Special Report: First Look at GNOME 4 - the Future of Portability

Well,TA, I'm glad to read that you've got a pleasant looking synaptic. Mine is a mismatched throw back to UI's past. Maybe I need a better distro...

@ra and all --

You will be pleased to know that I am taking positive steps to create a solid alternative for those who are tired of all the desktop silliness that uncaring, unethical, and clueless developers have foisted on us over the past few years.

I am creating a distribution that will be simple and clean, freed of bells and whistles that turn out to be all noise and no music.

I call it Dino's Optimized system, but you can call it DOS.

I know this should be read as humor, but...

DOS never got in the way (at least if you didn't want to go above 640K). DOS fitted on 3 floppies. In DOS you could just copy the program directory and it was "back-upped". No need for fancy hardware. Extremely fast boot times. No multitasking, so no distractions :-P Chique white on black color scheme. Norton Commander was all the GUI one would ever need.

Now, can someone give me my meds? I'm having a severe attack of nostalgia. (I used to hate DOS, coming from Amiga Workbench 3.5.)

> Extremely fast boot times.

Especially if it was burned into an eprom like it was with the Tandy 1000 HX, :)

But I still have a preference for OS-9.

I loved the piece too... very satirical ... and sadly true at the same time...

DOS sucked, precisely because it had no multitasking. It was nothing more than a program loader; it was not a true operating system. No multitasking sucks, because not only can you not switch between tasks quickly, you can't do multiple things simultaneously, such as keep a webpage or PDF document open for reference while you write code or do some other task pertaining to that reference information.

> DOS sucked, precisely because it had no multitasking.

Like I said, OS-9. :) A true real time, multi-user, multitasking operating system in 64KB.

Kids today have no appreciation for anything.

A. Multi-tasking is not the test of an operating system, and DOS was substantially more than a program loader. B. You can live quite nicely without multi-tasking if you don't to things that need it. Lots of good work got done on DOS computers (and their predessors) over the years. C. It WAS possible to do multi-tasklng under DOS if you used 1. DESQview or Topview, or 2. Early versions of MS Windows. Windows 3.x was especially cool because it supported both cooperative mutli-tasking between Windows processes and pre-emptive time-sliced multi-tasking between DOS processes.

(Insert short, cynical comment that everyone finds extremely relevant and hilarious)

@CB:

They all suck. Some just suck less.

@dinotrac: For A., you make an assertion with absolutely nothing to back it up. I'll repeat it again: DOS was nothing more than a program loader.

DESQview wasn't DOS; it was basically an OS, and it was loaded by DOS (which again, was a program loader). Just like GRUB and U-boot can load Linux or Windows, DOS was able to load DESQview, which was able to run and multitask DOS programs to a limited extent. The fact that DOS provided a few cr@ppy subroutines for dealing with I/O doesn't change the fact that it was a program loader, especially when every decent program bypassed these things altogether. Just look at DOOM; that game was almost a whole OS by itself, and it did nothing with DOS other than use it to load.

@khamul....

I believe you were the one who made an assertion without backing it up.

I'm curious -- had you been born yet when people were using DOS?

I used DOS since the days of CGA. And you're the one who countered my assertion with no facts; if you think I'm wrong, explain why, otherwise STFU instead of being a jerk.

@kahmul -- or should I say pot?

I think that the tone of this thread was pretty sarcastic and meant as humor in response to an April Fool's joke.

Anyone reading it should take everything with a grain of salt, and not not take it as statements before a Court.

Lighten up people, its just a thread for fooling around.

You know....I've been an LXer reader since 2005, maybe before....then, I can't really remember. I was a Senior Editor for LXer under the Adelstein regime and have contributed my share of comments and articles over the years. If I remember correctly, I brought one current Editor on board. I have seen "spirited" discussions, sometimes, they became more spirited than they needed to but over time, ruffled feathers were smoothed and we all got along.

Without doing an extensive search, I don't think I have ever heard a forum member tell another to STFU. Khamul, that was not only out of hand, you mistook some all-in-fun-rib-poking for a personal attack. You need to learn to give as good as you get here instead of circling the wagons and acting like someone's trying to kick sand in your face.

I believe Dino was only trying to assert that he might be a bit older in age and experience than you are. Given your response, I would have to say he is right. Regardless, it was nothing that deserved your confrontational and aggressive language.

@helios: As I pointed out, I've been using DOS since the early days, and I also find it insulting when people try to pull the age card without actually knowing how old the person they're talking to is. I made an assertion, dino contradicted me with a statement that had no substance and only dismissed mine out-of-hand, and that too is insulting. So sorry if I don't sound very nice, but when people treat me poorly, I treat them the same in return. My experience is obviously long enough to know enough about DOS to speak about its abilities.

While I did use MS/DOS during the 1980's and early 1990's I never used the DOS that Dino is talking about in this thread (Dino's Optimized System).

I can sure bet that Dino's system is even more optimal than Gnome 4, or even MS/DOS.

Of course I believe that there was an OS called DOS before Gnome 4, Before MS/DOS and all the other 86-DOS's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOS/360_and_successors

Although I was alive for most of the 1960's I was a little young to get to use DOS. I didn't get on a 360 until DOS was replaced by VMS/DOS, a different beast.

Dino might run into a problem if Big Blue has a trademark on just 'DOS'. maybe he could try an ee cummings style 'dos' instead?

Dino, I do have a question about Dino's Optimized System...

You state it has no bell's and whistles, but does it have a beep?

Actually, DOS also ran on the Apple II. Of course, it had nothing to do with QDOS, MS-DOS, or the other systems that called themselves "DOS"; it was really just a generic term used by many companies.

That's right! Apple 2 called their early OS DOS. Then there was ProDOS and GS/OS, correct?

So I guess Dino's Optimized System (DOS) is OK!