What would make 'the best OS'

The other day I was thinkering around with the old Mac OS in an emulator and was inspired to make my own real OS. After about an hour I'd given up and decided to brush of my Lua skill and write a new OS. So, if there was some 'perfect CC OS' what features would have,what would the interface be etc. I had a look over the PearOS forum again and I've made a short list.

• Useful - PearOS was pretty and all, but if I'm honest it was completely useless.
• Shell emulation - This is what I've been working on over the past few days.
• Look nice :P/>

It's a pretty short list. But surely there some dream features that other OSs haven't done or got right.

Thoughts?

An OS with some sort of package tool that could grab apps from some sort of Computercraft App Store would be nice…

Syntax highlighter, a web browser, multitasking.

Like windows 7 but for CC

Hm. Maybe a IRL Weather/Time feature. That would be nice.
Also You could add a taskbar which can store apps so there right there for you and like Mack said, multitask. And maybe some type of 'Really Advanced' File system.

Something really minimal that just goes away when you don't want it, yet still has a tonne of almost hidden away functionality and features. Something like a little pull down tab in the top or bottom (configurable) corner of every running app, a simple desktop (no fancy icons), and a simple colour scheme - something like just 2 or 3 colours in it (grey, dark grey, and cyan for example). Something highly configurable, like you can chose between a shell or graphical file browser, and a package manager, but simple, like apt-get with a few downloadable packages, no upload of packages. Damn I'm giving myself ideas now…

This is why I really really liked Kingdaro's Craftbang, and why I really really dislike windowed OSes for CC - there's just not enough screen space to make one effectively.

The easiest way (IMO) to make something look good is have a simple consistent colour scheme.

GravityScore, on 29 November 2013 - 01:55 AM said:

Something really minimal that just goes away when you don't want it, yet still has a tonne of almost hidden away functionality and features. Something like a little pull down tab in the top or bottom (configurable) corner of every running app, a simple desktop (no fancy icons), and a simple colour scheme - something like just 2 or 3 colours in it (grey, dark grey, and cyan for example). Something highly configurable, like you can chose between a shell or graphical file browser, and a package manager, but simple, like apt-get with a few downloadable packages, no upload of packages. Damn I'm giving myself ideas now…

This is why I really really liked Kingdaro's Craftbang, and why I really really dislike windowed OSes for CC - there's just not enough screen space to make one effectively.

The easiest way (IMO) to make something look good is have a simple consistent colour scheme.

Thanks for the very valuable feedback.

Simple colour scheme is a must. However, I've been thinking about what makes current computers and software complicated to non-techsavy people. I believe one of the main reasons is customisation. While customisation is good to a point, having tons of options makes it confusing. As a result, especially with such a basic computer and uses, I'd like to avoid customisation where possible.
A few months back I was thinking about doing something similar to the Windows 8 Metro full screen app thing but never got around to it. I agree, there's very little screen space so windows, now I think about it, aren't really the best option.

oeed, on 29 November 2013 - 05:19 AM said:

Thanks for the very valuable feedback.

Simple colour scheme is a must. However, I've been thinking about what makes current computers and software complicated to non-techsavy people. I believe one of the main reasons is customisation. While customisation is good to a point, having tons of options makes it confusing. As a result, especially with such a basic computer and uses, I'd like to avoid customisation where possible.
A few months back I was thinking about doing something similar to the Windows 8 Metro full screen app thing but never got around to it. I agree, there's very little screen space so windows, now I think about it, aren't really the best option.

There's a subtle difference between customizability and modularity. Modules can be simple, but interchanged. If someone doesn't like the simple module you pack in by default, they can change it to their own module. Of course here "module" is an abstract term so you'd have to build a system for that, but the idea is a nice one.

ElvishJerricco, on 29 November 2013 - 05:38 AM said:

There's a subtle difference between customizability and modularity. Modules can be simple, but interchanged. If someone doesn't like the simple module you pack in by default, they can change it to their own module. Of course here "module" is an abstract term so you'd have to build a system for that, but the idea is a nice one.

Module and modularity is probably a much better term for what I meant. Having different types and styles of modules that perform the same function so you can chose the one best suited to you. Of course, this is a lot of work due to having to build the system, then all the different types of modules individually. I think this is achieved well by real OSes such as Windows by having massive amounts of downloadable applications that all perform the same function (eg Chrome or Firefox or IE for web browsing, or providing a terminal or a graphical file system).

