Not sure exactly how Toshiba and MS have decided to do this, but there is the hidden partition. And when using the LInux provided Gparted software in a conventional manner, I am blocked from making the MS partition less that 100Gbytes.
Since my previous EEEpc netbook never required more that 12Gbytes of storage, I haven't gotten into the particulars of getting more space freed up. It is a carry around netbook and I don't store much on it.
But there are MS files that retain fixed positions and since it is all a dual boot with the only way to reintall the MS W7 is from the hidden partition, I fear that I loose my ability to restore the original W7 if I try to do too many creative things. MS absolutely doesn't want to help anyone with a dual boot that is not solely MS OSes.
I love the responces to this thread. People speaking about this or that only requires a couple hundred MB to run, or a couple hundred MHz.
I am of the belief that having faster computers and more RAM, is a good thing, IF you write the OS to use as little as possible and write the apps to run with as little as possible, with out sacrificing performence.
I think that I will have to write a easily extencible GUI based OS to illistrate that it is possible to write a modern OS in less than 4MB of mem for the OS it self. Most of the extra features of modern OSes are the domain of user land apps, not that of the OS, and should not be always loaded. Yes it does make since to make many things transparent to the user, on modern end user systems, though this does not mean running everything extra in the kernel space, or having masive extensions always loaded. For that matter there realy is not a truely good reason to write most thing as big per modual as become common practice, as generally this tends to slow things down and take more RAM to do the same thing.
The only reason for a well written OS to even take 4MB is for speed optimizations that take extra RAM, otherwize 128KB would be more than enough. We should have as much RAM and CPU time left for user land apps as possible. With a well thought out task scheduler the OS can take less than 0.2% of the CPU time in most situations (excepting whren an App makes an unreasonable number of consecutive system calls).
I love the responces to this thread. People speaking about this or that only requires a couple hundred MB to run, or a couple hundred MHz.
I am of the belief that having faster computers and more RAM, is a good thing, IF you write the OS to use as little as possible and write the apps to run with as little as possible, with out sacrificing performence.
I believe I got locked out of a IBM PC forum for saying this but people in the industry told me that Windows has drivers for 50 different vendors for one part which is why Windows is too slow.
On win 7: about 150MB is OS+Driver+GUI, the rest is userland app, though much of the userland stuff runs all the time (poor design).
On Ubuntu: About 50MB is OS+Driver+GUI the rest is user mode Application, though once again too much usermode stuff is loaded in the background.
On The Theoretical OS implementing all features of above: About 20MB is OS+Drivers+GUI, of which about 1.5MB is loaded at boot taking about 4MB of RAM, and about 300MB is user mod applications/libraries that are not loaded at boot, and only loaded when actually being used (if you have a HDD supporting at least ATAPIO mode 0 this is way more than fast enough). If you add a couple extensions like a 3D desktop qube the OS may take as much as 20MB RAM, and 21MB on disk for OS+Drivers+GUI with 2.5MB loaded at boot (the other 17.5MB being in RAM data structures generated in execution).
Not quite. There are indeed many many I/O drivers included in Windows, but these increase how much disk space is needed and how long it takes to install Windows. USB has complicated this since the installation of drivers has been deferred until you connect the device to your PC. The same issues apply to Linux since the hardware is often the same. Apple has always controlled the design of much of the hardware that makes up a Mac or can be attached to a Mac, so that simplifies the process of configuring the operating system.
The above mentioned sizes for the theoretical OS are based on the size of drivers in current OSes, and a good deal of math on what is needed in memory to run effeciently. Of cource no OS supports all posible HW though this would at least bring us equal to Linux.
An Operating System facilitates a general purpose computer that can be all things to all people.
The urge to serve all people with all things and secure the most market share drives bloat.
If you allow your "OS" to serve a select group doing a limited number of things, you can be more efficient.
Jazzed the OS provides very little function, even the modern GUIs. To serve all people is to the Application programs (even if made transparent), and should not contribute bloate to the core.
Jazzed the OS provides very little function, even the modern GUIs. To serve all people is to the Application programs (even if made transparent), and should not contribute bloate to the core.
