AMD64/IA32e to be intentionally unsupported by tech industry?

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: CTho9305
/Programs
___/Appname
_____/Version
___________/Bin
___________/Conf
___/man (maybe call it "/doc")
/Users
___/Username
_____/Documents
_____/Appname (maybe have a separate "program setttings" directory containing all per-user app configs)
___________/Conf
/.System (in here you can use scary unix-style naming conventions if you want)
___/Bin
___/Devices
___/Etc
___/include
___/Libraries

Not bad. I'd like something more like:

/.Boot (critical bootup files; to keep at top of tree no folders should not be able to be named to precede ".boot", too!)
______/Antivirus (everyone should boot with an antivirus present!)
________/%ApplicationName%
______/Autostart (scripts and links for x windows startup)
______/Hardware Profiles
________/Devices (standard script for autostarting devices for each hardware profile)
________/Services (standard script for autostarting services for each hardware profile)

/Data (standard place for shared data among all users)

/Program Files
______/%ApplicationName%
_________/<Binary>

/Temp (temporary folders)

/Trash (Same as MS's /RECYCLER or Mac /TRASH BIN)

/X Users (Personalized User profiles)
______/<All Users>
________/Bookmarks (same as MS's FAVORITES)
________/Catalog (standard place to index mapped drives, devices, etc.)
________/Desktop
____________/<DeskAll> (standard links from every desktop)
____________/%Desk%# (i.e. Desk1 = GUI desktop one)
________/Macro
________/Startup
____________/Devices (standard script for autostarting devices for 'all users' profile)
____________/Programs (standard script for autostarting programs for 'all users' profile)
____________/Services (standard script for autostarting services for 'all users' profile)
_____/<Default User>
_____/%TemplateName% (used for building user profiles off policies)
_____/%username%
________/Bookmarks (same as MS's FAVORITES)
________/Catalog (standard place to index mapped drives, devices, etc.)
________/Cookies (same as MS's COOKIES)
________/Desktop
___________/<All Desktops> (standard links from every desktop)
___________/%Desk% (i.e. Desktop1 = GUI desktop one)
________/Data (personalized Data folder)
________/Macro
________/Preferences (standard place for personal GUI settings)
________/Startup
___________/Devices (autostarting devices for %username% profile)
___________/Programs (autostarting programs for %username% profile)
___________/Services (autostarting services for %username% profile)
___________/Tasks (standard place for personalized automated tasks for %username% profile)

/X Windows (the term cannot be copyrighted so its fair game now that its 90% standard among x86 users)
_____/Batch (standard batch processes called by using file names... i.e. "donut" from command line calls for "donut.bat" file from this folder)
_____/Codecs
__________/Audio (standard audio Compression techniques)
__________/File (standard file Compression techniques)
__________/Video (standard video Compression techniques)
_____/Controls (Same as MS's Control Panel)
__________/Accessibility Settings (For the hearing and visually impaired functions)
__________/Add and Remove Devices (Device Manager is one of MS's better ideas)
__________/Add and Remove Programs (Appwiz.cpl is another one of MS's better ideas)
__________/Date and Time Settings (eq. MS timedate.cpl)
__________/Error Logging (eq. MS event manager)
__________/File Explorer Options (Folders settings, columns and rows control, etc.)
__________/Profile Management (hardware, users, networks, etc.)
__________/Gamepad Settings (eq. MS joy.cpl)
__________/GUI Settings (eq. MS desk.cpl)
__________/Keyboard Settings (eq. MS key
__________/Language Settings (For non-english language settings)
__________/Mouse Settings
__________/Network Management (eq. nacp.cpl)
____________________/LAN (Ethernet and Token Ring Settings)
____________________/RAS (Dialup Settings)
____________________/WLAN (Wireless / 802.11x Settings)
__________/Powersaver Management (eq. MS powercfg.cpl)
__________/Printer Management (eq. printers folder, except in applet form)
__________/Troubleshooting Management (To troubleshoot basic system problems)
_____/Cursors
_____/Drivers (comparable to current /DEV or Mac's /SYSTEM/DRIVERS
__________/%DeviceName%
_____/Fonts
_____/Help (Manual files)
_____/Installs
__________/Installer (standard binaries for installing aps)
__________/Uninstaller (automated app removal scripts)
_____/Library (Common program DLL's and API's)
__________/%Language%
__________/XML
_____/System Folder (non-kernel related system binaries)
__________/Hive Manager (Registry settings)
__________/Kernel (kernel related files)
__________/Log Manager (logical place to put system log files)
__________/Path Manager
__________/Policy Manager
_________________/Local
_______________________/Device (standard policy settings for Local Devices)
_______________________/Group (standard policy settings for Local Groups)
_______________________/Services (standard policy settings for Local Services)
_______________________/Users (standard policy settings for Local Users)
_________________/Network
_______________________/Device (standard policy settings for Network Devices)
_______________________/Group (standard policy settings for Network Groups)
_______________________/Services (standard policy settings for Network Services)
_______________________/Users (standard policy settings for Network Users)
__________/Ports Manager
_________________/<Serial>
_________________/<Parrallel>
_________________/<USB>
_________________/<WUSB>
__________/Printer Manager
_________________/%PrinterName%
__________/Process Manager (So you can kill processes/tasks/threads gone bad...)
__________/Security Manager
_________________/Local (lock/unlock local devices, service, folder, etc.)
_______________________/%DeviceName%
_______________________/%GroupName%
_______________________/%ServiceName%
_______________________/%Shares%
_______________________/%Tasks%
_________________/Network (lock/unlock network devices, service, folder, etc.)
_______________________/%DeviceName%
_______________________/%GroupName%
_______________________/%ServiceName%
_______________________/%Shares%
_______________________/%Tasks%
_________________/Updates (standard place to drop autoupdates)
__________/Task Manager (automated tasks)
_____/Wallpaper (standard place for background pictures)

