On Oct 2, 2008, at 6:40 AM, Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-10-01, at 08:15, Joshua Juran wrote:
My plan is to use Unix filing calls and multiple processes:
// Pseudo-code follows
setsid();
int window = open( "/dev/new/window", O_RDWR );
ioctl( window, TIOCSCTTY, NULL ); // Yes, a window is a terminal
ioctl( window, WIOCSTITLE, "Untitled 1" );
ioctl( window, WIOCSHOW, NULL );
Plan 9?
I frequently hear that comparison.
I would suggest something that lets you say something like
"cat file > /dev/win/anon//mode=text/geometry=80x24+30+30/
title=filename/close=retain"
I used to have what-to-do-on-close logic in the kernel, but now the
window will always close when the last file descriptor referring to
it is closed. So run a trivial program that does "while ( true )
pause();" to keep it open.
Also, rather than opening the new-window device yourself (when in the
shell), it's advised to use a dedicated program that handles setting
up a new session. If the window isn't the controlling terminal of
its foreground process group's session, then clicking the close box
does nothing (i.e. the processes holding its file descriptor don't
receive a SIGHUP).
And while you're fixing stuff, "/dev/tcp/anon//port=80/
host=www.google.com/" would be spiffy.
I'm thinking more like "/dev/tcp/www.google.com:80", but yeah, that
will help shell scripters.
And, for that matter, replace ioctls with "touch /dev/tty//
speed=9600/..."
Ioctls are the throw-away system. They're a design smell, but using
them for now buys me time to design the replacement.
It's less silly than Cygwin in the sense that classic Mac OS has a
more solid API than Windows.
You're not just a masochist, you're crazy.
I'm a hobbyist.
Are people crazy for building little trains that can't carry
passengers or cargo, can't go anywhere, and don't make any money?
How about the ones maintaining the m68k port of Linux, whose userbase
consists entirely of the maintainers themselves?
It may have a more consistent API in some ways, but the whole
Handle business was obviously ass when I first read about it in 1984
Relocatable memory is a means of addressing heap fragmentation, which
can be a problem in long-running processes facing dynamic loads (e.g.
any user application), and neither the ability to extend the heap or
page it to disk negates that. (Or maybe it's just Firefox, I don't
know.)
Fixed size memory partitions in 1997?
Well, Apple was going to provide real OS features (protected memory,
premptive multitasking, etc.) in Copland, but that broke too much
backward compatibility so it was canceled and replaced by Mac OS X.
Mac OS 8 ran faster under Sheepshaver than native.
Your complaint says that one machine is faster than a different one,
which has nothing to do with the performance of any operating
system. I can't help but wonder if you just made this up.
Benchmarks or it didn't happen.
Mac OS 9 was slower on a 233 MHZ 604e than NeXTstep on a 40 MHz 68030.
Again, please provide benchmarks. Perhaps you meant responsiveness,
of which we have different definitions, but here you claim speed.
Would you like to do time trials of MD5, or something else?
I have perfectly usable hardware that I'm not willing to throw
away just because Apple would prefer I buy new machines to run
their bloatware. Besides, I'd much rather use 68K and PowerPC
assembler than 32-bit Intel.
You can probably still get legal BeOS from purplus, and while
there's so much just plain wrong about BeOS it's about infinity
squared times better than the upside-down OS that Apple built on
top of a GUI.
Why? How does *my* not using classic Mac OS make *you* happier?
Classic Mac OS was my first love. I don't hate it, because I see
in it (or perhaps beyond it) the ideal system that Apple never
shipped.
Classic Mac OS was botched from the first, it was unfixable, it had
failure baked into its genes.
Please imagine an operating system that looks and feels like classic
Mac OS, but without the faults. That is what I love. I sometimes
resent Apple for not shipping it. It's superfluous to point out to
me that it doesn't exist, and academic to argue that it couldn't.
Instead my hate is directed toward Apple for botching it. I mean,
it's not the *software's* fault that Apple made it that way, right?
It's never the software's fault, even Windows, if that stops you
from hating it, you are lost.
I loathe Windows, and the difference is that I never wanted it to be
any good.
Josh