I don't feel I am the best informed nor the most objective about OSes, but I've accepted an approach that includes Windows just because I occasionally need it and Linux because it is durable and free.
Since doing so, two things have occurred. First, I've not spent another dollar on MS related software, nor have I had to spend any money of Linux. Second, Linux as a general office machine and web browser has offered more steady reliability than Windows. In other words, I just get more done with less distractions from the computer.
Other issues are involved to. The Linux uses a special partition of the hard disk to allow it to run faster with less DRAM. So it seems that older machines don't bog down with it. There is no defragmentation required and no need to clean a 'registry' - housekeeping is much less.
I do have to wonder about a list that includes Minix, Haiku OS, and Amiga OS, as I am happy to have abandoned floppy drives and OSes with minimal software. These OSes are amongst the tiniest out there. Linux actually offers more good free educational software for kids and a wide array of applications that allow a computer learner to explore far more for free, before purchase.
If one needs a floppy oriented OS, take a look at FreeDOS. It has evolved out of MS-DOS and related DOSes and survives today with drivers for modern storage and modern i/o - including items like DVD and I believe USB.
I certainly don't believe all OSes are getting worse. I tend to want to believe that the excellence of Unix has transfered to Linux and that is really where good OSes are still evolving. Just take a look at the internet and you find claims that 75% or more of all servers that keep the internet up and running are Linux. I suspect that is why it maintains viability and stability - it is the work horse of the web. Desktops can be rather silly machines in comparison.
As best as I can recall Minix might be the best for a student to understand how a complete OS works. The code is small, but has all the required elements - a boot process, a file system, how to call applications, and more. I am all for have useful study tools for newcomers.
Now I remember Minix. I visited their website and found the reason I've never tried it. When the OS is free, the manual is rather expensive at $160USD.
When talking about Windows it would help if people could state which version, what I mean is it a "Home" or "Pro" or 32bit/64bit, retail/OEM version. I think that would cut down on confusion when talking about OS's.
I have Win7 Pro(32bit) retail installed on a five year old Toshiba it's taken just about every thing I've thrown at it.
Win7 starter wouldn't be that bad if it weren't all the OEM Smile that comes with it. That's were Pc decrapifier comes in handy. I've upgraded two netbooks to win7 home premium(32bit) and so far they are all running ok.
And I also use Ubuntu10.10(32bit) and OS X.IV.
-dan
My Toshiba NB-250 has W7 Starter. That may explain many of my negative perceptions of Windows bloat. It is all rather absurd to buy a $300USD netbook as a carry about and then have to spend far more than $400USD in upgrades to have it function properly. The cost of the netbook made it appropriate for a high risk of damage or theft.
When I got Vista, there were several disappointments. I bought a 64bit quad machine and it was bundled with 32bit Vista. And then I found that to use both Chinese and English, I had to spend something like $900USD for Ultimate to get useful two language computing. I loaded Ubuntu as a dual boot and the Vista still sitting in Chinese only.
With W7 Starter - it did at least come with a choice of English or Chinese, but I cannot even install a background on the screen, it presumed that I was going to buy Norton Security and M$ Office just to make it whole, and likely an upgrade as well. All a bit of a hard sell. I do realize that M$ is now making most of its profit from Office suite, not Windows - but this begs the question of how they got into this position when one can get Open Office for free. Their partnership with Norton is a whole separate problem where Norton/Semantec seems equally needy of purchasers in a world that offers good free AV programs.
The last complete OS I purchased from MS was XP Pro and Office suite in English only. Frankly, it never ran quite right and was a very expensive attempt to comply with MS. Some of the problems may be due to the fact that I live in Taiwan and have to DIY computer problems because of language barrier. I no longer want to throw 'good money' after bad. I need Chinese as well as English. And I am not rich.
I don't know if Apple expects people to dish out so much after purchase, but I have never recaptured the money spent on computers in terms of increased business revenue. I teach English. Linux keeps expenses in line with my income whereas other OSes are deep pocket divers.