I've been working on this idea for awhile. Had it on paper so translating to text took me an hour!

 

[n0cmonkey]

So the cd command on Windows is in c:\program files\?

Every modified Unix dierarchy tree posted here is stupid. Over complicated, untest crap.

 

[drag]

I don't see how that would be any simpler. It seems quite a bit more comlicated and hard to understand....

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
So the cd command on Windows is in c:\program files\?

Every modified Unix dierarchy tree posted here is stupid. Over complicated, untest crap.

cd = DOS command

Standard DOS commands (like cd) are located in a command.com file, not in c:\program files\. Building Linux on DOS would, however, be another improvement. Unix syntax sucks if you learned on DOS. Frankly a good Linux distribution ought to be developed for DOS, only there are no true DOS freewares. Microsoft would pounce on anyone using DOS being that they own most of the distributions. We'd have to use a propriety DOS, from the likes of IBM or someone along those lines, someone that believes in open source.

drag-

Its the Windows-ized version. If you learnt on NT then it should look somewhat familiar. MS grew big by mimicking. Linux could one-up them by using their own tactics against them.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: MadRat

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
So the cd command on Windows is in c:\program files\?

Every modified Unix dierarchy tree posted here is stupid. Over complicated, untest crap.

cd = DOS command

I don't use DOS, I have Win2k at work. How does it work on Win2k? What's the standard?

Standard DOS commands (like cd) are located in a command.com file, not in c:\program files\.

So, cd isn't a command, it's part of command.com? What about on Win2k, where I use cmd.exe? Don't waste my time with DOS.

Building Linux on DOS would, however, be another improvement.

Eh? This makes no sense. You mean the DOS userland or use the GNU userland with the DOS kernel?

Unix syntax sucks if you learned on DOS.

Maybe for you. It actually worked out well for me. I learned how to do things in DOS when I was a kid, and I learned how to do them correctly later on.

Frankly a good Linux distribution ought to be developed for DOS, only there are no true DOS freewares. Microsoft would pounce on anyone using DOS being that they own most of the distributions. We'd have to use a propriety DOS, from the likes of IBM or someone along those lines, someone that believes in open source.

Is FreeDOS free?

drag-

Its the Windows-ized version. If you learnt on NT then it should look somewhat familiar. MS grew big by mimicking. Linux could one-up them by using their own tactics against them.

Over complicate it to make it tougher for real people to use right?

 

[Nothinman]

command.com is only kept around for legacy support, cmd is the 32-bit command interpreter on NT. And while the basic commands are built-in to cmd the important ones are not and are usually found in %WINDIR%\system32.

Building Linux on DOS would, however, be another improvement

Right, since DOS doesn't have any multitasking, networking or memory management it would be a huge improvement

Unix syntax sucks if you learned on DOS.

