Arch Linux

ioky

Member

Registered: 2008-06-19

Posts: 93

What is your define of "Beautiful" OS?

As many of use are Arch user, we all setup or would like to setup the OS exactly how we wanted. Of course, when we think it is done, it would be "beautiful" to us. When I say beautiful, I don't just mean virtually beautiful. Of course, it could be virtually beautiful as well.

So what is your definition of "Beautiful".

Dieter@be

Forum Fellow

From: Belgium

Registered: 2006-11-05

Posts: 2,001

Website

Re: What is your define of "Beautiful" OS?

beautiful to me is when all the software I use is 'clean'.  Eg doesn't automatically update files in my $HOME without my consent, doesn't have an overkill config syntax (xml),  doesn't require too much files and directories and implements the xdg basedir specifications (or all relevant freedesktop.org specs for that matter) in a clean way.  I keep my ~ in version control, so every file that gets updated needs to have a good reason (unless it's in $XDG_CACHE_HOME).  Lot's of applications violate this principle (many gnome applications for instance)  but I'm finding a few which are clean.

That, and the principle of having software as simple as possible, while still allowing me to do everything I want to do in a fast, powerful but easy way, makes an "environment" beautiful.

---

< Daenyth> and he works prolifically
4 8 15 16 23 42

elmer_42

Member

From: /na/usa/ca

Registered: 2008-10-11

Posts: 427

Re: What is your define of "Beautiful" OS?

A beautiful OS allows me to customize almost everything and doesn't do things I don't want it to without asking first.

---

[ lamy + pilot ] [ arch64 | wmii ] [ ati + amd ]

Hide

Member

From: Castalia

Registered: 2007-02-02

Posts: 368

Re: What is your define of "Beautiful" OS?

Transparent, customizable, stable.

cardinals_fan

Member

From: /dev/null

Registered: 2008-02-03

Posts: 248

Re: What is your define of "Beautiful" OS?

NetBSD with dwm.  Transparent, clean, controllable software.

---

Segmentation fault (core dumped)

Misfit138

Misfit Emeritus

From: USA

Registered: 2006-11-27

Posts: 4,189

Re: What is your define of "Beautiful" OS?

Simple.

---

Amiga 1000 restomod
IBM PCjr restomod
C=64 restodmod
Sauengard

fumbles

Member

Registered: 2006-12-22

Posts: 246

Re: What is your define of "Beautiful" OS?

Vista! - "Wow"
*runs*

vkumar

Member

Registered: 2008-10-06

Posts: 166

Re: What is your define of "Beautiful" OS?

Fast but usable.

---

div curl F = 0

Gullible Jones

Member

Registered: 2004-12-29

Posts: 4,863

Re: What is your define of "Beautiful" OS?

Simple, stable, configurable.

fuscia

Member

Registered: 2008-04-21

Posts: 398

Re: What is your define of "Beautiful" OS?

for me, arch is perfectly beautiful. it lets me do the things i know how to do and handles the things i either don't know how to do, or don't want to do. it follows my "no stupid hats" rule (not a reference to red hat, or fedora) in that it doesn't install stuff i don't want.

Last edited by fuscia (2008-11-11 04:01:29)

japetto

Member

From: Chicago, IL US

Registered: 2006-07-02

Posts: 183

Re: What is your define of "Beautiful" OS?

Transparent, customizable, stable.

You said it for me 

dav7

Member

From: Australia

Registered: 2008-02-08

Posts: 674

Re: What is your define of "Beautiful" OS?

Me too.

In my opinion, a beautiful, "perfect" OS is that which doesn't exist.

I don't mean this in the sense that every safe ride in a car is those done in a garage, but rather in the sense that the need for transportation becomes negligible because of, for example, teleportation.

So rather than patch up an eyesore with mirrors and jewelry, I vote for the eyesore to be replaced with transparent glass.

I believe the perfect OS is, as Hide wrote, that which is transparent. So transparent, in fact, that to the user that it's invisible. Especially in the visual sense. This has been the subject of much thought for me, and I have some ideas on how to make what is in my opinion a truly transparent, perfect OS - when implemented, it wouldn't, as I put it before, "exist".

This, to me, is the essence of simplicity. I mean, why retro-fit a fighter jet dashboard to fit in a washing machine when all you need is a dial or a couple of buttons?

Aside from that, this OS would be open source, free, and allow me to hack and extend what I wanted (the only bar being lack of skill or experience) and leave alone that which I didn't.

It would also need to be stable (duh) and conform to the UNIX specifications in some way or another.

I don't really mind my home folder being filled with 1GB+ of dot-files - I plan to implement a nonstandard file hierarchy on my next PC that works completely around the problem of having said files in the home folder, cluttering up my space. I'm not completely certain on it yet though.

-dav7

Last edited by dav7 (2008-11-10 14:51:45)

---

Windows was made for looking at success from a distance through a wall of oversimplicity. Linux removes the wall, so you can just walk up to success and make it your own.
--
Reinventing the wheel is fun. You get to redefine pi.

Dieter@be

Forum Fellow

From: Belgium

Registered: 2006-11-05

Posts: 2,001

Website

Re: What is your define of "Beautiful" OS?

I don't really mind my home folder being filled with 1GB+ of dot-files

Yuck!

I plan to implement a nonstandard file hierarchy on my next PC that works completely around the problem of having said files in the home folder, cluttering up my space. I'm not completely certain on it yet though.

