the library.
The difference between this and Linux is that, Linux is an operating system but has a windows manager that runs over top of it. In this theoretical operating system, you would be able to implement the generic "look" and "feel" of a variety of windows within the plugin system, or could you create a custom interface.
The difference between this and Windows is that its fully customizable, and by fully I mean if you wanted to not implement any cryptography at all, you can do that, or if you wanted to customize an already existing window, you can do that. Nothing is closed to you.
In this theoretical operating system, there is an OS with a plugin system. The plugin system uses a simple and powerful language.
If you're asking what I'd like to see in an operating system, I can give you a list. I am just getting into programming so I'm not sure if any of this is possible, but I can give you my ideas.
I'd like to see a developed operating system (besides the main ones) in which it ISN'T a pain to get the wireless card to work. That is my #1 pet peeve with most of the ones I've tried out.
It would be cool to see an operating system designed by a programmer for other programmers. Have it so you can run programs for all different operating systems. I don't know if that's possible without having a copy of windows and OSX but it would be really damn cool if I could check the compatablity of programs I write with all operating systems.
You could also consider going with MINIX which is a good starting point.
To the originator of this forum, my hats off to you sir for daring to think in much bolder and idealistic terms regarding the IT industry. First and foremost, Your questions are precisely the kind you would think should engage a much broader audience given the flourishing Computer Sciences all over the globe & the openness taught to us by the Revolutionary Linux OS, which has only begun to win the hearts and minds of so many out there by way of strengthing its user-friendly interface. So kudos on pushing the envelope.
If I'm following correctly, you are supposing that given the fruits of our labor thus far, the development of further hardware & Software concoctions could or at least should be less conventional. The implication, of course, is that any new development would reach its goal faster than what is typical. The prospect, however, of an entirely new OS system #this time would be challenging - to say the least - only because there is so much friction out there already between Linux & Windows. It is really a battle between open source & the proprietary ideologies. Bart Roozendaal in a comment above proves my point nicely. Forget the idea of innovation and whatever possibilities may come from a much more contemporary based Operating System, for such things are secondary. What he is asking essentially is, are you going to be on the side of profit or no? He gives his position away easily here. As you know, Windows is notorious for its monopolistic approach regarding new markets, software, and other technology. It has maintained a deathgrip on its hegemony since its existence and sadly the windows os is racked with endless bugs & backdoors.
Again, I applaud you for your taking a road less travelled and hopefully forgeing ahead and not becoming discouraged. Personally, I'd like to see another OS out there...one much more contemporary.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
What is the average time that it would take a complete novice, whose background is mostly Windows XP, to go through the FreeBSD handbook and get sufficient mastery to setup a server from the ground up?
It's impossible to say. Not only is it highly dependent upon what sort of person you are, but it also depends on what exactly you are doing and how you define "sufficient mastery". Being able to get Apache operational is a simple matter of following step-by-step tutorials, you could do that in a matter of hours. Being able to run a multi-user server competently takes a hell of a lot longer, and the handbook isn't nearly enough.
It would depend on how much knowledge you have of unix, and from the sounds of things, you probably do not have a whole lot.
Assuming you have little knowledge of unix at all, I would say that it will probably take a few days to get a grasp of what is going on, and possibly a week to have something working.
The FreeBSD handbook is pretty detailed though, and does provide you with a good grounding of everything you need to do to get things to work.
I know that this sounds like an awful lot of time, but in my experience, they really are quite different OS paradigms.
You could start with PC BSD (an easy to use distro) to get a feeling of BSD and then move to more advanced stuff like setting up servers.
As others have noted, configuring a service to do a couple of things isn't very hard, you just have to follow some steps (which any monkey could do), but if you want more, you'll need extra time. A competent sysadmin does not know only the how, but also the why. Grandma can click all day in Windows and even if Windows Server has a GUI for server administration, it doesn't mean she can configure IIS or the DHCP service. By the way, it would be a good thing if you could learn an (Unix) editor, preferably vi, since it's the standard on BSDs; emacs, joe, pico are nice too, but they aren't so popular.
As for the time, it took about two days for me to configure a server. But I had previous Linux experience and the server didn't do anything fancy.
Look if you've never touched a Unix platform, you should learn a lot of things, basically a different philosophy. The FreeBSD Handbook and the community is simply wonderful, but a reference book like the FBSD handbook contains a lot of information that you must develop yourself.
Also, the BSD platform is not easiest of the Unix family to begin from zero.
Good sources to learn:
Absolute BSD book.
The Complete BSD book (this is for Release 5, it's good for learning also).
Man pages. The BSDs man pages are a LOT better than the Linux ones.
FreeBSD Handbook.
FreeBSD forums: forums.freebsd.org and daemonforums.
Any Unix/Linux resource you can get your hands on. Many things are compatible (or near-compatible). e.g, if your friend tells you "I've found an old SGI IRIX / HPUX or (insert unix here) manual that I will throw in the thrashcan" stop it and see what you can learn from it.
Keep in mind that you've a long road ahead. But you'll enjoy it.
Depends on your reading speed :-)
Depends on your needs (I mean: what kind of server).
Once upon a time I did this - installing a FreeBSD on x86- (although I had some Linux knowledge already at that time), and it took me 3 hours, mainly that much time, because I was working on another machine in parallel.
Depends on your background: Did you ever use power shell or other command line "applications" (like batches ;-). For me one of the greatest challenges to switch from a completely GUI'd operating system to an operating system that works best with a shell (something a little bit like the DOS prompt). But the moment you get the hang of it you'll be fine again.
Another aspect is the availability of a second computer beside the one you are setting up. If you can do web searches for additional information while in the midst of doing an install, it can save a lot of time.
As for the original topic, I've used Linux and Unix extensively, but have yet to get FreeBSD working after several tries over many years. I'd always get frustrated before I could get it fully installed and configured for a nice graphical desktop. (So personality obviously matters.) But it has been about two years since I've tried, and it may be simple now...
Please do not consider this a flame against FreeBSD... just a true story that for some reason I couldn't seem to make it work. If it were not a good OS, I wouldn't have attempted so many times.
If you're coming from a primarily Windows background, I think FreeBSD would be a great way to dive into UNIX, but you may also want to check out Ubuntu Linux-- specifically, Ubuntu Server.
Got a spare Pentium 4-based system laying around at home? Burn yourself a CD and go to it.
As a fan of FreeBSD myself, I have to second the recommendation for the "Absolute FreeBSD" book above-- another book worth a look is "Building a Server with FreeBSD 7."
My original rationale for choosing FreeBSD was getting better control over what gets installed-- I was really tired of installing RedHat and/or SuSE and having a few gigabytes of stuff I wasn't going to use installed as part of the base install that wasn't easily removed after the fact. I've grown rather enamored with the BSD way of doing things, but it isn't necessarily for everyone.
Something to consider-- if you have the hardware, run VMWare or VirtualBox, and set up a few virtual machines to get used to various distributions before making the commitment to install a particular one on bare hardware.