perduta wrote:IMO what is pointless is retaining the full functionality of a very complicated design that was intended for multi user mainframes and not for modern small self sufficient devices.
If you want a tablet, get a tablet.
perduta wrote:Take for instance the X11 window system... it's based on networking multiple dumb displays on your computer...
Like I ALREADY SAID BEFORE... X11 will be phased out in time, when Wayland is ready for production use. So there's no point in complaining about X11, yes it's dated now but it was very advanced when it was first designed, and it has served relatively well over the years.
How is it that even with all this "bloat" and "overhead", Linux systems are still the fastest, slimmest, least bloated systems available on the current OS market?
perduta wrote:Similar consideration apply to the Linux file system. I think I already mentioned the proliferation of various 'bin' folders... well that's just the tip of the ice berg.
It's only a problem if you don't understand their purpose. For the average user, there isn't even any need to know anything about bin folders, the average user doesn't even have to ever see the filesystem outside their own home directory. What exactly is the problem here?
perduta wrote:A fresh mint installation here has 176,675 items occupying 3Gb. Well I used to have a fully function Windows 3.1 system with every tool I needed for my job and oodles of space on the disk and that disk was only 10Mb! So what is in this other 2,990 Mb that Linux requires? I did have a look and it is practically all pointless junk that serves me no purpose I know of.
Yes, 20 years ago, an operating system could fit in 10 megs. If you go even further back, the C64's entire operating system took only about 10 kilobytes! So what's your point? Technology marches on.
Seriously, we don't live in the 90's anymore. Hardware is more complex. Why do I need to keep telling the same things to you? Have you tried running a windows 3.1 on modern hardware? Go on and try it. I bet it won't even boot. 3 GB is not even much these days, because storage medium advances just like every other tech. 500 GB hard drives are common and not too expensive - heck, you can get 2 TB hard drives these days. So 3 GB is nothing for a desktop OS. Heck, it's still 10 times less than Windows RT.
Oh, and all that "pointless junk"... reminds me of the time when I was 7 years old or so, playing leisure suit larry 1 on the MS-dos... I was a curious kid, I knew how to start the game from the command line (hey, that was the only way to start it back then), so one day I was taking a look at the directory of the game, and I saw all this "pointless junk" in the directory... I was like, what do we need all this junk for, we only need the exe file that starts the game! So naturally I deleted every other file in the directory. Surprise, the game didn't work anymore! And there was no "undelete" back then...
What I'm trying to say is, just because it seems like "pointless junk" to you doesn't necessarily make it so. Seriously, what's 3 GB of disk space? You're complaining about silly things here.
perduta wrote:Now the fundamental way to do security is to have your executables on a read only drive. One only enables writing to that drive when you knowingly install new software.
If you don't, then your machine will behave exactly the same when you switch it on tomorrow as it did today. Yet most modern OSes are re-writing critical files in all parts of the file system creating a liability in the case of power failure as well as opportunities for root kits and malware.
The ext-4 filesystem has safety checks in place to prevent data loss in case of power failure. It's not infallible but that's why you should always have backups! No system in the world is going to make making periodical backups redundant, that's just the way it is.
We don't live in the 90's anymore. Software gets updates periodically because that's good security, if a security hole is found it is fixed ASAP and the files are updated and that's that. There's no need to have executables on a "read-only drive" because when you set the files to be owned by "root" in Linux or any other Unix system, they are practically already read-only for anyone except the root user. That's why the update manager asks for your admin password, because it needs root privileges in order to be able to rewrite system files! That's why the software manager needs your password, because it needs to be able to also access system files in order to install new packages! In other words, what you propose already exists, it's just implemented in a smart and flexible way that also allows automated updates and package management.
perduta wrote:Now you also have your data files.These go on a read/write drive but you have NO need for execute permission on said drive unless you knowingly and deliberately give it clearance to run, like if you are testing a program you are developing yourself.
The unix system already allows this. You can flag all your data files with no execute flags. chmod a-x ~/* -R, there you have it.
IMO the whole industry simply failed to step back and think intelligently about what they were doing and instead blundered blindly ahead serving a market that responds to the glossy facade of a cool looking desktop with no appreciation for the mechanics underneath. Thankfully limitations of palm top devices may now force the industry to start cutting out the dead wood. IMO the sooner Linux community (not just Google and her Android) wakes up to this reality, the better for all of us really
Oh yes, all of the millions of developers who have created some of the best Free Software in the world should just stop and listen to you, because you obviously have the knowledge and experience to set them all straight. Remind me again, how many OS kernels have you written so far?