Hey folks, Id like to create a linux-based S, but change few
thingsyou guys tell me how possible this is:
#1 - I want to get rid of the filesystem heirarchy. Id like to modify
it to use a volume system, similar to Amiga S, or even DS where
volumes exist as names "A: or SYSTEM: or DRIVE0:"
#2 - I want to lose just about every command in the system, and use gcc
to write a whole new set of commands.
#3 - I want the system to be single user, not multi-user
I keep hearing that you can modify linux to your liking, and so I ask
the group if these things are doable. I dont want to go the route of
writing an entirely new S, because I think the core of linux is very
well done. Is there a distribution that is _extremely_ basic, single
user, with pretty much just /bin (cp,mv, etc) and gcc?

"xlar54" <scott.hutter@gmail.com>,
In a message on 25 Jan 2006 08:38:48 -0800, wrote :

"Hey folks, Id like to create a linux-based S, but change few
"thingsyou guys tell me how possible this is:
">
"#1 - I want to get rid of the filesystem heirarchy. Id like to modify
"it to use a volume system, similar to Amiga S, or even DS where
"volumes exist as names "A: or SYSTEM: or DRIVE0:"

Why?

">
"#2 - I want to lose just about every command in the system, and use gcc
"to write a whole new set of commands.

Why? Just about every shell you can think up (and a few more besides)
has some variation of 'alias' built in.

">
"#3 - I want the system to be single user, not multi-user

This just plain makes no sense.

It sounds like what you want is CP/M or basically MS-DS.

">
"I keep hearing that you can modify linux to your liking, and so I ask
"the group if these things are doable. I dont want to go the route of
"writing an entirely new S, because I think the core of linux is very
"well done. Is there a distribution that is _extremely_ basic, single
"user, with pretty much just /bin (cp,mv, etc) and gcc?

Some of it is doable and really depends on what you mean. Linux is
multi-user / multi-tasking -- in practice, there is no real separation
between "multi-user" and "multi-tasking". Yes, in theory it is
possible to have a multi-tasking operating system with a single real
'user', but once you have a multi-tasking kernel, multi-user is pretty
much required if you are going move outside of an educational toy
system, esp. if you have any interest in security and plan on using
*any* sort of network with *any* other systems. It is not uncommon for
Linux boxes to only have one 'real' username in /etc/password (other
than 'root' and all of the non-login usernames). My laptop only has
one real user account (myself), plus root, plus the usuall collection
of no login 'accounts' used by various system processes and daemons and
such. My laptop is a 'normal' Linux system with only one *real*
'user', although the /etc/passwd file is well populated.

Moving from the UNIX filesystem heirarchy to drive letters or names is
just a step backwards and solves no problems and only creates new ones.
You can 'fake' this with environment variables to some extent.

Command names are arbitary and virtually all command shells allow all
sorts of customization, from practical to completely silly.

It is possible to strip a UNIX distro down to fit completely on a floppy --
Tom's Boot Floppy is an example. But I don't think Tom's includes a
complete development environment. You can't use gcc *by itself* for
much. You also need the binutils. And the libraries. And header files.
And cpp. And you might as well toss in make, autoconf/automake/libtool,
sed, etc. Pretty soon you have quite a lot of stuff. And stuff
supporting stuff, and stuff supporting the support stuff, etc.

">
">

\/
Robert Heller ||InterNet: heller@deepsoft.com
http://www.deepsoft.com/ ||FidoNet: 1:321/153
http://www.deepsoft.com/~heller /\

"xlar54" <scott.hutter@gmail.comwrites:

>Hey folks, Id like to create a linux-based S, but change few
>thingsyou guys tell me how possible this is:

>#1 - I want to get rid of the filesystem heirarchy. Id like to modify
>it to use a volume system, similar to Amiga S, or even DS where
>volumes exist as names "A: or SYSTEM: or DRIVE0:"

>#2 - I want to lose just about every command in the system, and use gcc
>to write a whole new set of commands.

>#3 - I want the system to be single user, not multi-user

>I keep hearing that you can modify linux to your liking, and so I ask
>the group if these things are doable. I dont want to go the route of
>writing an entirely new S, because I think the core of linux is very
>well done. Is there a distribution that is _extremely_ basic, single
>user, with pretty much just /bin (cp,mv, etc) and gcc?

Go ahead. Let us know how it worked in 5 years or so.

And then let us know why you wanted to do it.

PGP SIGNED MESSAGE
Hash: SHA1

xlar54 wrote:
Hey folks, Id like to create a linux-based S, but change few
thingsyou guys tell me how possible this is:

#1 - I want to get rid of the filesystem heirarchy. Id like to modify
it to use a volume system, similar to Amiga S, or even DS where
volumes exist as names "A: or SYSTEM: or DRIVE0:"

Doable. But IMH not a bright idea.

#2 - I want to lose just about every command in the system, and use gcc
to write a whole new set of commands.

Doable. But IMH not a bright idea.

#3 - I want the system to be single user, not multi-user

Doable. No problem.

I keep hearing that you can modify linux to your liking, and so I ask
the group if these things are doable.

They are doable.

I dont want to go the route of
writing an entirely new S, because I think the core of linux is very
well done.

I'm sure that the hundreds of developers that built the Linux kernel and
the tools and utilities appreciate your praise. :-)

Is there a distribution that is _extremely_ basic, single
user, with pretty much just /bin (cp,mv, etc) and gcc?

TomsRtBt http://www.toms.net/rb/

- --
Lew Pitcher, IT Specialist, Enterprise Data Systems
Enterprise Technology Solutions, TD Bank Financial Group

( expressed here are my own, not my employer's)
PGP SIGNATURE
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)

m9Jmz8dJRNSaS1vT/Q8ZSrE=
=PtWI
PGP SIGNATURE

So many replies, and I wanted to address them all, but Id be repeating
myself a bit. First, though, I want to thank you all for responding.
It sounds like what I would like to do is quite possible from the
responses Im seeing.

Let me now address the 'why' question Basically, I have always been
interested in S development, but my skills are not good enough yet to
write a kernal, etc. This is a toy project to be sure. Someone here
mentioned that I may have insulted the many folks who have worked on
Linux, and I D NT want to give that impression. This is an excercise
in S development and tinkering really. There's a number of things I
do not like about Linux, and I was thinking about how I might be able
to make a system the way I like it to be.

First, I dont like the file structure. Not so much the // stuff,
but the naming of items. For instance, /bin vs /usr/bin vs
/usr/local/bin vs all the sbin's I understand the reasons behind
this, but it seems (to me) messy. Why not /bin/global, /bin/admin,
/bin/boot? Then we know where all the binaries are. X is way out of
place if you read the standard. I rarely see /opt used at all. I
suppose aliases are fine, to meet the volume requirement.

The command names are archaic, and there's a million of them. The
upside is that you have many options, the downside is that you have
severe dependency issues. With Linux, trying to install one package may
mean you need to install 20, remove 5 and upgrade 7. All of you have
gone through this at one time or another, and its a pain. By
reauthoring the commands, Ill have what I need, named appropriately,
and the dependencies arewell, dependant only on what I write. This
will also be an excercise in coding (obviously) and learning some
algorithms by studying others' code.

Single user because how many times have you _really_ needed to log into
KDE multiple times on the same machine? I think the notion of "dont run
under root" is silly when all you need to do is 'su' to become root,
then screw your system up anyway. It may have saved a soul once or
twice, but if you really want to do something, you're going to become
root anyway. I find changing access to root to be more of a pain than
a feature. To me, multi-user isnt necessary. Its a false sense of
security, when really what you should be doing is periodic backups.

Someone else mentioned that what I want is freedos this may be true,
but again, I believe the Linux core is extremely well done and very
stable, and I dont know enough about the emulating-type of Ss to know
if they really are as stable. What I put on top of the S is going to
be flaky at best, so I need a solid foundation to start from. Again,
no offense intended to any developer or group.

People write code because they hope to do something better than what
already is. Hence the many different linux distributions, the many
different archiving tools, the many different window managers, etc. My
project is just another idea of an S, based on the linux system. So,
to answer 'why would you ever want to do that?!?!', I have to answer
with 'why does ANYNE ever do anything like that?'. Under the 'why'
logic, we'd all be running the exact same S, with the exact same
applications, tools, and utilities.

That said, thanks again to all who responded.

Good lord some usenet people are real *ssholes.