Actually it's DOS syntax sucks. Once you try writing a script in normal cmd syntax you'll realize how bad it sucks and you'll no longer wonder why most windows scripts are done in VBS or perl.

Frankly a good Linux distribution ought to be developed for DOS,

Wouldn't that make it a DOS distribution then?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
command.com is only kept around for legacy support, cmd is the 32-bit command interpreter on NT. And while the basic commands are built-in to cmd the important ones are not and are usually found in %WINDIR%\system32.

Ahh, that's complicated.

Building Linux on DOS would, however, be another improvement

Right, since DOS doesn't have any multitasking, networking or memory management it would be a huge improvement

Unless he wants the broken DOS userland and the Linux kernel...

Unix syntax sucks if you learned on DOS.

Actually it's DOS syntax sucks. Once you try writing a script in normal cmd syntax you'll realize how bad it sucks and you'll no longer wonder why most windows scripts are done in VBS or perl.

The one that gets me all the time is \. I felt like an idiot when setting up my workstation at work with the Windows admin there. I kept going for /

Frankly a good Linux distribution ought to be developed for DOS,

Wouldn't that make it a DOS distribution then?

DOS/Linux. Or GNU/DOS...

EDIT: I was half way into a GNU/Hurt joke when I decided it wasn't worth it

 

[Nothinman]

Unless he wants the broken DOS userland and the Linux kernel...

Considering DOS only came with like 12 commands they'd have a lot of coding to do to replace all of the unix utilities available.

The one that gets me all the time is \. I felt like an idiot when setting up my workstation at work with the Windows admin there. I kept going for /

If you ever have to write a batch file (cmd sh!t shouldn't even be able to be called scripts since it's so limiting) wait until you deal with their variable system, the inconsistencies with how % signs are used/needed will drive you insane.

 

[MadRat]

I doubt anything done for Linux couldn't be done from a DOS perspective. DOS wasn't ever broken unless you had the MS version, in which case the breaks were intentional. And the idea of DOS was that it would be kept simple. In effect its never gotten complicated because the basis for it has since passed. If Linus had started from a DOS perspective then perhaps he'd have more people willing to try Linux.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: MadRat
I doubt anything done for Linux couldn't be done from a DOS perspective. DOS wasn't ever broken unless you had the MS version, in which case the breaks were intentional, it was made to be kept simple. In effect its never gotten complicated because the basis for it has since passed. If Linus had started from a DOS perspective then perhaps he'd have more people willing to try Linux.

\ is a bug.

 

[Nothinman]

I doubt anything done for Linux couldn't be done from a DOS perspective

Well considering DOS doesn't come with a TCP/IP stack I'd have to say you're wrong. That and the whole cooperative multitasking thing that DOS uses is crap and wouldn't be tolerated by anyone these days. If you truely thing that DOS and Linux are equals you either have no idea how limited DOS is or no idea how much Linux can do.

If Linus had started from a DOS perspective then perhaps he'd have more people willing to try Linux.

Linus was writing a free unix, wtf would he use DOS as a template for?

 

[MadRat]

Getting a little zealous over your -nix there, pal. Its not like nobody has ever written a TCP/IP stack that can be executed from DOS.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Getting a little zealous over your -nix there, pal. Its not like nobody has ever written a TCP/IP stack that can be executed from DOS.

Ever used TCP/IP networking under MsDOS? If not, then I suppose the term packet driver doesn't make you shudder.

 

[Nothinman]

Getting a little zealous over your -nix there, pal. Its not like nobody has ever written a TCP/IP stack that can be executed from DOS.

Not at all. Like I said, if you really had any idea of the inadequacies of DOS you would also laugh at the comparison.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: drag

Originally posted by: MadRat
Getting a little zealous over your -nix there, pal. Its not like nobody has ever written a TCP/IP stack that can be executed from DOS.

Ever used TCP/IP networking under MsDOS? If not, then I suppose the term packet driver doesn't make you shudder.

Never had a big problem getting NICs to work under DOS if the manufacturer wrote the driver. Getting them to fit on a floppy is more of a problem than getting network shares to mount.