It seems Linux, Android, and OSX are the OSes that have a future.
Loopy:
The manual for Minix is free, the book (Operating Systems Design 3rd edition, i think) is for OS developers not the manual for the OS it is a teaching tool for micro-kernel design.
Also all the OSes I mentioned have much software, and will not fit on a floppy. If you consider OSes that use more than 50MB of ram for the OS+GUI+Loaded-Drivers to be non bloated or small this seems unreasonable.
As to software availability, yes Linux does seem to be a much used developer platform, thus causing it to have much available software. Though the single line that has more software (including new tittles) than any other available (though is missing a couple of things) is GS/OS on the IIgs. This is due to the combined facts that the IIgs will run ProDOS apps and Apple II users as well as IIgs users are almost all software developers (on the hobby side) and are continually creating new software. That makes the collection of software (both GS/OS native and ProDOS) increase by thousands of tittles per month, combine this with the same being true back to 1979 and you find the single system that has more available software than ANY OTHER.
AND NOW YOU KNOW WHY I AM NOT LOOKING AT SOFTWARE AVAILABILITY.
Also I am not looking at the old versions (those that may have ran off floppy) though rather the current versions.
I am making a comparison to what would be if things were done in an efficient manner. I am not looking at how disk space is used, as most of the disk space is either Drivers that are not in active use, User Applications, or Documentation. I am looking at how the system uses CPU time and RAM.
Please forgive me for getting a bit off track. I really like what Minix is trying to do and am very happy to see that Minix 3.XXX is now claiming to be a stable OS rather than a 'training/learning OS'. I might even buy the text, though it is a bit of investment. We really should be supporting an good educational entry point into OS design for the complete novice.
There are alternatives for the learner. One can buy classic Unix references and gain much similar information for less. I have a few on hand and they are worthwhile and fun to read. From there, one can go and research the original Linux code by Linus Torvalds and enjoy seeing how so little achieved so much.
I find that anyone that really wants to learn how a multitasking OS should be developed needs to explore something like Minix first, just to learn the jargon and turf. Still, it isn't the only resource available as it too is a child of Unix.
My mention of the text as the manual is because it is the book that really introduces and explains the OS in depth. The free manual which you refer to is the software 'manual pages' that are included in the OS as documentation - similar to Linux. While they can be helpful, they are rather terse and limited in scope and intended for someone that really isn't looking under the hood.
I just wish the authors would compromise and provide the big expensive book for teachers and a less expensive, more compact text for students and users that desire a printed reference.
Much as I detest sloppiness, I fear that if everything in the world was done in the most efficient manner, unemployment might be at 50% rather than merely more than 9% in the USA. At times, I find myself wishing McDonalds had waitresses, tablecloths, and dishes to be washed for the sake of my fellow humans. Ironically, corporate efficiency seems to have made jobs disappear and driven us into what you feel are bad OSes.
Not sure I remember who said what here but there seems to be some odd ideas about what an embedded system and/or an operation system for embedded systems is.
Traditionally "embedded system" simply referred to computer built into some other machine whose primary function is not computing. Like for example an engine management unit. Often it had no user interface and the end user of the machine need never know there is a computer in there.
"Embedded system" says nothing about how big that computer may be, or weather it is a single chip MCU or a microprocessor with RAM and ROM or a stonking great minicomputer built of of TTL chips ( I have worked on such embedded systems used in Radar control).
Also "Embedded System" says nothing about the OS used. often there may not even be an OS. But if there is WinCE, or Linux or BSD or some fancy RTOS is of no consequence.
Now I'd like to know what is so bad about Linux now a days and why it may have got worse. Over the past 10 years I have worked on Linux in many embedded systems. Often on pretty small ARM set ups. When you need the facilities it offers, serious networking for example, and when your real-time constraints are not so harsh it makes life very easy.
OpenWRT is a bit of a stretch as an 'embedded system', but each to his own. (It is actually an OS firmware package and not the hardware.) I have an ASUS wifi router/firewall here that is loaded with Oleg-the-Russian's Linux firmware - similar to OpenWRT but likely superior. It really makes the device more of a mini-computer than a router/firewall. What both do is to make a superior router/firewall out of rather humble off-the-shelf products.
