What is your define of "Beautiful" OS?

Sophotect · 2008-11-12 20:53:04

It would be a mix of OpenBSD and NetBSD, with exceptionally good documentation, the systemadministration and packagemanagement of ArchLinux, the filesystemlayout of GoboLinux, and the repositorysize of f.e. Debian/Ubuntu/FreeBSD, the hardwaresupport of Windows, and generally the tendency to have no bloat where possible, without sacrifying usability for "Joe User" while being able to run on machines which could be powered by say 2 Duracells for at least a few days. Hmm, did i mention Haiku?

Redroar · 2008-11-13 02:58:43

Whatever runs best for me.

Sometimes it's windows, if I'm gaming or using win-specific apps.

Sometimes it's OS X, if I'm doing a lot of multimedia stuff.

Most of the time it's Arch, with whatever DE or WM I happen to be enjoying the most at the time.

Themaister · 2008-11-23 21:38:57

Fast, efficient, stable, configurable, simple, elegant, updated, enjoyable. All with a good community.

I use Arch for a reason.

Last edited by Themaister (2008-11-23 21:39:35)

PrimoTurbo · 2008-11-26 06:35:19

No such system exists in my opinion.

In my opinion a beautiful OS, is not just eye pleasing but also simple/easy/self-explanatory on the way it runs and functions.

A system which doesn't limit the user by hiding/disabling features.
A system which doesn't require any documentation or explanation to function to the best of its ability.
A system that is clean, leaves no trace of things you do not want. Deleted programs are gone for good, unless you want to keep their settings.
A system that does not require installing anything, all applications can be located in 1 single and common-sense place. No cross-referencing or scattered everywhere.

Zerosleep · 2008-11-26 07:25:41

Gullible Jones wrote:

Simple, stable, configurable.

Jerry · 2008-12-19 06:53:26

Simple and elegant in both aethetics and technical details.

dav7 · 2008-12-19 14:44:37

I have a bit of an update to my own view of what it should be: extremely simple. And that's it. Requiring anything more than simplicity is complicating things!

For that reason, I think that by definition of a beautiful OS is more or less matched by the Lisa Office System. The last public demonstration of a Lisa in '98 was recorded and put on Google Video; I recommend you watch it. (I found the video at DigiBarn.)

The Lisa had a 5MHz processor and 1MB of RAM; for the early 80s that was state-of-the-art (since most computers had 8K or 16K of RAM around then, and a 2MHz processor was more or less the norm). But because of the speed of the CPU (or lack thereof), the designers only had so much processing and graphics power to work with, so needed to be sure what they created was simple. And they managed it.

Computers nowadays have multi-million color displays (some high-end graphics arrays can even display billions of colors), and we have no idea as to what to do with them. Computers are robots that have become devices with more raw power than us, but because they're only as intelligent as we make them, we will never truly harness the true power computing has to offer, I think. So instead of looking around for beauty/character, we need to look back. Part of the reason why Linux has been such a success is because, in my opinion, it was based on UNIX, which was created in an era of striving for simplicity (as I posted about at 68kmla.net). Computers back then had a fair amount of power - they just took longer to do things. It was the attitude that we don't have anymore that's driving the computer world down, IMHO.

PS. The System Software for the Macintosh uses the same spirit although deviates from the UI elements in the Lisa a little, so it fits my definition pretty well too.

-dav7

XFire · 2008-12-19 18:11:52

For me, its my current Arch setup.

Arch does everything I want it to do, past the initial configuration step. If I want to get my hands dirty, it lets me do it, there is no message box saying I cannot do it, just freedom.

Whether it is out ignorance or not (I don't care ) Arch seems so much more simple and logical compared to the Linpus distro on my Acer One. I want SLiM to start at the beginning for my login manager, I set it up as a daemon in rc.conf, there isn't much else to it, I want text based login, I get rid of it. No complicated multi-staged process.

Personally a beautiful OS, is one that does what you need it to do without asking. If you want to do something else, it lets you. It also does this by not using up >30% of my RAM at startup, Vista I look at you. More so, it just makes sense. Currently Arch does this and more, I am truly grateful that this Linux distro exists.

Mandor · 2008-12-20 07:34:49

A beautiful OS would be minimalg, capable (:P) and persistent. Yet to come...