I agree with oeed in saying that too much customisation is confusing and pointless - being able to change almost meaningless things like the text colour is useless, clutters the screen, and I think should be avoided, partially why I'm a fan of having different themes the user can chose from, or not being able to change the colour scheme.

Would abstraction be a better term for what you're describing?

Modern OSes provide a higher level abstraction over the hardware layer. That abstraction then allows programs, which are just the top level of abstraction, to run.

Abstractions become more numerous as you go higher too. For example at the bottom level you have drivers, and so for any given piece of hardware you'll usually only have 1 driver, maybe 2 (a generic one and a specific one). At the top level of abstraction there are countless implementations of a browser for example.

I'd like to see an abstraction for the display, so that you don't have to worry about whether the display is colour, can handle mouse clicks, etc. You would write your code and the abstraction framework would take care of the details.

Another area worth abstracting would be the peripheral system. So many programs require you to modify the code to select the "side" the appropriate peripheral is on, or the more advanced ones ask you which side. If there was a decent abstraction then you'd simply have to ask the OS for a peripheral and it's found automatically. This is fairly easy to write but because it's not in the base OS people keep rewriting it, or not bothering.

GravityScore, on 29 November 2013 - 09:28 AM said:

Module and modularity is probably a much better term for what I meant. Having different types and styles of modules that perform the same function so you can chose the one best suited to you. Of course, this is a lot of work due to having to build the system, then all the different types of modules individually. I think this is achieved well by real OSes such as Windows by having massive amounts of downloadable applications that all perform the same function (eg Chrome or Firefox or IE for web browsing, or providing a terminal or a graphical file system).

The easiest way to do modularity is to make the modules you want to make, then allow other people to make alternative modules that can be used instead. This way you don't need to build more than your module and people still have the option. It's like how on most linux distros, it comes with one desktop interface, but it's easy to change to another one.

The only problem with building levels of abstraction on top of the base CC hardware is that people probably don't want to build applications specifically for a particular OS with its particular abstractions on CC - they want to be able to release their program standalone. So if you were to build abstractions into the OS, have some sort of "Add abstraction code into program" button which adds a bunch of code into the file so that the program can be released standalone.

This is the reason I think making an OS with a developer API is a silly idea - people don't want to make programs for one particular OS, they want to be able to run the program standalone so they can release it for others to use.

GravityScore, on 29 November 2013 - 10:51 PM said:

The only problem with building levels of abstraction on top of the base CC hardware is that people probably don't want to build applications specifically for a particular OS with its particular abstractions on CC - they want to be able to release their program standalone. So if you were to build abstractions into the OS, have some sort of "Add abstraction code into program" button which adds a bunch of code into the file so that the program can be released standalone.

This is the reason I think making an OS with a developer API is a silly idea - people don't want to make programs for one particular OS, they want to be able to run the program standalone so they can release it for others to use.

My planned OS, awsmazingOS (under heavy development, not coming out anytime soon) has function calls such as awsmazingOS.setAppIcon(params subject to change) to change an icon, but the developer can use os.getVersion()to get the OS name, so they could use something like this:

if string.find(os.getVersion(), "awsmazingOS") then[/font]
  awsmazingOS.setAppIcon(params)[/font]
  --# other awsmazingOS stuff
end

however awsmazingOS has a hidden CraftOS layer to run standard programs. What do you believe is best? As well as the fact that awsmazingOS does have a planned store - that is also planned to have some requirements and moderation, some of those requirements being a requirement of awsmazingOS features, such as Icons and Home tiles,

distantcam, on 29 November 2013 - 10:01 AM said:

Would abstraction be a better term for what you're describing?

Modern OSes provide a higher level abstraction over the hardware layer. That abstraction then allows programs, which are just the top level of abstraction, to run.

Abstractions become more numerous as you go higher too. For example at the bottom level you have drivers, and so for any given piece of hardware you'll usually only have 1 driver, maybe 2 (a generic one and a specific one). At the top level of abstraction there are countless implementations of a browser for example.

I'd like to see an abstraction for the display, so that you don't have to worry about whether the display is colour, can handle mouse clicks, etc. You would write your code and the abstraction framework would take care of the details.

Another area worth abstracting would be the peripheral system. So many programs require you to modify the code to select the "side" the appropriate peripheral is on, or the more advanced ones ask you which side. If there was a decent abstraction then you'd simply have to ask the OS for a peripheral and it's found automatically. This is fairly easy to write but because it's not in the base OS people keep rewriting it, or not bothering.