"xlar54" <scott.hutter@gmail.com>,
In a message on 26 Jan 2006 08:35:59 -0800, wrote :

"So many replies, and I wanted to address them all, but Id be repeating
"myself a bit. First, though, I want to thank you all for responding.
"It sounds like what I would like to do is quite possible from the
"responses Im seeing.
">
"Let me now address the 'why' question Basically, I have always been
"interested in S development, but my skills are not good enough yet to
"write a kernal, etc. This is a toy project to be sure. Someone here
"mentioned that I may have insulted the many folks who have worked on
"Linux, and I D NT want to give that impression. This is an excercise
"in S development and tinkering really. There's a number of things I
"do not like about Linux, and I was thinking about how I might be able
"to make a system the way I like it to be.

You might want to look at XINU -- this is an *educational* toy UNIX kernel.

">
"First, I dont like the file structure. Not so much the // stuff,
"but the naming of items. For instance, /bin vs /usr/bin vs
"/usr/local/bin vs all the sbin's I understand the reasons behind
"this, but it seems (to me) messy. Why not /bin/global, /bin/admin,
"/bin/boot? Then we know where all the binaries are. X is way out of
"place if you read the standard. I rarely see /opt used at all. I
"suppose aliases are fine, to meet the volume requirement.
">
"The command names are archaic, and there's a million of them. The
"upside is that you have many options, the downside is that you have
"severe dependency issues. With Linux, trying to install one package may
"mean you need to install 20, remove 5 and upgrade 7. All of you have
"gone through this at one time or another, and its a pain. By
"reauthoring the commands, Ill have what I need, named appropriately,
"and the dependencies arewell, dependant only on what I write. This
"will also be an excercise in coding (obviously) and learning some
"algorithms by studying others' code.

This is because a typical Linux distro is meant to be a production time
share system and these dependencies are the result of making efficient
use of system resources. Yes, we can go back to static libraries and
duplication common code all over the place, but that is a waste and has
other problems. If you do in fact 're-invent the wheel' you will
eventually end up with the same 'dependency hell' as you are describing.

Most of the more complex dependency hell' situations are often for the
more complex packages, like X11 desktops or things like web browsers.
Most of the basic commands don't have all that much in the way of
'dependency hell'. All of the base level commands (like cp, mv, etc.)
are all in one or two packages and only depend on the C RTL, which
itself has no outside dependencies.

">
"Single user because how many times have you _really_ needed to log into
"KDE multiple times on the same machine? I think the notion of "dont run
"under root" is silly when all you need to do is 'su' to become root,
"then screw your system up anyway. It may have saved a soul once or
"twice, but if you really want to do something, you're going to become
"root anyway. I find changing access to root to be more of a pain than
"a feature. To me, multi-user isnt necessary. Its a false sense of
"security, when really what you should be doing is periodic backups.
">

There are two *different* things going on here, which many people
confuse. There is 'multi-tasking', 'multi-user', *and* 'multiple-user'.
There is actually a difference between 'multi-user' and 'multiple-user',
strange as that sounds. My laptop is a case in point. It has pretty
much a stock White Box Linux 3.0 install (much the same as RHEL 3.0).
This is a 'multi-tasking' (more than one process at a time),
'multi-user' (the multiple processes run with *different* UIDs) and NT
'multiple-user' (there is only *one* user account).

As to 'logging into KDE multiple times on the same machine'. Yes this
is silly, generally (but does have uses sometimes). But 'logging' into
multiple xterms (or virtual consoles), is *very* common. Note that
there really is no difference between running several applications under
one X11 session or running multiple X11 sessions, as far as
'multi-tasking' / 'multi-user'. From a (modern) S point of view there
is no difference. The kernel sees several user processes, each of which
is the head of its own job tree. How they came to be and how they might
relate to each over is not really as important.