Ranguvar · 2008-12-22 02:27:57

In order at the beginning, not so much towards the end:

Stable
Free (freedom)
Open
Secure
Actively developed
Simple
Good "feeling"... hard to explain... as an example, to me, *BSD has a business-like feel that completely rubs me the wrong way. Linux OSen feel more casual, hackish, etc... this is actually quite important.
Follows strict standards
Transparent
Puts focus on being powerful after learning how to use rather than being easy to use at first
Very high level of configuration possible
Well-documented (both frontend AND backend, including things like the API and the actual code)
Well thought-out design with all necessary layers of abstraction / wrappers to permit the entire OS to flow well even if a user makes the choice to swap out one "part" with another... software easily visible in the user's eye (like a web browser) should have as many low-level components that are unlikely to be contested as to design, focus, etc. isolated in a separate piece of software at a lower level, so that if an alternative web browser is created, it might still build upon the lower layer and reduce overall chaos. This is infinitely more useful than just that... for example, my idea regarding distros is that there should be one low-level distro meant as a building-block for others (Gentoo is the closest thing we have to one, though it isn't really), so that work may be saved - other distros use the scripts used by the low-level distro for building their packages, possibly in different formats or with patches (arrgh), but still building on the low-level work. A monumental amount of effort being put forth by hundreds of distro teams that could be minimized and consolidated by this concept. And, of course, it reduces pain and suffering on the part of the end user by keeping apps conforming to the low-level distro's standards. The low-level distro MUST remain extremely open and not leaning in any direction, however. One other huge advantage - app-makers now only need to make an install script for the low-level distro. How to 'make' distros work off the low-level one without creating an atmosphere of control by introducing evil stuff? Make it worth their while. Show them that they can save a ton of work for them and their users without giving up anything. Same principle for encouraging individual apps for following these ideas.

Anyways, I'm getting too much into my pipe dream OS now.

And last,
Free (price)

Last edited by Ranguvar (2008-12-22 02:51:42)

emily · 2008-12-22 03:47:30

It's just software to me. I find Arch with GNOME to lend a comfortable environment when I am doing things on my computer, whether it be programming or simply playing WoW whilst talking on Mumble. There is no perfection, only perception.

dolby · 2008-12-22 06:09:38

simple, stable, clean, 100% keyboard controlable, without dumb daemons polling my optical drive every 2 seconds

Ranguvar · 2008-12-22 12:16:58

emily wrote:

It's just software to me. I find Arch with GNOME to lend a comfortable environment when I am doing things on my computer, whether it be programming or simply playing WoW whilst talking on Mumble. There is no perfection, only perception.

It is impossible to reach perfection, but in order to get anywhere close, one must have an idea of what that perfection would be like, even if it is a vague idea.

dunc · 2008-12-22 19:41:12

Ranguvar wrote:

Good "feeling"... hard to explain... as an example, to me, *BSD has a business-like feel that completely rubs me the wrong way. Linux OSen feel more casual, hackish, etc... this is actually quite important.

Good point. I wasn't sure I would like Linux, coming from AmigaOS, because (although I'm not much of a coder) it seemed much less "elegant" in its construction: monolithic kernel, X, unstable APIs, etc, etc. But (ironically, maybe because I'm not much of a coder, and haven't really tried anything serious since switching to Linux), that "feeling" you're talking about has won me over.

To add my own 0.02 currency units, I'd say that Arch's KISS philosophy in many ways epitomises what I like in an OS: why complicate things when the simple method works, and is easier to understand?

Selection · 2008-12-22 19:57:36

Gullible Jones wrote:

Simple, stable, configurable.

That does it for me

Arch Linux

#26 2008-11-12 20:53:04

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

#27 2008-11-13 02:58:43

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

#28 2008-11-23 21:38:57

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

#29 2008-11-26 06:35:19

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

#30 2008-11-26 07:25:41

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

#31 2008-12-19 06:53:26

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

#32 2008-12-19 14:44:37

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

#33 2008-12-19 18:11:52

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

#34 2008-12-20 07:34:49

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

#35 2008-12-22 02:27:57

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

#36 2008-12-22 03:47:30

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

#37 2008-12-22 06:09:38

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

#38 2008-12-22 12:16:58

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

#39 2008-12-22 19:41:12

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

#40 2008-12-22 19:57:36

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

Board footer