I see what you are getting at, sort of like helper libraries? As GravityScore mentioned, however, while this would be easier people don't want to have to make specific programs for different OSs. This is why I make my own APIs, I use them everywhere and it makes everything easier.

GravityScore, on 29 November 2013 - 10:51 PM said:

The only problem with building levels of abstraction on top of the base CC hardware is that people probably don't want to build applications specifically for a particular OS with its particular abstractions on CC - they want to be able to release their program standalone. So if you were to build abstractions into the OS, have some sort of "Add abstraction code into program" button which adds a bunch of code into the file so that the program can be released standalone.

This is the reason I think making an OS with a developer API is a silly idea - people don't want to make programs for one particular OS, they want to be able to run the program standalone so they can release it for others to use.

Yes, this is one of the main reasons why I've spent most of the time so far getting shell apps running. One of the biggest problems with PearOS is that making an application is completely different to making a normal program. I often have people PM me who don't know where to begin, it's just so different. I've been thinking, however, that we should make some kind of standards to follow for making programs. For example, resizing and a way to prevent program close if there's something not saved.

awsmazinggenius, on 29 November 2013 - 11:07 PM said:

GravityScore, on 29 November 2013 - 10:51 PM said:

-snip-

My planned OS, awsmazingOS (under heavy development, not coming out anytime soon) has function calls such as awsmazingOS.setAppIcon(params subject to change) to change an icon, but the developer can use os.getVersion()to get the OS name, so they could use something like this:

if string.find(os.getVersion(), "awsmazingOS") then[/font]
  awsmazingOS.setAppIcon(params)[/font]
  --# other awsmazingOS stuff
end

however awsmazingOS has a hidden CraftOS layer to run standard programs. What do you believe is best? As well as the fact that awsmazingOS does have a planned store - that is also planned to have some requirements and moderation, some of those requirements being a requirement of awsmazingOS features, such as Icons and Home tiles,

This is the sort of thing that would be very useful for OSs. I was thinking of adding something which when you add an app to the desktop it checks it for an icon, similar to how you've done it. However, as I mentioned above we need to have a uniform standard so all programs support it and you don't need to have special versions. Thoughts?

oeed, on 29 November 2013 - 11:12 PM said:

Thoughts?

Relevant XKCD :P/>

I don't think standards would be the way to do it - many different OSes and programs would require quite different functionality, or people may want to go their own way about making something, rather than following guidelines, so in a way this could discourage creativity and new ideas.

awsmazinggenius: I do like that, probably easier than my "add code into program" button idea :P/>

Troll., on 28 November 2013 - 09:01 AM said:

Hm. Maybe a IRL Weather/Time feature. That would be nice.
Also You could add a taskbar which can store apps so there right there for you and like Mack said, multitask. And maybe some type of 'Really Advanced' File system.

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by 'Really Advanced' system? Do you mean an advanced file browser?

GravityScore, on 29 November 2013 - 11:33 PM said:

oeed, on 29 November 2013 - 11:12 PM said:

Thoughts?

Relevant XKCD :P/>

I don't think standards would be the way to do it - many different OSes and programs would require quite different functionality, or people may want to go their own way about making something, rather than following guidelines, so in a way this could discourage creativity and new ideas.

awsmazinggenius: I do like that, probably easier than my "add code into program" button idea :P/>

Actually, that's a very good point.

There really is no better way to prove your case than an xkcd comic.


So, what's the solution then? Other than just not having this functionality what can you do?

There isn't really any way around it. If you want a standardized interface that OSs could implement, it won't meet everyone's needs. If you don't have a standardized interface, everyone will roll their own, so programs would need huge amounts of code for compatibility with multiple OS-specific APIs. If everything just uses the standard arrangements of things to allow usual CraftOS programs can run, the programs can't influence any special OS features.

I generally go for the strategy wherein a standard CraftOS program can be run completely normally, where it sees no differences between running in CraftOS and running in LyqydOS (aside from available screen space), but I provide (currently slightly anemic) API calls to allow developers interested in taking advantage of LyqydOS features a way to do so simply and with minimal extra coding in their programs.

Several of the "features" discussed above would be better as well-written CraftOS programs, to be honest. Good programs that people like to use can be combined with an OS they enjoy using if everything is written properly. Extensive compatibility is the "best" way to go, in my opinion.

Lyqyd, on 30 November 2013 - 12:20 AM said:

There isn't really any way around it. If you want a standardized interface that OSs could implement, it won't meet everyone's needs. If you don't have a standardized interface, everyone will roll their own, so programs would need huge amounts of code for compatibility with multiple OS-specific APIs. If everything just uses the standard arrangements of things to allow usual CraftOS programs can run, the programs can't influence any special OS features.

I generally go for the strategy wherein a standard CraftOS program can be run completely normally, where it sees no differences between running in CraftOS and running in LyqydOS (aside from available screen space), but I provide (currently slightly anemic) API calls to allow developers interested in taking advantage of LyqydOS features a way to do so simply and with minimal extra coding in their programs.

Several of the "features" discussed above would be better as well-written CraftOS programs, to be honest. Good programs that people like to use can be combined with an OS they enjoy using if everything is written properly. Extensive compatibility is the "best" way to go, in my opinion.

Yes, I'm just thinking if there was some practice we could all agree on that provides API calls for OSs it would be good. But yea, I can't see people using it. The only way really would have icons, etc part of CraftOS/CC and that's not going to happen.

Also add documentation on how to use the interfaces and apis so we can make our own apps.

I've thought for the longest time that the community should get just together and make a whole bunch of standards (ie for Rednet transmissions, our own version of X, etc, etc) It honestly surprises me a little that it hasn't happened.

Something that would help maintain compatibility with standard CraftOS is trying to create hooks into the current APIs. Using the fs API as an example, you can implement symbolic links and file permissions, and by hooking into the fs API, every program is now automagically aware of permissions and symlinks. It eventually gets difficult trying to hook new functionality into the existing API and still have it make sense, though.

Perhaps we should try for a 'community OS'? I know that there have been ones in the past, but I believe they've all died.

I have seen a lot of OS'es but pretty much all of them have severe crash bugs, if you could avoid them then I think more people would use it.

Sora the Hedgehog, on 30 November 2013 - 02:04 AM said:

I've thought for the longest time that the community should get just together and make a whole bunch of standards (ie for Rednet transmissions, our own version of X, etc, etc) It honestly surprises me a little that it hasn't happened.

Something that would help maintain compatibility with standard CraftOS is trying to create hooks into the current APIs. Using the fs API as an example, you can implement symbolic links and file permissions, and by hooking into the fs API, every program is now automagically aware of permissions and symlinks. It eventually gets difficult trying to hook new functionality into the existing API and still have it make sense, though.

Perhaps we should try for a 'community OS'? I know that there have been ones in the past, but I believe they've all died.

Yes, having it part of CraftOS would be the ultimate way to ensure the standards. I might make a new topic about standards though, it's veering off topic. What do you mean by community OS?

basdxz, on 30 November 2013 - 02:16 AM said:

I have seen a lot of OS'es but pretty much all of them have severe crash bugs, if you could avoid them then I think more people would use it.

Yea, crashes are obviously things I want to avoid. The current build of the OS doesn't have any crashes so far, but then again it's not very developed yet.

oeed, on 30 November 2013 - 02:31 AM said:

What do you mean by community OS?

Just an OS that the community as a whole contributes to. Again, I know this was attempted in the past, but I believe it hadn't survived each try.

Really, for the interface thing, just make sure you have some kind of manual. For instance, my grandpa needed help with his windows 8 laptop, so he downloaded a manual.

He read that and after that he knew more, but still needed my help. Fortunately my grandma made a self-baked apple cake, but that's nothing more then irrelevant :P/>

Point was to make some kind of manual, which helps people out.

Engineer said:

Point was to make some kind of manual, which helps people out.

Sure, if people would actually read the thing. Most people around here already can't read API documentations and the like, nor search Google. A manual is only helpful it it's read.

Sora the Hedgehog, on 30 November 2013 - 06:28 PM said:

Engineer said:

Point was to make some kind of manual, which helps people out.

Sure, if people would actually read the thing. Most people around here already can't read API documentations and the like, nor search Google. A manual is only helpful it it's read.

The program should be so easy to use you don't need a manual. If I ever do read the manual it's because the product/software was so poorly designed that I can't use it, and if that's the case then the manual often has such broken english that I can't read the manual. The most instructions I ever put in my programs is generally the pastebin command. Windows 8 is not a good example of 'an easy to use OS/program', as much as Microsoft wants it to, I literally had to Google how to shutdown when I first got it… To be honest, I don't think anyone's got it yet. Not even Apple (what did he just say!? :P/>)

oeed, on 30 November 2013 - 07:21 PM said:

The program should be so easy to use you don't need a manual.

I agree with this, it shouldn't be necessary to have to resort to a manual or the internet to figure out something basic.

First of all you should definitely aim for an user-friendly desing, but there are always people who dont get it. Those shouldl read the manual or play around with it. If they are going to ask questions, you should refer them to the manual.

Its like playing with a console of your choice. You need to change a setting, but cannot find where you should change it. You couldnt figure it out, so you most likely hop on the internet and search if google has answers for you. If you cant find it then, then you should read the manual. You of course dont need to know how to setup your console, you hop directly to the customizations page.

And I want to underline again: Not everybody get it, thats humanity. (Yes, TOBIT, I did it myself this time :P/>)

The forums should start writing up RFCs (Request for Comment) in general, to standardize on a whole bunch of different things (Link to Lyqyd's Terminal Redirection over Rednet as an example of what the idea is and a well-written example to boot.)

To standardize something is never going to work properly, just because it doesn't give compile errors if you don't use those conventions.

Look, conventions and standardized crap are different, very, very different. Lets take for example Java, there is a convention that you start a class with a capital letter. But if I don't feel like doing that, I just use lowercase letter to begin a class. My program works so I'm happy.

You can come up with conventions yourself and hope that people follow those, but they don't have to.

If you make things standard, like that rednet stuff, what do you actually achieve? Essentially you can do the same by using other parsing methods, not just those.
And honestly, I see something like the rednet term stuff more of an extension to the program. It actually is an API, cuz we know how it gets parsed and gets sent, so we can follow that.
But if I'm making a similair program, I just use whatever I feel like using.
The idea behind it's good, but just make it documentation, that's just the key.

I started rambling and I frankly dont care about it. I just can't get why you would do something like that, make an API that has proper documentation, that really is it.

I put the RFC out there. It's a "standard" that anyone can comment on, and if you don't already have an idea of how to do TRoR, it gives you a good base to work from. If you happen to implement the RFC's code, it means it'll be compatible (for the most part) with existing programs like nsh and such. Having standards out there gives everyone a common reference to work from if they desire interoperability, it does not in any way restrict you from doing your own thing. You seem to be rather opposed to the idea of standards, for reasons I can't quite figure out.

Before we get into this, we need to go into something that dan200 needs to work on with the mod,

HD GRAPHICS IN THE COMPUTERS
(only available using HD resource/texture packs, of course)

That would be awesome, 'cause then the OSes that use the colors of adv. computers won't look so clunky and peice of crappish.

Think that would be awesome, right?
Now, onto the BEST OS!!!

- People can create a server using the OS and edit the server to serve a different purpose in the other computers on the Minecraft server. Ex. One person creates a server that hosts applications and sends those apps to other computers using an app (Like the Mac App Store). OR a server can host websites sent to other computers using an internet browser (Like Google Chrome).
- Easy usage, everything is in plain sight and you know where everything is. Your favorite apps would be on the desktop or launchpad or deskpad or whatever you want to call it.
- Minecraft Inception!!!!!!!!!!!
- Easy-to-use Login System, so you can have multiple accounts on the same computer.

That's my take on it.
I bid you a burrito (and a Merry Christmas for the time of the posting of this),
- SnappGamez (oh hey, that's mah YewTewb!)

Well, for me, the best os would have to have:
-easy to learn GUI (or UI)
-As SnappComputerCraft said, a good login system
-an App store
-an automatic installer
-(optional) an app that you can make programs with, kind of like Visual Basic :D/> (or, for games, Game Maker)

RatcheT2497, on 29 December 2013 - 01:03 PM said:

-(optional) an app that you can make programs with, kind of like Visual Basic :D/> (or, for games, Game Maker)

Errm lolwhut?
Visual basic refers to a programming language (well 2 considering visual basic 6 and visual basic .net have little relation anymore), it isn't a piece of software.

6677, on 31 December 2013 - 01:33 PM said:

RatcheT2497, on 29 December 2013 - 01:03 PM said:

-(optional) an app that you can make programs with, kind of like Visual Basic :D/> (or, for games, Game Maker)

Errm lolwhut?
Visual basic refers to a programming language (well 2 considering visual basic 6 and visual basic .net have little relation anymore), it isn't a piece of software.

Well, i know that, but i was reffering to the program by microsoft. It counts as a program anyway, since you can run the .exe, and it has an interface, etc.

You're thinking of Visual Studio.

Prior to .NET "Visual Basic" existed as a language (Visual Basic 1, 2, 3, etc) and an IDE with the same name. When .NET came along Visual Basic was changed to Visual Basic .NET and the IDE was renamed "Visual Studio".

Wow.. Talk about confusing name changes xD

Its microsoft, they do that, although visual studio is the best IDE out there in my opinion, one of the few things microsoft has done well.
Heres one for microsoft confusion. Windows 8, then you have their ARM port windows RT. Both implement the win32 api for desktop applications (although in windows RT they have added digital signing to prevent unauthorised desktop applications from running). Both implement the confusingly named winrt api for running the windows store applications on Start/Metro/Modern/Tablet mode/whatever you want to call it. WinRT and Windows RT. Someone go over to the microsoft naming department, find the genius that thought having WinRT and Windows RT was a good idea and give them an almighty kick up the backside. As it is having windows RT and windows 8 seemed to confuse consumers enough because half of them havent even heard of ARM or x86 let alone the difference. For reference, I seem to be one of the few people that actually likes windows 8, I just think microsofts naming was absolutely idiotic.



Actually thats a thing the best OS shouldnt do. Confusion over product names.

Yeah, it is one of the few things Microsoft has done well.. And, on the topic of Windows 8, i actually like it too, but i just can't live without the Start button :P/> (and the Start menu)

I never used the start button anyway

SnappComputerCraft, on 25 December 2013 - 09:28 PM said:

Before we get into this, we need to go into something that dan200 needs to work on with the mod,

HD GRAPHICS IN THE COMPUTERS
(only available using HD resource/texture packs, of course)

That would be awesome, 'cause then the OSes that use the colors of adv. computers won't look so clunky and peice of crappish.

Think that would be awesome, right?
Now, onto the BEST OS!!!

- People can create a server using the OS and edit the server to serve a different purpose in the other computers on the Minecraft server. Ex. One person creates a server that hosts applications and sends those apps to other computers using an app (Like the Mac App Store). OR a server can host websites sent to other computers using an internet browser (Like Google Chrome).
- Easy usage, everything is in plain sight and you know where everything is. Your favorite apps would be on the desktop or launchpad or deskpad or whatever you want to call it.
- Minecraft Inception!!!!!!!!!!!
- Easy-to-use Login System, so you can have multiple accounts on the same computer.

That's my take on it.
I bid you a burrito (and a Merry Christmas for the time of the posting of this),
- SnappGamez (oh hey, that's mah YewTewb!)

Sorry about not getting back to you earlier, I must've unfollowed this topic or something.

HD graphics are something which, unfortunately, look like they'll never happen. It's often suggested and denied immediately.

Having servers makes things quite complicated, but what I will have is an easy AirDrop like system to transfer files between computers. I'm considering having a web browser type thing too, but it'd be HTML based if I can manage to do that. Easy usage is given, if things aren't easy to use I'll make then easy :P/>

I'm planning to include at least 6 games, one of which will be Mineception.

I really don't understand the purpose of user accounts in ComputerCraft. In fact, nowadays, other than server based (e.g. school or work place logins) user accounts they're rather redundant in general. It just makes things more difficult to use and in 99% of cases only 1 person is using it, and of course you can always make another computer. But, if there are some reasons I will consider it. PearOS did fine without them, however.

An OS where getting things done is easy and fast, and uses as little time as possible. Functions for common tasks and best based around a file manager with multiple tabs. Keyboard shortcuts for everything.

I'm probably going to make an OS in CC one day similar to what I've just described.

dudearent006, on 20 January 2014 - 10:45 AM said:

An OS where getting things done is easy and fast, and uses as little time as possible. Functions for common tasks and best based around a file manager with multiple tabs. Keyboard shortcuts for everything.

I'm probably going to make an OS in CC one day similar to what I've just described.

I'm about a week from an invite only beta for the OS now, and I can pretty confidently say that everything is very fast and easy. The only problem with keyboard shortcuts is there's a risk that they're also used by the open program.

IMHO, the best OS:
- No buttons/text fields/anything, just a blank screen where you can use ^W or something to spawn a new window
- Each window has its own "tabs" within it, each tab holds a program
- Supports dedicated apps as well as normal programs
- Compatibility option that attempts to "resize" programs which were built just for a 51 x 19 to the size of the window
- Compatibility option that turns all output B/W and adds a makeshift controllable mouse pointer to the screen which allows advanced computer programs to work on normal computers.

-Top functionality.
-Sexy theme
-Loadable modules for its GFX and such. ( more things built by others!)
-File transfer etc built-in features
-No time-wasting message boxes