My point is lost on -nix enthusiasts, being that they are in a hardcore niche. The rest of the world is not in their niche and sees the world through totally different, layman perspectives. Its not very hard to explain Apple or Microsoft (pre-2k) file structures to a layman, because they run with the perspective of being used by a layman. I haven't tried OS X, but I imagine they kept some of the Apple file structures. If you look at Win2k then you realize that MS trashed their original Windows folder logic and have totally left an unnecessary mess behind, perhaps in the name of legacy. I could teach most people how to use WinNT 3.5, WinNT4, Win95 or Win98 in a few sit downs, but its not worth it to try to explain Win2K or WinXP to new users. And people that upgrade from Win98 to WinXP, its easier to relate them to the new functions, but its still a pit of endless questions... I did force myself to learn how to do a few Linux installs over the years, but other than basics (ls, mount, vi, etc.), there wasn't alot of command line from Linux I cared to remember. I guess the problem was that Linux is something best learned on a timeline, so you can see how it evolved. There just isn't that much time for me these days to play with it.

 

[Nothinman]

My point is lost on -nix enthusiasts, being that they are in a hardcore niche.

Your point is lost because you're not making one. Comparing DOS to Linux is pointless, the two are OSes are like black and white. If all you're concerned about is directory names then you're complaining to the wrong people. Like CTho9305 said, there was a distro that used new, supposedly better, directory names for everything and it worked but it was a huge PITA because unix programs expect things in certain places. I'd rather learn what a dozen directories mean than have to compile all my programs myself and fight with them along the way, it's a waste of time.

Its not very hard to explain Apple or Microsoft (pre-2k) file structures to a layman, because they run with the perspective of being used by a layman.

So the layman can understand what winnt\system32 means with no problems, but explaining what /home means is problematic?

I could teach most people how to use WinNT 3.5, WinNT4, Win95 or Win98 in a few sit downs, but its not worth it to try to explain Win2K or WinXP to new users.

What does that have to do with folder names? Generally showing someone how to do some basic tasks on a computer doesn't require any, or at most very little, knowledge of what all the folders mean.

 

[drag]

Never had a big problem getting NICs to work under DOS if the manufacturer wrote the driver. Getting them to fit on a floppy is more of a problem than getting network shares to mount.

Ya, well there is a big difference between using netbuie to mount a windows share to copy *.cab files over a network to begin a windows install and getting full fledged networking set up. I've done that dozens of times myself for installs before cdrom drives were cheap as dirt.

Have you ever set up a ftp server from dos? How about a http server? Or anything?

You don't have the time to try to understand how and why things work in *nix, but your prepared to design your own hierarchy directory system?

 

[spyordie007]

Everyone else is having all the fun with this thread so I thought I would comment on it

So the cd command on Windows is in c:\program files\?

cd = DOS command

Standard DOS commands (like cd) are located in a command.com file

No, some standard navigation and very basic commands are functions of the command interpreter (cmd.exe under NT/2K/XP, not command.com). Most programs you run from the command prompt are applications stored in the %systemroot%/system32 directory (ipconfig, arp, diskpart, et. al.).

I could teach most people how to use WinNT 3.5, WinNT4, Win95 or Win98 in a few sit downs, but its not worth it to try to explain Win2K or WinXP to new users.

You could teach them NT4 in a few sit downs but not NT5? AFIK Windows 2K or XP are MUCH easier for end users to learn.

Now if the C: d: and E: is so wonderfull then tell me which drive letter gets assigned to what partition when I add a 3rd harddrive. And also point out to me how much easier this is to the average user to understand vs the Linux answer of "it gets mounted wherever you want."

The existance of the drive letters is depreciated. Windows 2K+ (and I think NT4 as well, but I'm not 100% sure of it) use a path similar linux to the logical device [i.e. disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)]. The problem is that many applications are poorly programmed and require the existance of the drive letter to access the volume. For your afterage end-user "it gets mounted as the next available drive letter" is easier to understand than "it gets mounted wherever you want" (which is the default behavior), however in Windows so long as you are running modern volumes you can mount them wherever you want (it just takes a little know-how; which is no differant than Linux).

Just because the default behavior is one of easy use for your common end-user doesnt mean that the capabilities arent there for more.

-Spy

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: drag

Never had a big problem getting NICs to work under DOS if the manufacturer wrote the driver. Getting them to fit on a floppy is more of a problem than getting network shares to mount.

Ya, well there is a big difference between using netbuie to mount a windows share to copy *.cab files over a network to begin a windows install and getting full fledged networking set up. I've done that dozens of times myself for installs before cdrom drives were cheap as dirt.