What's wrong with the xdg basedir spec? (other than not all applications implementing it yet)

---

< Daenyth> and he works prolifically
4 8 15 16 23 42

Arkane

Member

From: Switzerland

Registered: 2008-02-18

Posts: 263

Re: What is your define of "Beautiful" OS?

What's wrong with the xdg basedir spec? (other than not all applications implementing it yet)

Maybe the fact that you can remove the "yet" in that sentence ?

The freedesktop spec has been around for quite some time now, but even Gnome and KDE still happily ignore it and dump their mess straight into $HOME (I admittedly don't know about their long-term plans, but it just feels like if they wanted to do it they'd already have).

Last edited by Arkane (2008-11-10 18:37:41)

---

What does not kill you will hurt a lot.

crouse

Arch Linux f@h Team Member

From: Iowa - USA

Registered: 2006-08-19

Posts: 907

Website

Re: What is your define of "Beautiful" OS?

~~ Arch Linux ~~

shazeal

Member

From: New Zealand

Registered: 2007-06-05

Posts: 341

Re: What is your define of "Beautiful" OS?

Easy to install, lots to configure, easy to install custom programs. Those are the main 3 things that attract me to an OS.

ioky

Member

Registered: 2008-06-19

Posts: 93

Re: What is your define of "Beautiful" OS?

Functionally, I think a beautiful OS sure be stable, efficient, flexible, and well managed (in this order)

My design philosophy is toward to quality before ability. I would like the OS be so stable even that mean limited some of it's secondary functions when it is not ready. (The primary function would be it "RUN" and give you the basic but unlimited control. That is also a reason why, I think all OS shout at least come with one programming language today because you can make your own tool while it isn't given.)

Efficiency of course meant, it should optimize just for the hardware, and can be run the best out of it. Use only what is needed to do it works, in other words, no waste resource. That also mean it will run faster too, because less resource are needed to be process.

Flexibility is more toward to who user can setup and use their system. In this case less is more. It should be give full access to the user. Of course, that doesn't mean without any protection. It shouldn't be user-friendly for everyone, but every one can use, and yet, it can be user-friendly target to group of people, if that is what you wish for.

OS is huge, and how to organize it because very important, it can directly effect all three of the above. Beside managing the OS itself, It would also be good if the OS can help managing the data that have been use able with the OS. However, everyone have their own style to manage their data, So that could be vary. For myself, I would a directory that set aside from Home, that store my stuff because I think, all the dot file in home shouldn't go together with personal date. They seem like difference kind of things.

As OS itself, That is all I wish for. Of course software is a big thing on using computer, but that is up to developer to target the OS. Of course, the OS have been good and friendly for software to run on, which is one of the primary function of the OS.

The reason why VISTA fail is because it did non of the above. I mean it run, and software can some what run on it. But that is all about it. You can drive fast in a fat link, doesn't mean you are a good and skillful driver.

Zeqadious

Member

From: New York, USA

Registered: 2007-10-15

Posts: 55

Website

Re: What is your define of "Beautiful" OS?

No extra (read unnecessary dependencies), no extra (read unneeded) config files, all config files in the same fs/format (/etc/file.conf or /etc/PROGRAM/file.conf, not both), no unneeded static libs, fast, clean, permissions all congruent (read 644 static, 755 .so, 644 conf, etc.), a GUI for the package manager that is simple and clean but provides all the functionality of the CLI, Stable!

I want a fully integrated OS w/o hiccups.  This is a pipe dream in the world of Linux/GNU Distros of course since this defies many precepts.  But a custom distro could do this . If OS X wasn't so useless and proprietary and had such a mucked up package management system, I would consider it almost ideal.

Zeq

---

"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder's eye on the Last Day"

B-Con

Member

From: USA

Registered: 2007-12-17

Posts: 554

Website

Re: What is your define of "Beautiful" OS?

Simple, stable, and configurable.

---

- My AUR packages.

xen

Member

Registered: 2008-08-17

Posts: 56

Re: What is your define of "Beautiful" OS?

A good balance of visual aesthetics, reliability, modular, great community support, fast and effective. (and also a great package system). For now, Arch fits this model perfectly I am however becoming ever more tempted by FreeBSD, but not enough to get off my ass and install it!

---

A wannabe game-developer.
My Blog
My GitHub

haxit

Member

From: /home/haxit

Registered: 2008-03-04

Posts: 1,247

Website

Re: What is your define of "Beautiful" OS?

Simple, stable, configurable.

---

Archi686 User | Old Screenshots | Old .Configs
Vi veri universum vivus vici.

peets

Member

From: Montreal

Registered: 2007-01-11

Posts: 936

Website

Re: What is your define of "Beautiful" OS?

Please,

$ echo "echo 'All hardware sucks. All software sucks'" >> ~/.bashrc

Last edited by peets (2008-11-12 06:43:34)

peets

Member

From: Montreal

Registered: 2007-01-11

Posts: 936

Website

Re: What is your define of "Beautiful" OS?

Some sucks less. You know, the kind that's reliable, efficient, quiet and powerful.

dmz

Member

From: Sweden

Registered: 2008-08-27

Posts: 881

Website

Re: What is your define of "Beautiful" OS?

The awesome linux distribution + the awesome window manager == awesome and beautiful.

---

ls++ | LS_COLORS project | file management in vim | tons of utilities | configs | japh.se

prasetyams

Member

From: Jakarta

Registered: 2008-04-29

Posts: 74

Re: What is your define of "Beautiful" OS?

Do what I want it to do, and do it well.

---

Where's my sig?