Getting back to Minix versus Linux, I have been reading more.
Minix has 6000 lines of code at this point in V3.xx
Ubuntu Linux has many millions lines of code in just the kernel, hundreds of millions with all the apps in V2.6x.
And so Minix offers an excellent starting point for newcomers to learning how an OS is coded from the ground up. That is very important as I think beginners are being really left behind without many clear points of entry into today's technologies. Proprietary information is much more common than it used to be.
As far as the term 'embedded system', I suspect it was more of a marketing term that PICs and others locked on in order to point out that added usefulness of small independent microcontrollers. But that is just another point of view.
The latest incarnation of OS/2, eCS v2(OK, 2.1 is out, but I haven't upgraded yet) requires 'Pentium/64MB' to run properly...
And if you really want to try, it may be possible to get it to run on a 486, if you have 64MB RAM or more...
(You need over 128MB if you want to use the downloadable DemoCD, though, as it needs to set up a RAMDisk)
Yes, that's a multitasking OS with full GUI. Networking is a bit spotty as not many drivers have been ported, but it's possible to get WinXP drivers to work using a tool called GenMAC.
(I still haven't worked up the nerve to use GenMAC on the wi-fi card on my ASUs EEE 700, but it's on my to do list)
OpenOffice 3.2 runs OK on the 700...
On the other hand...
My 1989 vintage Psion MC400 laptop, with 256KB RAM, a NEC V30 CPU and a 640x400 B/W LCD has a fully pre-emptive OS with GUI, and even WYSIWYG Wordprocessor and spreadsheet. Had some Plug'n Play functionality, too. Battery was a bit weaker than I like, though. The 7.2V/1000mAH NiCad pack only gave up to 20Hours use. You had to use the pack with 8 x 1.5V AA cells if you wanted proper running time...
(The charger was built into the battery, so it could support larger packs, or even new tech if anyone wanted to build them)
The OS was later knows as SIBO(SIxteen Bit Os), and was the ancestor of the EPOC(supposedly meant 'Excellent Piece Of Cheese) which was then renamed to Symbian and invaded smartphones all over the globe.
The WordProcessor, Spreadsheet and other apps were given a new look and appeared in a long line of PDAs, the smallest of which had 128KB RAM... (Psion S3. Then the S3a, S3c, S3mx. Also appeared in the diminutive Siena. small is beautiful... And if you knew how to use the Workabout range, you could find them there, too. No SIBO machine had more than 2MB RAM.)
I guess, some OSes may have changed, but without bloating...
For sure operating systems have been getting bigger. But is it really correct to use the term "bloat". Bloat carries the implication of unnecessary and perhaps harmful swelling. Think gas in a cows intestine:)
Now, in the case of Linux. Firstly Linux is not an operating system. It is a kernel on which an operating system can be built. Examples being RedHat, Debian, etc. Some of those OS' do indeed install huge amounts of stuff now a days. Others are built to be small as has been pointed out here already.
The Linux kernel itself is getting bigger but:
1) A lot of that code is platform specific and there are a lot of architectures to support.
2) A lot of that code is device drivers. Any given system will not need most of them. But consider, as soon as your system has USB you might want to be able to talk to the huge number of devices that can be plugged in there. From mice to cameras to storage etc etc.
3) The kernel makes heavy use of modules. You only load drivers you need.
4) A lot of that code is for file systems: EXT3 and a host of others, even NTFS now a days.
5) and so on.
It's big, but is it bloated?
If you want/need that functionality then you have to have code for it somewhere. If you don't need it don't include it in your system.
If you want to call Linux bloated then you have to point to lines of code that are in there unnecessarily and wasting space. I suspect you might find that hard to do.
It seems odd to me that some people complain that Windows doesn't work for them while many of us are very productive using Windows systems. Personally, I have gone through several DOS/Windows machines over the past 25 years, and each upgrade is an improvement for me. The biggest pain has been the virus stuff that goes on with Windows, but I haven't really had any problems for the past 5 years since I started paying the annual Norton tax. It's a relatively small price to pay to avoid the bad stuff that's out there.
I am also a Linux/Unix user at work, and I like the simplicity that it provides. I don't do any of the admin stuff on the Linux boxes, so I never had to hassle with that stuff. Some of my co-workers manage their own Linux workstations, and seems like they have to tinker with them a bit to keep them running.
My mother always said if you can't say anything good, then don't say anything at all. So I won't comment on Macs.
Many of us were productive with a typewriter and a 10-key adding machine for a long time. Before that, many of us were productive with merely pen and paper.
Good is the enemy of the Best. Just because one is productive in Windows doesn't make it what we have to be tied to. I find I am more productive in Linux with multiple desktops and less interruptions for maintenance.
Minix really started this debate about bloat, but it doesn't have many of the basic apps that we need daily - no browser and limited email. So if that is unbloated, so is a pencil.
Still I am intrigued by Minix and have high hopes that it will evolve into something useful mainstream. The authors' arguments are quite valid. Linux is on a roll for now because it has nearly everything one could desire -- for free.
Comments
Since my previous EEEpc netbook never required more that 12Gbytes of storage, I haven't gotten into the particulars of getting more space freed up. It is a carry around netbook and I don't store much on it.
But there are MS files that retain fixed positions and since it is all a dual boot with the only way to reintall the MS W7 is from the hidden partition, I fear that I loose my ability to restore the original W7 if I try to do too many creative things. MS absolutely doesn't want to help anyone with a dual boot that is not solely MS OSes.
I am of the belief that having faster computers and more RAM, is a good thing, IF you write the OS to use as little as possible and write the apps to run with as little as possible, with out sacrificing performence.
I think that I will have to write a easily extencible GUI based OS to illistrate that it is possible to write a modern OS in less than 4MB of mem for the OS it self. Most of the extra features of modern OSes are the domain of user land apps, not that of the OS, and should not be always loaded. Yes it does make since to make many things transparent to the user, on modern end user systems, though this does not mean running everything extra in the kernel space, or having masive extensions always loaded. For that matter there realy is not a truely good reason to write most thing as big per modual as become common practice, as generally this tends to slow things down and take more RAM to do the same thing.
The only reason for a well written OS to even take 4MB is for speed optimizations that take extra RAM, otherwize 128KB would be more than enough. We should have as much RAM and CPU time left for user land apps as possible. With a well thought out task scheduler the OS can take less than 0.2% of the CPU time in most situations (excepting whren an App makes an unreasonable number of consecutive system calls).
I believe I got locked out of a IBM PC forum for saying this but people in the industry told me that Windows has drivers for 50 different vendors for one part which is why Windows is too slow.
On win 7: about 150MB is OS+Driver+GUI, the rest is userland app, though much of the userland stuff runs all the time (poor design).
On Ubuntu: About 50MB is OS+Driver+GUI the rest is user mode Application, though once again too much usermode stuff is loaded in the background.
On The Theoretical OS implementing all features of above: About 20MB is OS+Drivers+GUI, of which about 1.5MB is loaded at boot taking about 4MB of RAM, and about 300MB is user mod applications/libraries that are not loaded at boot, and only loaded when actually being used (if you have a HDD supporting at least ATAPIO mode 0 this is way more than fast enough). If you add a couple extensions like a 3D desktop qube the OS may take as much as 20MB RAM, and 21MB on disk for OS+Drivers+GUI with 2.5MB loaded at boot (the other 17.5MB being in RAM data structures generated in execution).
The urge to serve all people with all things and secure the most market share drives bloat.
If you allow your "OS" to serve a select group doing a limited number of things, you can be more efficient.
Do what makes you happy.
Maybe so. I am just looking at something that will do everything that a modern Linux, BSD, Menuette, Haiku OS, Syllable, or MorphOS can do.
Since doing so, two things have occurred. First, I've not spent another dollar on MS related software, nor have I had to spend any money of Linux. Second, Linux as a general office machine and web browser has offered more steady reliability than Windows. In other words, I just get more done with less distractions from the computer.