Have you ever set up a ftp server from dos? How about a http server? Or anything?

You don't have the time to try to understand how and why things work in *nix, but your prepared to design your own hierarchy directory system?

You dont have to rely on netbui from DOS, there is a TCP stack you can use after all...

Yes I've setup a ftp server from the Windows CLI, why would I care if I could do it from DOS?

DOS is a very old POS OS, please dont confuse it with the Windows CLI (which there are plenty of applications available for and is quite powerful).

The bigger question is what does this have to do with the origional topic?

 

[drag]

Everyone else is having all the fun with this thread so I thought I would comment on it

Well I suppose that IS the point of forums.

And to others like madrat, no hard feelings even if we do dissagree. I like to argue, it's a good way to learn.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: spyordie007

Yes I've setup a ftp server from the Windows CLI, why would I care if I could do it from DOS?

DOS is a very old POS OS, please dont confuse it with the Windows CLI (which there are plenty of applications available for and is quite powerful).

That's not what I ment. I know the WORLD of difference between DOS interface and the CLI stuff. MS even advertises itself as Posix compliant nowadays anyways. And you have almost decent TAB autocomplete in win2003! (even if bash is still a lot slicker)

It's just that to base a filing system on a old DOS system is suicide and that's why the basis of Linux was originally designed with a much earlier version of HFS that we use today... which was the discussion a back there.

DOS sucks, The design was a crippled one for simplicity sake.

 

[uncleX]

I don't know what this topic is about either, but that doesn't bother me.

IA64 is Intel's version of what computer scientists apparently are convinced is the next step to the ideal CPU architecture (VLIW.) That's why Intel made the decision to sink so much money into practicalizing it. The fact that the project would be so expensive was a positive feature from Intel's point of view, because it meant the competition could not possibly compete; they would be unable to raise the amount of money needed. IA64 was introduced into the server segment because that is the only commercial segment that might make use of its capabilities, plus limiting the numbers is the only practical way to do a field research project, which this essentially is. Once the system was worked out, mass producible versions would follow.

Like all research, the course is unpredictable. You never know whether to press on, or to cut your loses. I really don't know what the problem is with IA64. Is the compiler inadequate to the task of scheduling resources efficiently? Are the amount of resources for an IA64 chip too expensive for the next couple of generations of chip technology? Is it just that the same amount of throughput can be achieved easily with more readily available, if inelegant, technology? IAC, I don't detect any signs of Intel giving up on it. I think they accepted the possibility that the project could very easily take this long or longer when they began it. You can't count on good luck.

To go at this from the point of view of economics, like drag has done, there is a huge amount of capital built on x86 that took an immense amount of education, creativity, time and effort. It would be rendered worthless if x86 were abandoned (rather than evolved), while there would be still more cost to developing the corresponding capital for IA64. Intel has used this principle to their advantage since the 8080. The pizzazz of IA64 may have appeal to computer scientists, but it is invisible to the mass market. So there is no appeal to software developers, and no appeal to end users. How did Intel think they were going to pull this off?

The answer has to be their dominant market position. True, Intel is not a monopoly, but they started to think like monopolists do. Intel thought that if they decided to "legacy" x86, no one would have any option but to go along. As has become evident, Intel was not foolhardy, but they have had an unannounced backup plan in development for years in case plan A didn't work out.

 

[CTho9305]

n0cmonkey and nothinman - cd is a builtin shell command on *nix too. Try 'which cd'.

MadRat's tree is ok, though I do have some issues with it. If someone would actually work on implementing such a thing, I'd go into more detail, but seeing as nobody will because so many *nix users are a bunch of stuck-up elitists, it'd be a waste of time .

 

[jhu]

MadRat's tree is ok, though I do have some issues with it. If someone would actually work on implementing such a thing, I'd go into more detail, but seeing as nobody will because so many *nix users are a bunch of stuck-up elitists, it'd be a waste of time .


that may be true. but it's even more true concerning continuity due to legacy (as someone has mentionted before). the unix file structure tree is fairly standard across distributions, so why change it? (btw this also goes for people who want to move away from x86 because it's full of "cruft").

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: CTho9305
n0cmonkey and nothinman - cd is a builtin shell command on *nix too. Try 'which cd'.

# which cd
/usr/bin/cd