Slashdot Mirror
AtheOS
garethwi writes "A new OS has been released, called AtheOS. It has been designed from the ground up for Intel architecture, and already has a lot of software for it. The screenshots aren't too bad either. " Quite a lot of people have been submitting this over the last few days - what does everyone think about it?
Try reading at threshold 2 sometime. Only bash against it I've seen at that level before I got to your post was that it was Intel-only, and it was reasonably well-stated. Any trolling AC can get an account and post at threshold 1 in minutes.
And if you indeed were replying to one of the threshold 2 posts, I sincerely believe you need to get a sense of perspective and accept honest criticism for what it is. It's nothing compared to what scientific publications go through.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
You know, there was a time when I would have laughed at anyone who suggested a Linux user would bash a new operating system just because it's a new operating system. Now I see that the depths of human hypocrisy extend even to the supposedly "Open-Sourced" Linux community.
It's sad really. Someone comes along and builds something new, and people start tearing it apart just because it's new. Why are so many people afraid of change? For all we know, this OS could eventually whip Linux's A** in more ways than we can count, and leave us all with better operating systems as a result.
Competition is good. It forces everyone to produce better software, unless you're a small minded, frightened little child who's afraid of someone who can out code them.
Diversity is good. If there are 10 different operating systems with their own rules and procedures, then a virus or crack that kills one will leave the others untouched.
Change is good. I've heard a little about the BE API being the easiest to program, and bringing that flexibility to Open Source is a Good Thing(tm)
I remember when I was in high school, a MAC user and I would get into endless debates over which was the better system: MAC or Microsoft. (Back then they were called IBM Compatibles and not WinTel architecture)
"When I became a man I put away childish things," and when I met Linux, I put away my debates of which OS was better than the other. I started focusing on learning which OS was better for what uses.
Novell is my choice for a file server, Windows is what I throw at Newbies, Linux is my primary OS at home, and I'll be using Windows for games until that Open Source DirectX implementation comes along. I keep BE 5.0 around for those times when I manage to hose both Windows and Linux.
I want to try this new OS. It may be good for something that the others aren't. It may not. Whatever the case is, it's small, petty and childish to complain about someone creating a new operating system. They can do whatever the heck they want, it's their computer.
Stop bashing things just because they are new. If everyone attached everything that was new we'd all be sitting in caves eating grass and berries, and I don't like grass all that much.
Matthew Miller,
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
But what *IS* it with this idea that designing for a specific platform is anything but a short-sighted, ill-considered, idea?
You've surely got a point there. However, AtheOS seems to have a POSIX/Unix style API (at least the lower-level stuff). So applications are portable, even if the OS is not. It's one of the arguments Linus made back in the Minix vs Linux flamewars. I can't agree with it entirley (I like portability too), but there is, IMHO, some value to it.
If the GUI library were ported onto Xlib or something, developers would have few problems porting stuff to/from Unix. And keep in mind that even if a complete kernel rewrite were necessary to port to Alpha or PPC, applications should be totally portable. Consider Linux. Which would be harder to completely reimplement: the kernel and associated device drivers, or all of the applications living on top of it?
if I dual booted with the Jesux distro... I could have my very own holy war on my computer.
I agree. It's also interesting to see multiple paths being taken in OS design. Some might be processor specific, some not, some might be more modular, some less. Effectively we're enumerating many possible OS solutions; remember, when there are million monkeys all writing their own OS, some of those might be a true pearl! And maybe the design decisions UNIX-like system designers have done aren't the only right ones.
I'd like to see a component interface in AtheOS like COM/CORBA, so that you can use components from dynamically loadable libraries, other systems in network and local servers with minimum overhead. Make it fast, something like 100 - 10,000 requests per second when on network, 1,000 - 100,000 rps when on local server and 10,000 - 1 000,000+ rps when component is being used as a dll. And support for some exotic SANs (system area network) with a *fast* request marshalling system would be pretty sweet for some fancy clustering solutions. :)
Oh and please create it so I can just throw some component binary at it, I can find out the interfaces, methods and properties of modules easily and dynamically, without having any IDLs or such beforehand.