Other issues are involved to. The Linux uses a special partition of the hard disk to allow it to run faster with less DRAM. So it seems that older machines don't bog down with it. There is no defragmentation required and no need to clean a 'registry' - housekeeping is much less.
I do have to wonder about a list that includes Minix, Haiku OS, and Amiga OS, as I am happy to have abandoned floppy drives and OSes with minimal software. These OSes are amongst the tiniest out there. Linux actually offers more good free educational software for kids and a wide array of applications that allow a computer learner to explore far more for free, before purchase.
If one needs a floppy oriented OS, take a look at FreeDOS. It has evolved out of MS-DOS and related DOSes and survives today with drivers for modern storage and modern i/o - including items like DVD and I believe USB.
I certainly don't believe all OSes are getting worse. I tend to want to believe that the excellence of Unix has transfered to Linux and that is really where good OSes are still evolving. Just take a look at the internet and you find claims that 75% or more of all servers that keep the internet up and running are Linux. I suspect that is why it maintains viability and stability - it is the work horse of the web. Desktops can be rather silly machines in comparison.
As best as I can recall Minix might be the best for a student to understand how a complete OS works. The code is small, but has all the required elements - a boot process, a file system, how to call applications, and more. I am all for have useful study tools for newcomers.
http://www.pearsonhighered.com/educator/academic/product/0,,0131429388,00%2ben-USS_01DBC.html
I have Win7 Pro(32bit) retail installed on a five year old Toshiba it's taken just about every thing I've thrown at it.
Win7 starter wouldn't be that bad if it weren't all the OEM Smile that comes with it. That's were Pc decrapifier comes in handy. I've upgraded two netbooks to win7 home premium(32bit) and so far they are all running ok.
And I also use Ubuntu10.10(32bit) and OS X.IV.
-dan
You pay for a PRO enterprise OS you get it ...
But the poor foulk gets a Cut down OS with more glitches then HAL 9000..
Apple and the *NIX World is less llike that . for OSX its Server or Other . none of this 20 Differnt Versions stuff
POSIX is the same .. you Need a SMB server you Install it . that simple .
MS needs to stop doing this abd FOCUS on one GOOD OS
not 20 bad ones .
My Toshiba NB-250 has W7 Starter. That may explain many of my negative perceptions of Windows bloat. It is all rather absurd to buy a $300USD netbook as a carry about and then have to spend far more than $400USD in upgrades to have it function properly. The cost of the netbook made it appropriate for a high risk of damage or theft.
When I got Vista, there were several disappointments. I bought a 64bit quad machine and it was bundled with 32bit Vista. And then I found that to use both Chinese and English, I had to spend something like $900USD for Ultimate to get useful two language computing. I loaded Ubuntu as a dual boot and the Vista still sitting in Chinese only.
With W7 Starter - it did at least come with a choice of English or Chinese, but I cannot even install a background on the screen, it presumed that I was going to buy Norton Security and M$ Office just to make it whole, and likely an upgrade as well. All a bit of a hard sell. I do realize that M$ is now making most of its profit from Office suite, not Windows - but this begs the question of how they got into this position when one can get Open Office for free. Their partnership with Norton is a whole separate problem where Norton/Semantec seems equally needy of purchasers in a world that offers good free AV programs.
The last complete OS I purchased from MS was XP Pro and Office suite in English only. Frankly, it never ran quite right and was a very expensive attempt to comply with MS. Some of the problems may be due to the fact that I live in Taiwan and have to DIY computer problems because of language barrier. I no longer want to throw 'good money' after bad. I need Chinese as well as English. And I am not rich.
I don't know if Apple expects people to dish out so much after purchase, but I have never recaptured the money spent on computers in terms of increased business revenue. I teach English. Linux keeps expenses in line with my income whereas other OSes are deep pocket divers.
It seems Linux, Android, and OSX are the OSes that have a future.
The manual for Minix is free, the book (Operating Systems Design 3rd edition, i think) is for OS developers not the manual for the OS it is a teaching tool for micro-kernel design.
Also all the OSes I mentioned have much software, and will not fit on a floppy. If you consider OSes that use more than 50MB of ram for the OS+GUI+Loaded-Drivers to be non bloated or small this seems unreasonable.
As to software availability, yes Linux does seem to be a much used developer platform, thus causing it to have much available software. Though the single line that has more software (including new tittles) than any other available (though is missing a couple of things) is GS/OS on the IIgs. This is due to the combined facts that the IIgs will run ProDOS apps and Apple II users as well as IIgs users are almost all software developers (on the hobby side) and are continually creating new software. That makes the collection of software (both GS/OS native and ProDOS) increase by thousands of tittles per month, combine this with the same being true back to 1979 and you find the single system that has more available software than ANY OTHER.
AND NOW YOU KNOW WHY I AM NOT LOOKING AT SOFTWARE AVAILABILITY.
Also I am not looking at the old versions (those that may have ran off floppy) though rather the current versions.
I am making a comparison to what would be if things were done in an efficient manner. I am not looking at how disk space is used, as most of the disk space is either Drivers that are not in active use, User Applications, or Documentation. I am looking at how the system uses CPU time and RAM.
There are alternatives for the learner. One can buy classic Unix references and gain much similar information for less. I have a few on hand and they are worthwhile and fun to read. From there, one can go and research the original Linux code by Linus Torvalds and enjoy seeing how so little achieved so much.
I find that anyone that really wants to learn how a multitasking OS should be developed needs to explore something like Minix first, just to learn the jargon and turf. Still, it isn't the only resource available as it too is a child of Unix.
My mention of the text as the manual is because it is the book that really introduces and explains the OS in depth. The free manual which you refer to is the software 'manual pages' that are included in the OS as documentation - similar to Linux. While they can be helpful, they are rather terse and limited in scope and intended for someone that really isn't looking under the hood.
I just wish the authors would compromise and provide the big expensive book for teachers and a less expensive, more compact text for students and users that desire a printed reference.
Much as I detest sloppiness, I fear that if everything in the world was done in the most efficient manner, unemployment might be at 50% rather than merely more than 9% in the USA. At times, I find myself wishing McDonalds had waitresses, tablecloths, and dishes to be washed for the sake of my fellow humans. Ironically, corporate efficiency seems to have made jobs disappear and driven us into what you feel are bad OSes.
Traditionally "embedded system" simply referred to computer built into some other machine whose primary function is not computing. Like for example an engine management unit. Often it had no user interface and the end user of the machine need never know there is a computer in there.
"Embedded system" says nothing about how big that computer may be, or weather it is a single chip MCU or a microprocessor with RAM and ROM or a stonking great minicomputer built of of TTL chips ( I have worked on such embedded systems used in Radar control).
Also "Embedded System" says nothing about the OS used. often there may not even be an OS. But if there is WinCE, or Linux or BSD or some fancy RTOS is of no consequence.
Now I'd like to know what is so bad about Linux now a days and why it may have got worse. Over the past 10 years I have worked on Linux in many embedded systems. Often on pretty small ARM set ups. When you need the facilities it offers, serious networking for example, and when your real-time constraints are not so harsh it makes life very easy.
As an extreme example of an embedded system running the "bloated" Linux I'd like to point to this http://www.lantronix.com/device-networking/embedded-device-servers/xport-pro.html
That by the way would make a nice networking addition for our Propeller projects...
Is not a OPEN WRT router a "embedded" system . It Sure is !
peter
Getting back to Minix versus Linux, I have been reading more.
Minix has 6000 lines of code at this point in V3.xx
Ubuntu Linux has many millions lines of code in just the kernel, hundreds of millions with all the apps in V2.6x.
And so Minix offers an excellent starting point for newcomers to learning how an OS is coded from the ground up. That is very important as I think beginners are being really left behind without many clear points of entry into today's technologies. Proprietary information is much more common than it used to be.
As far as the term 'embedded system', I suspect it was more of a marketing term that PICs and others locked on in order to point out that added usefulness of small independent microcontrollers. But that is just another point of view.
One might want to check wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_system
Still, terms like these are subject to change with technology.
Looks like Linux 2.6.39 has 14,619,185 lines of code !!
But why not? It supports a lot of drivers. Not everything has to be loaded.
The latest incarnation of OS/2, eCS v2(OK, 2.1 is out, but I haven't upgraded yet) requires 'Pentium/64MB' to run properly...
And if you really want to try, it may be possible to get it to run on a 486, if you have 64MB RAM or more...
(You need over 128MB if you want to use the downloadable DemoCD, though, as it needs to set up a RAMDisk)
Yes, that's a multitasking OS with full GUI. Networking is a bit spotty as not many drivers have been ported, but it's possible to get WinXP drivers to work using a tool called GenMAC.
(I still haven't worked up the nerve to use GenMAC on the wi-fi card on my ASUs EEE 700, but it's on my to do list)
OpenOffice 3.2 runs OK on the 700...
On the other hand...
My 1989 vintage Psion MC400 laptop, with 256KB RAM, a NEC V30 CPU and a 640x400 B/W LCD has a fully pre-emptive OS with GUI, and even WYSIWYG Wordprocessor and spreadsheet. Had some Plug'n Play functionality, too. Battery was a bit weaker than I like, though. The 7.2V/1000mAH NiCad pack only gave up to 20Hours use. You had to use the pack with 8 x 1.5V AA cells if you wanted proper running time...
(The charger was built into the battery, so it could support larger packs, or even new tech if anyone wanted to build them)
The OS was later knows as SIBO(SIxteen Bit Os), and was the ancestor of the EPOC(supposedly meant 'Excellent Piece Of Cheese) which was then renamed to Symbian and invaded smartphones all over the globe.
The WordProcessor, Spreadsheet and other apps were given a new look and appeared in a long line of PDAs, the smallest of which had 128KB RAM... (Psion S3. Then the S3a, S3c, S3mx. Also appeared in the diminutive Siena. small is beautiful... And if you knew how to use the Workabout range, you could find them there, too. No SIBO machine had more than 2MB RAM.)
I guess, some OSes may have changed, but without bloating...
Now, in the case of Linux. Firstly Linux is not an operating system. It is a kernel on which an operating system can be built. Examples being RedHat, Debian, etc. Some of those OS' do indeed install huge amounts of stuff now a days. Others are built to be small as has been pointed out here already.
The Linux kernel itself is getting bigger but:
1) A lot of that code is platform specific and there are a lot of architectures to support.
2) A lot of that code is device drivers. Any given system will not need most of them. But consider, as soon as your system has USB you might want to be able to talk to the huge number of devices that can be plugged in there. From mice to cameras to storage etc etc.
3) The kernel makes heavy use of modules. You only load drivers you need.
4) A lot of that code is for file systems: EXT3 and a host of others, even NTFS now a days.
5) and so on.
It's big, but is it bloated?
If you want/need that functionality then you have to have code for it somewhere. If you don't need it don't include it in your system.
If you want to call Linux bloated then you have to point to lines of code that are in there unnecessarily and wasting space. I suspect you might find that hard to do.
I am also a Linux/Unix user at work, and I like the simplicity that it provides. I don't do any of the admin stuff on the Linux boxes, so I never had to hassle with that stuff. Some of my co-workers manage their own Linux workstations, and seems like they have to tinker with them a bit to keep them running.
My mother always said if you can't say anything good, then don't say anything at all. So I won't comment on Macs.
Its that simple ..
Good is the enemy of the Best. Just because one is productive in Windows doesn't make it what we have to be tied to. I find I am more productive in Linux with multiple desktops and less interruptions for maintenance.
Minix really started this debate about bloat, but it doesn't have many of the basic apps that we need daily - no browser and limited email. So if that is unbloated, so is a pencil.
Still I am intrigued by Minix and have high hopes that it will evolve into something useful mainstream. The authors' arguments are quite valid. Linux is on a roll for now because it has nearly everything one could desire -- for free.
truer words have never been spoken.