"Someone else mentioned that what I want is freedos this may be true,
"but again, I believe the Linux core is extremely well done and very
"stable, and I dont know enough about the emulating-type of Ss to know
"if they really are as stable. What I put on top of the S is going to
"be flaky at best, so I need a solid foundation to start from. Again,
"no offense intended to any developer or group.
">
"People write code because they hope to do something better than what
"already is. Hence the many different linux distributions, the many
"different archiving tools, the many different window managers, etc. My
"project is just another idea of an S, based on the linux system. So,
"to answer 'why would you ever want to do that?!?!', I have to answer
"with 'why does ANYNE ever do anything like that?'. Under the 'why'
"logic, we'd all be running the exact same S, with the exact same
"applications, tools, and utilities.
">
"That said, thanks again to all who responded.
">
">

\/
Robert Heller ||InterNet: heller@deepsoft.com
http://www.deepsoft.com/ ||FidoNet: 1:321/153
http://www.deepsoft.com/~heller /\

xlar54 wrote:

Single user because how many times have you _really_ needed to log into
KDE multiple times on the same machine? I think the notion of "dont run
under root" is silly when all you need to do is 'su' to become root,
then screw your system up anyway.

The whole point is that 'su' or 'sudo' requires a conscious effort.
Consider that a user wants to 'rm -rf /home/me/old-dir' but adds an
extra space and types it as 'rm -rf /home /me/old-dir' instead. Running
as a user will get an error message. Running as root will happily
remove /home.

Now consider (as another poster already mentioned) that the 'rm -rf
/home' command is in some malicious code on a website or something, and
you're running everything as root. But if you do your web browsing as a
user, that malware is rendered harmless.

In the case of the malware, though, it is limited to removing things.
Maybe the malware just wants to alter a binary under /usr. Users don't
have write permission there, so once again the malware is rendered harmless.

It may have saved a soul once or
twice, but if you really want to do something, you're going to become
root anyway. I find changing access to root to be more of a pain than
a feature. To me, multi-user isnt necessary. Its a false sense of
security, when really what you should be doing is periodic backups.

Backups are different issue entirely. You certainly need backups no
matter what else you do.

Grant Edwards wrote:
2006-01-26, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.orgwrote:

>In the old days, there were no filesystem _hierarchy_, all files were
>just stored flat on the root level.

Um, which "old days" are you thinking of?

CP/M
MSDS-1.x
RSX-11
etc.

The first Macintosh file system was flat also. The idea of
sticking disk icons directly on the desktop made a lot
more sense back when there would rarely be more
than one folder window open at a time.

"Before there was a filesystem hierarchy" requires hearkening
back to the 1960s.

Not really. MS-DS didn't have a filesystem hierarchy when it
was introduced in the early 80's. At the time, CP/M was still
quite popular, and it didn't either.

Ah, the early '80s. The Commodore 64 was really popular
back then, and its file system was flat. It even had multiple
file types.

Isaac Kuo

Theres another oneMr Edwards goes into my ignore list branded as
yet another usenet-hole. Ah well, Im sure there will be more for asking
a simple question.

You're just a dork. I wont hold it against you one of those
"linux-L33T" wannabes. Is it trolling to ask a question as to if Linux
can be modified to do something different like this?

Im trying to avoid "trolling" because someone has already branded me
that (Im guessing because I dont run his particular distribution (I use
Mandrake/Mandriva) or use the same shell he uses), and I really want to
discuss this project. Saying that, it certainly IS possible to clobber
a system as root, and as others have said, having to 'su' or 'sudo'
does make you stop and think. Point is made. Im not trying to argue
why Linux is the way it is. Im just asking if it can be done to change
it into what Id like, or if there is a better route I should take.

Sadly, my first impression with the responses given have been tarnished
by a few imbeciles who think they own usenet. I suppose the good thing
is that most folks here actually gave thought to my question, and didnt
spew out the "Im a USENET CP" crap.

Now this might be what Im looking for actually. And it might give me
the chance to learn a bit more detail on how it all works and to what
level it can be modified.

Well I can assure you this one isnt. My question is how well could
linux be modified to do xyz without breaking the S to not work at
all that was all I dont use my real name here because - well,
its usenet. Secondly, I post through google because I dont have a
newsreader at work. Finally, why would a windows user troll on a linux
group about creating their own os. I never said Linux "sux". Ive said
the opposite, and tried to be very polite to the people answering.

"xlar54" <scott.hutter@gmail.comwrites:

Im trying to avoid "trolling" because someone has already branded me
that (Im guessing because I dont run his particular distribution (I use
Mandrake/Mandriva) or use the same shell he uses), and I really want to

If you use Mandriva, why did you make those silly comments
about package dependencies?

If you are using Mandriva correctly, there are no dependency issues.