Some day AtheOS might be really stable, fast and enjoyable to use. Or maybe not. We'll see. Anyways I'm truly happy to see a newcomer in this field.
Disclaimer: My knowledge about component object systems is still fairly superficial, feel free to point out my errors... :)
I'm sure there must be some sort of main nav to use. But I would really liked to have seen it. After all, it's one of the most important part or the UI.
Are there any other more detailed screenshots around?
Also, who is this OS aimed for. If it's a new OS, and as he mentioned, it's difficult to port stuff to his OS. I can't see it being a replacement for windoze.
Still, only time will tell...
Yeah, and the AmigaOS had 256 independent clipboards units... in 1986... (what's a big new feature in Office2000?)
I particularly like the ClipHistory patch for the amiga, which unifies the clipboards into a history buffer, by shifting clipunit 0->1, 1->2 etc each time you cut and paste to clipunit 0. Very useful, and I wish someone would implement it as part of KDE or something...
Oh, and the clipboard appeared on the filesystem - you could "cd CLIPS:"
Choice of masters is not freedom.
Atheists
It appears that the webserver is suffering heavily from the /. effect, so I will comment briefly on what I saw before the system went down.
Essentially the GUI looks to be something modelled very heavily after the Amiga's Intuition UI. It is not immediately apparant to me what type of Video System abstraction they are using, but it does not appear to be X-Windows are a derivative.
As to software, they have ported XEmacs so it already supports the virtualization of at least one other OS (wink). Beyond that, it appears that they QT as well as some basic UI sys-admin tools (ps, top, etc).
They've also brought over some really nice software such as Apache, QMail, wu-ftpd, etc and claim that most of those came over with only minor alterations. This implies that they are either using a Unix like kernel or some Libc-based POSIX emulation layer.
Anyway, I'm sure that we'll hear tons more as soon as the webserver recovers, but overall it looks like it could be a promising project. A UNIX-like OS designed from the ground up around a solid GUI could be really nice.
-----
Jess
Throw the bums out!
Kurt has done an amazing job writing a new OS.
The Atheos is a free GPL'ed operating system, using many of the popular GNU tools, and some opensource programs have been ported (Apache for instance).
The system still suffers from a lack of drivers, but those will get there eventually.
One of the major differences between Atheos and Linux is that Atheos does not use an X server to do graphics. The graphics is handled by an application server, that also handles IPC. This is a BeOS like approach to doing things.
This system is still in the early stages, but it works really well and rarely crashes.
The installation procedure is horrible, but it is manageble.
So I can only encourage you to try it out
Hate to reply to my own post... but here are the hardware requirements for those not yet able to get to the site...
:)
CPU:
Pentium or betther (Yes AtheOS use Pentium only instructions and will
crash and burn on a 486)
Chipset
I have tested AtheOS on a few machines, and seems to run vel on everyone.
Video adapters
S3 Virge and Matrox Mill1/Mill2/g200 have native drivers and are hardware
accelerated. AtheOS can also use any video card that support Vesa 2.0.
This will ofcourse be un-accelerated and dog slow!! The matrox driver is
pritty generic and may work for other Matrox cards aswell. The cards
listed is the one it is tested on and found to work with. I also tested
it on a G400, and it kind-of worked but I had to install a Vesa extention
and the blitter could not blitt backwards so I could only move windows
in one direction
Mouse:
Standard serial and PS2 mices should be ok.
Network:
NE2000 PCI or EISA.
Disk
There is an IDE driver on it's way (Only tested on one machine, and not
part of the current distro). But generally all disk access is done
through the BIOS, so most IDE and SCSSI disks should work. I even
boot AtheOS from my panic ZIP disk every now and then.
Throw the bums out!
It's strange, but this almost makes me want to run the damn thing. I started with Linux at Red Hat v3.0.3 (about three years back), and the installation was already pretty solid at that point. But I've heard all the hairy tales of installation in the pre v1.0 days. I guess it resonates with me the same way camping does.
The previous poster mentioned that it was /.ed, but you can still read it off the cache at Google.
It has support for most Matrox cards, including my MGA. So I'm going to give it a try. Other than Matrox, they only have support for the S3 Virge and Vesa2.0--bummer. At least they will be able to profit from the release of specs for X, so the going won't be quite as hard as Linux.
Excluding products from a certain company
If, by this, you mean Microsoft, NT is portable (has run on Alpha, MIPS, and PowerPC). Windows is an extension to DOS which was a straight-on port of CP/M from the 8080.
The Atheos kernel is written from scratch and supports SMP, loadable device drivers and file systems, and provides threads and processes with the means to communicate amonst themselves with ease. From a cached Atheos site: "Threads can communicate through message ports, shared memory, posix signals, sempaphores, ppes, pty's, TCP/IP, and more".
The GUI isn't repackaged X. It's a native GUI that is more integrated with the OS that has a multithreaded GUI system that is more high-level. More things in the GUI are defined by the OS than the apps, leading to more consistency (ala Mac & Windows).
Here's a link to a couple Atheos related software pages:
http://www.latech.edu/~jta001/AtheOS/
http://www.coolcateditor.dk/Download.asp
If no OS has a definitive hold on the market (like Windows does now), then for any of them to survive they will need to have some sort of standardized, interchangeable file formats. You know how annoying it is to deal with the CR/LF difference between Windows Notepad and the rest of the known universe. It's even worse for binary files. For any of them to be really sellable, they will have to be compatable with each other. That means open or at least non-proprietary standards, which is Good Stuff(tm).
The same extends to applications, as well. For instance, most of the Adobe product line is completely compatable between the Mac and Windows versions. They use the exact same file format. That makes my life a lot easier, since I regularly have to futz with Photoshop files on both PC and Mac.
Now, if Photoshop, and The Gimp, and whatever image editor is common on BeOS or AtheOS all used the same file format, then my life would be easier still. I could futz with the file in whichever program and OS is best suited for that task, then combine it with another file created using a different program on another OS, and dump the whole thing into another file/program/whatever on yet another OS. The best tool for the job, whatever platform that may be.
Even if you choose to stay to one OS, the impact of standardized file formats will be good. Those who use Windows will know what I'm talking about when I point out that the translators between even basic MS Word and WordPerfect files are lame at best. When you're dealing with something more complicated, like a presentation file or vector-based image file, you pretty much have to pick a program for the file and stick with it. That's Bad Stuff(tm). If diversity in the OS market forces non-proprietary standards, that will be a boon even for the mono-OS market.
I routinely use two or three HTML editors plus raw code when designing a web page, all intermingled. Why shouldn't I be able to do the same thing for the graphics I use?
--GrouchoMarx
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
Is it really a good thing that AtheOS is only designed for Intel? There is only two good reasons for doing this - to gain performance, and to make the design and implementation easier.
As far as performance goes, in this era of high powered chips, is it really worth tying yourself to one platform and sacrificing a significant group of potential users, in return for gaining an extra 1% of CPU time for SETI@home.
And if it's for expediency, I think it's very short sighted not to put the extra effort into making a potentially portable OS (even if you do no porting).
Overall, the Intel-only thing makes me a bit wary.
tangent - art and creation are a higher purpose
postmoderncore - art and creation are a higher purpose
Linux is not, nor has ever been, the epitome of operating system design. It's a reworking of UNIX, the same operating system that could have used by the fathers of Slashdotters twenty or more years ago. Linux is a good UNIX-like system, and it is free. There's no argument there.
The modern OS philosophy is beoming more and more that "operating system" is an outdated term. Does anyone care what OS makes a Palm run? Or what the low-level features of the Mac OS X kernel are? No. If you do, then you're fixating on the wrong part of the computer.
Smaller, cleaner alternatives are certainly a good thing. Don't bash them because they conflict with your zealotry.
Hmm... that means there are 4 Amiga-Like systems available today - two closed source and 2 open source:
:-)
Closed source:
AmigaOS itself: closed source operating system, now severely outdated, but groundbreaking for its time - soon to be replaced by a completely different OS from Tao, which is rather cool in itself, being a VM a bit like a Java VM, but without the language dependency (it includes a gcc/g++ port...)
BeOS - what most people think of as the AmigaOS done right. While it has been market mostly to Mac-like media people, in fact it attracted a load of ex-amiga people, particularly developers too. It's OS structure is undeniably similar to a refined AmigaOS.
Open Source:
AROS, the Amiga Research OS. An Open-source clone of Amiga OS 3.x, ported to architectures including x86. Many Amiga os-legal apps work with just a recompile. Not finished. Work progressing slowly due to legal complications - the OS depends on Amiga-copyrighted system include files and infringes on several Amiga patents. However, the current amiga intellectual property owners seem to look quite favourably upon AROS, and it looks increasingly likely it will get their blessing, since the Amiga is now going to be based on a completely different OS from Tao, and does not use any old AmigaOS code, so AROS is a good option for keeping the "classic" amiga alive and up-to-date. There's already Quake and Doom ports, so they've got the important stuff going.
Atheos The new kid, the subject of this discussion. People have noted its UI similarity to the AmigaOS UI already on this thread, but architecturally it is also very similar to AmigaOS and BeOS. But it's open source, unlike AmigaOS and BeOS.
An monolithic-kernel-based minix/unix-like OS that can barely run emacs, only works on the x86 processor family, is still being modified to use GNU tools, and has virtually no driver support?
This sounds like... Yes, it must be Linux a few years back!
War is one of the most horrible things a human can be exposed to. And one of the worlds largest industries.
From Atheos page (http://www.atheos.cx)
Mirrored screenshots:
Shot 1, Shot 2, Shot 3 and Shot 4
What is AtheOS?
AtheOS is a free operating system for the Intel architecture released under the GPL license. I have seen quite a few anouncements of "promising" OSes with "great potential" during the development of AtheOS. The problem is that when I follow the links I normally find a description of the concept, a floppy-bootloader written in assembly, and not much else. AtheOS is a bit more mature, and is already running quite a lot of software. As a "proof" I can tell that the server you currently are browsing is running the AtheOS operating system. AtheOS is not ment to be a new Unix clone (like Linux and *BSD) but a new clean desktop OS. It does not run X-windows, but has it's own heavy multithreaded GUI system. Not using X has its ups and downs. The big down is ofcourse the lack of application's that can be easily ported to the OS. Another down is that the current GUI does not support remote display, even though implementing it should not be hard at all. The up's is that the GUI interface is much more high-level, and is much better at defining how a GUI should work. This leads to better consistency between applications. Drag and drop, clippboard, and other forms of high-level communucation between apps are defined by the OS. This will hopefully lead to applications that work well together and that give the user an impression of a compleat system with consistency between applications. I belive this consistency is important so the user dosen't have to start from scratch each time she learns a new program to know.
The AtheOS GUI consists of two main components: An application server and a dll providing a C++ interface between the server and the application. The GUI is therfore programmed through a C++ API providing windows containing a hierarchy of widgets that all have their own graphical environment.
The kernel was written from scratch. It supports SMP (Symmetric Multi Processing), has a built-in network TCP/IP stack. It supports loadable device-drivers and file-systems. It provides threads and processes with several powerful communication systems that makes it easy, efficient and safe to create server/client implementations where both the server and the client run on the same machine. Threads can communicate through message ports (most common), shared memory, posix signals, semaphores, pipes, pty's, TCP/IP, and propably a few other method's as well.
If you have any questions or comments you can reach me at kurt@atheos.cx
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: When trying to boot AtheOS the screen flicker for a while and then everything is dead. Why?
A: It might be due to missing fonts in the atheos/sys/fonts directory (see INSTALL). If that is not the case check the boot.ini. Make sure the memory and boot-device settings ar ok. You might also try to disable some features by uncommenting any of the DISABLE_* entries in boot.ini If possible, taking a look at the kernel output from the seraial port as configured in boot.ini can often geve a clue to what when wrong.
Q: Why does my serial-mouse dont work?
A: Propably cause it is in COM2, currently only COM1 is scanned for a mouse. If you use a serial-mouse you MUST set the DEBUG_PORT to 2 (in boot.ini) even if you dont have a serial cable attached for the kernel-debugger.
Q: I have run AtheOS from the native FS for a while, and now I installed a new kernel, but it seems like it still boot with the old one. Why?
A: Since the bootloader don't know how to load the kernel from AFS you must also install it on your FAT partition (in atheos/sys).
Q: AtheOS boots, and the GUI seems to be working, but there is a problem with the mouse-pointer, it leaves a trail of pixels when moved, what's up?
A: The problem is most likely that you have selected a 15-bit screen-mode. Both the Matrox driver and the Vesa20 driver is broken in that they list's more screen-modes than the render-module supports. Only 16 and 32 bit are fully supported by now.
Q: What kind of architecture is the kernel built around? Monolitic, micro-kernel, nano-kernel?
A: I often ask myself that question to :) The kernel is very modular and the it have a well defined interface between the kernel and it's device-drivers and file-systems. So given that each component comunicate through a thin defined interface, and don't know much else about each other, it ressembles a micro-kernel. I am not sure if this is the right term though, since all kernel-components lives in kernel-space and is not protected from each other, this is all properties from a monolitic-kernel. I am a bit confused :)
Q: The GUI look very Amigaish, is it an AmigaOS clone?
A: No. In the beginning it was actualy ment to be one, but this days there is nothing resembling the AmigaOS in AtheOS other than the window-borders. This seems to be rather hard for the Amiga-community to grasp though. They still think AtheOS is an Amiga clone :) Hey the Window borders look like on my Amiga! It must be an Amiga clone Right? I find it rather amusing to see that the Amiga-hord think that the single-most important property of an OS is the window-borders :) BTW: You can replace the border-look by writing a plugin to the appserver so I guess the Amiga look will go away quite soon.
Q: Is it a BeOS clone?
A: No, AtheOS is not meant to be a BeOS clone. I have never run BeOS myself, but I have read a lot about it, and I realy like the high-level API's and the GUI. The AtheOS GUI is very inspired by BeOS, but it is not meant to be a clone. Even though many of the general concepts is similar, there is also many differences in the API details.
They removed the advertising clause from the Berkeley distributions. They did not and cannot remove it from the actual implementations of FreeBSD, NetBSD, etc.
That's the kind of thing that terrifies me. I already have Windows. Why would I want another system that wants to devote its existance to a single platform?
Now, this system is probably better than Windows. Hell, I can't *imagine* how it could be worse.
But what *IS* it with this idea that designing for a specific platform is anything but a short-sighted, ill-considered, idea? Do you remember the amount of trouble Linux/alpha was? The amount of effort that the *BSD's had to put into getting the early Alpha and PPC ports? It's a *HUGE* amount of work to redesign. Design from the ground up for *generic computers*, and let the individual machines cope. You'll end up better off.
(Remember the Apple ads based on using 486-optimized Bytemark code on PC's? Same problem. If you tie yourself down, well, you're tied down.)
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Why challenge the urge to create a new operating system? What if Linus had said, "Oh, MINIX is just fine for what it does. Why bother changing it?"
You forget the simple fact that human beings are creative and need a challenge. Perhaps the developers think Linux is too krufty? Perhaps they wanted a GOOD API for a change? What if they just wanted an open source achievement like that of BE?
When confronted with the prospect of an unknown ocean, did Columbus shrug and say, "I already have a country to live in, why would I need to visit another?" What if Ford had said, "We already have horses, why would we need something different?" What if ID's developers has collectively decided "We already have Wolfenstein 3D, what more could we do?"
I will close with a quote from the first posting Linus made to Usenet about his then nameless OS: Do you yearn for the days when men were men and wrote their own device drivers?"
By God, some of us do.
Matthew Miller,
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA