# Which OS would you recommend?



## BSDAppentic3 (Apr 16, 2018)

I have a USB with 4GB. I want a "pure" system. This means that I want, a system which have the most Unix/Unix-Like pure, I don't know if you got what I mean.
I want it principally for learn. Some of the commands that I used in Linux, I can also use here. I want something alike.
So, what you recommend to me?


----------



## Cthulhux (Apr 16, 2018)

Try the only free SysV UNIX in existence: Illumos.


----------



## Spartrekus (Apr 16, 2018)

FreeBSD is ok, but not really Unix.

PDP  V7 or V5, the real UNIX

The real, more real than real Unix
https://github.com/DoctorWkt/pdp7-unix

The real stuffs: 
http://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V7


UNIX !


----------



## rigoletto@ (Apr 16, 2018)

I guess the close you can get of what you want without using old stuff would be IBM AIX, but that come with a price tag. Otherwise any BSD fit in there.


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Apr 16, 2018)

BSDAppentic3 said:


> So, what you recommend to me?



Stick with BSD. There is Oracle Solaris and OpenIndiana, but if you concentrate on learning one thing the probability of learning it well rises.

The is very little difference in the command syntax or directory structure of FreeBSD and OpenBSD. Both have their pros and cons and can trace their roots back to UNIX proper.

I still gravitate toward my FreeBSD boxen for everyday desktop use.


----------



## BSDAppentic3 (Apr 17, 2018)

Now I'm trying with Ilumos. As the whole system consumes a few of GBs, I prefer to download the minimal installation.
I'll be reporting in a time. Now it's installing.


----------



## BSDAppentic3 (Apr 17, 2018)

Spartrekus said:


> FreeBSD is ok, but not really Unix.
> 
> PDP  V7 or V5, the real UNIX
> 
> ...



What is that? I must compile it to have an ISO or what?


----------



## BSDAppentic3 (Apr 17, 2018)

lebarondemerde said:


> I guess the close you can get of what you want without using old stuff would be IBM AIX, but that come with a price tag. Otherwise any BSD fit in there.



I've read about AIX. The question it's that I mostly use *free* software, such as FBSD, Linux (Debian, Gentoo, Ubuntu, Linux Mint, Manjaro, Arch...), etc. Thus, I don't use RHEL nor HP-UX, for example. Not because I have no money, but because I don't want to pay for software. That's why I like Linux and FBSD. Besides, I still have hope in Linux. A time ago, I read that FreeBSD must be dead...but seriously, BSD should be dead from a decade and half approximately...and we're here using it. What a joke.


----------



## rigoletto@ (Apr 17, 2018)

From Linux the most interesting ones should be Alpine and Void. But if I would need to use Linux for some reason now I would use Ravenports instead of wherever package system they use.


----------



## rufwoof (Apr 17, 2018)

There may be more work prospects on the Linux side ... Debian is a good choice IMO. OpenBSD on the BSD side is simpler to learn IMO, pretty much comes preconfigured. That is of course just opinion. At home we have OpenBSD as a server on a old Celeron single core, Debian for desktops. Handy for learning scripting i.e. what is more portable/common between the two.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Apr 17, 2018)

FreeBSD. It is a direct descendant of ATT UNIX and once contained ATT UNIX code. It's methodology and idiology are the same still if not similar. You can't do better than that without paying for it.

Under no circumstances use Linux. It's heart is not into UNIX and only wishes to be the next Windows on the desktop and is moving farther and farther away from the UNIX philosophy.


----------



## Spartrekus (Apr 17, 2018)

FreeBSD is not so much lean.

The early UNIX source code was very lean (sorry to say).
The source code is here: The real stuffs: http://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V7

you can compare ls.c from PDP of Dennis (V5 or V7) and ls.c from FreeBSD or Linux.

It looks a bit like busybox, but much better.

Basically it may run small, based on not much:

```
#include <stdio.h>
#include <dirent.h>
int main()
{
    DIR *dirp;
    struct dirent *dp;
    dirp = opendir( "." );
    while  ((dp = readdir( dirp )) != NULL )
             printf( "%s\n", dp->d_name );
    closedir( dirp );
    return 0;
}
```

FreeBSD is FreeBSD.
FreeBSD is descendant of UNIX.


----------



## Cthulhux (Apr 17, 2018)

FreeBSD is "UNIX-like" today, not unlike Slackware Linux and Gentoo Linux. There is not much left from its original heritage. The only choice to run UNIX is UNIX.

BSDAppentic3 Enjoy your trip!


----------



## kpedersen (Apr 17, 2018)

Perhaps you can get UNIX V7 x86 running on that machine?
http://www.nordier.com/v7x86/

Or, even though it is the (proposed) successor to UNIX by the same guys rather than actual UNIX, you can run Plan 9. In particular the APE layer.
https://9p.io/plan9/index.html

If you don't care about modern, then Solaris 9 / Solaris 10 (pre Oracle) are pretty pure and the following will work with emulators:
https://winworldpc.com/product/aix/ps2-1-3
https://winworldpc.com/product/a-ux/3x
https://winworldpc.com/product/xenix/unixware-7x

Other than that, I find FreeBSD the most UNIX-like (and UNIX-based) OS that you can get running on modern x86 hardware today.


----------



## BSDAppentic3 (Apr 17, 2018)

Thank y'all for your suggests!
You are making me to remember names that I forgot that I read about those.


----------



## BSDAppentic3 (Apr 17, 2018)

I think I'll make some videos using the systems that you all had mentioned.
My channel it's intended to be one of the more unusual on the whole YT, so why not upload some videos with systems that aren't or weren't too much known?


----------



## danh (Apr 17, 2018)

Plan 9 is closer to the UNIX philosophy than anything else that claims to be a variant today. Everything really is a file. I’d have to look it up, but something like `cat /dev/screen > file` gives you a screen capture. No fancy program necessary.

There is also Inferno built from Plan 9. It was developed mainly for embedded devices, read IoT, and was ahead of its time. A better VM than the JVM and a good garbage collected language called Limbo.

Also, if you just want to learn then look at A2 Bluebottle which is the latest Oberon by Wirth.

If Oberon and Plan 9 are too exotic then Minix is probably a better choice for learning “UNIX” because of its leanness.


----------



## Cthulhux (Apr 17, 2018)

danh said:


> Plan 9 is closer to the UNIX philosophy than anything else that claims to be a variant today.




Plan 9 is surprisingly mouse-centric.


----------



## BSDAppentic3 (Apr 17, 2018)

danh said:


> If Oberon and Plan 9 are too exotic then Minix is probably a better choice for learning “UNIX” because of its leanness.


Maybe for some...but I'm a exentric person, at least using trying software.
And I have 500 GB here, so why not download them?


----------



## BSDAppentic3 (Apr 17, 2018)

But before I can continue, I must ask: those systems that comes in .zip or in another file, I need to build them? I need to compile them?


----------



## Spartrekus (Apr 17, 2018)

In some points of view, the FreeBSD operating system is a bit (very little) a Linux thing.

It runs on modern hardwares. Runs on X86, ARM,... and it involves very evolved bin binaries.
The base system of FreeBSD is designed, contrary to Linux. It has an excellent reliability.
It is complex and works like a swiss watch.

In all cases, FreeBSD is better than Linux and it is closer to Unix than Linux is.

In all cases, probably, minix is cool experience to have, because it is related to both of them.
I really need to run minix again on my PC once I got some time.

Plan 9 is cool, but well, this mouse... who invented the mouse in 80s ? Apple again.
(0:51, 7:55)


----------



## BSDAppentic3 (Apr 17, 2018)

I asked it because I'm more of the kind of guy who download the .iso and install it directly.
But I am always open to new possibilities.
Edit: Well...after seeing some of the OS that some of you suggested...I think FreeBSD it's not so bad. Or hard to use.


----------



## ralphbsz (Apr 17, 2018)

You really need to explain what you mean by "Unix-like" and by "pure".

So by "simple" you mean short source code?  Minix might be good.

Do you mean the original written by Dennis and Ken?  I don't think that source code is available (without a license, and I have no idea where one would get such a license).  And even if you managed to get the source, to run it you would probably first have to buy a used PDP, or find a PDP emulator.  And the result would be surprisingly boring compared to a modern system.

If you mean "new development, more feature-rich, but done in the philosophy of the original Unix", then it really depends on what you define as the "philosophy" of Unix.  Richard Stallman and Rob Pike don't agree on it.

If you want free software (in the sense of being able to inspect the source code), you need to think through why you want that, and what you will do with it.  Have you tried reading the source code for a complete Linux distribution?  Just reading the kernel source (and learning the programming skills required to understand it) would take you years.  If you add the normal user land that is on a standard Fedora or Debian install disk, it would probably take a human centuries to read it.  So again, why do you want the source code exactly?

And the idea of using AIX as a particularly Unix-like OS is funny.  IBM did a lot of stuff to modify AIX.  Here is an example:
Normal Unix: "ls foo" -> "foo: No such file or directory"
AIX: "ls foo" -> "The dataset foo can not be located in the current catalog."

And Plan 9 is nowhere Unix like.  It is a vastly expanded descendent.  I'm not saying that it is bad, only that it is very different.


----------



## Crivens (Apr 17, 2018)

Spartrekus, apple did not invent the mouse. It came, along with windowed GUIs, from XEROX PARC.


----------



## Spartrekus (Apr 17, 2018)

Crivens said:


> Spartrekus, apple did not invent the mouse. It came, along with windowed GUIs, from XEROX PARC.



Apple claimed it many times. I just quoted it from the CEO himself  
(I know)


----------



## ralphbsz (Apr 18, 2018)

Actually, the mouse predates even Xerox PARC: It came from Doug Engelbart at SRI.  I think the original mouse (which is patented) may be in the Computer History Museum in Mountain View today; I'll have to ask my friend who volunteers there.

It is well known that Apple stole nearly all of its good ideas, and many people correctly point out that much of that happened when Steve Jobs (who famously had no morals whatsoever) visited a demo of the Alto at Xerox.  But if you look around, you find that Xerox also stole most of the ideas.  Which shows the following: ideas are easy and free.  The hard stuff is taking a bunch of good ideas, knowing which ideas are actually good and crucial and which ones only look good and are actually fluff, and turning it first into a functioning prototype (which PARC succeeded in).  Even harder is turning a prototype or a demo into a commercially viable product (which Apple succeeded in).  In spite of all the bad things we say about Apple, we have to give them credit for bringing a GUI to the masses.


----------



## Crivens (Apr 18, 2018)

Is that museum visitable online? I would like to see it, but since it is on the other side of the globe that is not so easy.


----------



## ralphbsz (Apr 18, 2018)

Not really visitable online.  There is a lot of information at computerhistory.org, including a large photo gallery from their exhibits.  But to really see an IBM 1401 or PDP-1 working you just have to be there.


----------



## Maxnix (Apr 18, 2018)

At least there are these videos about the IBM 1401 in the CHM:








and these tours












Better than nothing.


----------



## Crivens (Apr 18, 2018)

I'll see if I can get me a selfie with a Z1


----------



## Sensucht94 (Apr 18, 2018)

To add something to what lebarondemerde already said,
another interesting distro, if you prefer compiling from source, is CRUX. I second the choice of Ravenports for  lightweightness, compatibility, cross-platform compiling purposes, even though, on the other hand, Void's xbps is extremely good on its onw already. Other good choices for multi-plartform portable packaging systems are pkgsrc, especially if using Slackware as base OS and nix. I have used Slackware for years before switching to Void and it's really a nice GNU/Linux distribution. Beware however that although I like distro-hopping and trying  on Linux the software, the FSs and the inits I can't have on BSDs,  eventually I always fall back to FreeBSD and NetBSD, which is where I ado all of my study and my serious everyday desktop computing and home server appliances; I'd use DragonflyBSD more if my machines weren't all equipped with Nvidia; Linux to me is more of leisure activity, mostly driven by curiosity and fun, but that's just an opinion of mine


----------



## BSDAppentic3 (Apr 18, 2018)

How it's the thing about paid OS? Windows is paid? And RHEL?


----------



## rigoletto@ (Apr 18, 2018)

RHEL you pay for support, including packages updates. But there is CentOS clone of it.

I do not know how are the contracts related to AIX but as far I know that just run on PowerPC hardware.


----------



## BSDAppentic3 (Apr 18, 2018)

lebarondemerde said:


> RHEL you pay for support, including packages updates. But there is CentOS clone of it.


How much?


----------



## rigoletto@ (Apr 18, 2018)

BSDAppentic3 said:


> How much?


IDK, better ask it to them.


----------



## BSDAppentic3 (Apr 18, 2018)

lebarondemerde said:


> IDK, better ask it to them.


Maybe you're right. I saw that their OS is around of the $499 US.


----------



## ronaldlees (Apr 20, 2018)

danh said:


> Also, if you just want to learn then look at A2 Bluebottle which is the latest Oberon by Wirth.  If Oberon and Plan 9 are too exotic then Minix is probably a better choice for learning “UNIX” because of its leanness.



I have a really old machine (circa 1999) that runs _A2 Bluebottle_. It works, but the browser puts me in mind of Mosaic.  None of my newer machines work with A2, so it'd probably be an issue for most folks.  However; the same people _(Uni @Zurich)_ have created _Barrelfis_h which may be more likely to run on recent hardware, and is compile-able for ARM platforms. Not very related to Unix.

_Plan9_ is about uber-networking, with a potentially much larger network profile (even for cpu sharing, etc).  I have the gut feeling that it'd be more difficult to secure due to the larger network surface area, but I guess I have no anecdotal evidence for the feeling.  As ralphbsz wrote, it's not the original Unix in any way.

_Www.PDP11.org_ would give you an emulator for that ancient stuff, if you'd want to work your mind (but not much else  ).

_Minix3_ is probably somewhat Unix inspired (after all, Tannenbaum did it - IIRC - because there wasn't a free Unix at the time).

The best choice that's doable?  Go back to _FreeBSD 3_, which was very lean. It'll upgrade you from a Mosaic-like browser to an early Netscape one (quite an improvement over A2's browser IMO).  AT&T forced BSD to change the code, but it's no doubt still spiritually connected to true UNIX.  There won't be a canned image for your USB tho :-(

http://ftp-archive.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD-Archive/old-releases/i386/

BTW, welcome to the forum!


----------



## PacketMan (Apr 20, 2018)

BSDAppentic3 said:


> ...I want it principally for learn.



Then go with FreeBSD. Although it may not be perfectly pure to some old version of UNIX its still a great darn-near-close-to-real-UNIX OS, and the support on this forum is top notch. Since its learning you principally want to do with it.


----------



## Spartrekus (Apr 20, 2018)

PacketMan said:


> Then go with FreeBSD. Although it may not be perfectly pure to some old version of UNIX its still a great darn-near-close-to-real-UNIX OS, and the support on this forum is top notch. Since its learning you principally want to do with it.



There is nothing interesting in Pure UNIX. there is only dd, ls, cp, ... and a basic C compiler. What can be interesting in that?


----------



## ShelLuser (Apr 20, 2018)

It kind of saddens me to see how deep Unix has fallen. From one heck of an operating system to something patent trolls are squibling over.


----------



## Crivens (Apr 21, 2018)

You should check out _pcc_, the original portable C compiler. They keep it running on a pdp11 and the 2.2BSD folks are also around.


----------



## Spartrekus (Apr 21, 2018)

Crivens said:


> You should check out _pcc_, the original portable C compiler. They keep it running on a pdp11 and the 2.2BSD folks are also around.



pcc might be in any cases better than tcc.

there is too a legacy cc (machine PDP):
https://github.com/mortdeus/legacy-cc

The original CC V7 is here: http://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V7/usr/src/cmd/cc.c
You just need to compile the lib.
It (cc.c) is not a long code, isn't it? 

Look carefully this from the above, original cc.c code:

```
# include <stdio.h>
# include <ctype.h>
# include <signal.h>
```
Impressive today for a modern programmer ...


----------



## Crivens (Apr 21, 2018)

That cc.c is only the driver code, not the compiler complete. In those days, compilers were multi-passed and had a lot of stages.


----------



## Spartrekus (Apr 21, 2018)

ShelLuser said:


> to something parent





Crivens said:


> That cc.c is only the driver code, not the compiler complete. In those days, compilers were multi-passed and had a lot of stages.



At this time, maybe you know why so many stages?
Denis R. wrote it, right? He must have spent many months/years working on it. He wrote really a lot (see above link with source / *.c comments).


----------



## kpedersen (Apr 21, 2018)

Ken Thompson's 8c from the Plan 9 OS is really lean. If I recall, it was also used by Google's Go compiler in the early days (pre 1.3 IIRC) to compile the Go code into native machine code. This means you can still obtain a port of it to FreeBSD and Windows if you grab it from the old Go archives.


----------



## Crivens (Apr 21, 2018)

Spartrekus said:


> At this time, maybe you know why so many stages?


The pdp11 had what? 64K of memory? There simply was no room to fit it all in.

Does gcc  still have 3 separate programs (cpp, cc1, as)? That is one of the clang speedups, no separate passes for one compile run.

I know of one compiler that had 7 passes (tokenizer, parser, syntax check, semantic check, attribute generation, code selection, code generation) as separate passes. None was bigger than 16 KBytes and the intermediate format was files on disc. This was needed when you have 64K and need to have dynamic data as well as the OS in memory. Optimizer passes were optional.

Would you be able to do that today, you would also be able to multi-thread one compile run. When one C++ file takes minutes to compile, that may be beneficial.


----------



## ronaldlees (Apr 21, 2018)

Crivens said:


> You should check out _pcc_, the original portable C compiler. They keep it running on a pdp11 and the 2.2BSD folks are also around.



A link for convenience:

lang/pcc


----------



## Spartrekus (Apr 21, 2018)

Crivens said:


> The pdp11 had what? 64K of memory? There simply was no room to fit it all in.
> 
> Does gcc  still have 3 separate programs (cpp, cc1, as)? That is one of the clang speedups, no separate passes for one compile run.
> 
> ...



(Except respected Ken). Do you think that today a single programmer would be capable to realize a C compiler just from scratch?
- I am not so sure if this guy today still exist.


----------



## Crivens (Apr 21, 2018)

One C compiler? Sure. Competive production quality? No. I once worked with a guy who had written a complete C++ compiler all by himself. In assembly. Mindboggeling blindingly fast, code quality was, well, on par with single pass compilers. And that was not his first compiler to be written in assembly. You need to be half aspie to talk to such people and be taken serious as well as being able to follow them.

Ah,  that were the times.


----------



## Spartrekus (Apr 21, 2018)

Crivens said:


> One C compiler? Sure. Competive production quality? No. I once worked with a guy who had written a complete C++ compiler all by himself. In assembly. Mindboggeling blindingly fast, code quality was, well, on par with single pass compilers. And that was not his first compiler to be written in assembly. You need to be half aspie to talk to such people and be taken serious as well as being able to follow them.
> 
> Ah,  that were the times.



"ah that were times". you mean that it was good time. But, you mean that such programming C/C++ compiler is no longer of big impact or any interests today?


--
Listening nradio (ncurses)?
https://github.com/spartrekus/nradiofm


----------



## BSDAppentic3 (Apr 22, 2018)

Well...just answering for some questions...I want to learn as I said. I want to start from the basic, then proceed to something more advanced...and so on. Until I found myself learning the actual Unix/BSD/Unix-Like.
It can take me years. Or not.


----------



## BSDAppentic3 (Apr 22, 2018)

There must be something bad or from another world in my head, that makes me feel good using a CLI instead of a GUI. The letters, the commands, the sintaxis...all this makes me feel like if I back in time, but at the same time being in the present and using something which IT'S the future.
Sorry, I'm a bit mystic. I'm not so logic as some people expected. Maybe I am, but sometimes not.
Note: My trident isn't for "beastie". It is for Neptune. It's its symbol. Well, it could be for both


----------



## Spartrekus (Apr 22, 2018)

BSDAppentic3 said:


> There must be something bad or from another world in my head, that makes me feel good using a CLI instead of a GUI. The letters, the commands, the sintaxis...all this makes me feel like if I back in time, but at the same time being in the present and using something which IT'S the future.
> Sorry, I'm a bit mystic. I'm not so logic as some people expected. Maybe I am, but sometimes not.
> Note: My trident isn't for "beastie". It is for Neptune. It's its symbol. Well, it could be for both



Cli could  mean eventually / likely using ncurses at some points. https://invisible-island.net/ncurses/ncurses-intro.html

Using CLI rather than GUI is not a classic use of a modern PC... really not, thinking about Apple, Android, Mac,...

CLI goes to essential, content, and rapid solutions.
All *BSD systems have their terminal (luckily)


----------



## BSDAppentic3 (Apr 22, 2018)

Spartrekus said:


> Using CLI rather than GUI is not a classic use of a modern PC... really not.
> CLI goes to essential, content, and rapid solutions.


That's exactly the point: I don't want to use mandatorely a GUI only for fix a trouble.
But don't take this like if I despise the graphical interface.
It is the opposite, a system without it, well...it goes to the essentials. It goes to the "business", to the point.
I will explain you: in my time using (and knowing) only Windows, I never heard about its CMD. When I started to get interested in this kind of things, I found that Windows has one.
The next came when I get a barely idea of what can I do inside this kind of interface. In my school, I received a netbook which came with two OS: it was Grub. Inside this net, came (of course) Windows 7. But also came "Huayra Linux": https://huayra.conectarigualdad.gob.ar/
A system based on Debian.
The next came when I knew Debian. There the things were getting hotter, more interesting.


----------



## Spartrekus (Apr 22, 2018)

BSDAppentic3 said:


> That's exactly the point: I don't want to use mandatorely a GUI only for fix a trouble.
> But don't take this like if I despise the graphical interface.
> It is the opposite, a system without it, well...it goes to the essentials. It goes to the "business", to the point.
> I will explain you: in my time using (and knowing) only Windows, I never heard about its CMD. When I started to get interested in this kind of things, I found that Windows has one.
> ...



Linux and BSD are very much two different things.

In any cases, MS Windows is out of usage 

The important thing with Linux is to have a solid, good, kernel for having most the hardware working.
Modern Linux 4.x kernels are really good in terms of new hardware support.


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Apr 22, 2018)

BSDAppentic3 said:


> That's exactly the point: I don't want to use mandatorely a GUI only for fix a trouble.
> But don't take this like if I despise the graphical interface.
> It is the opposite, a system without it, well...it goes to the essentials. It goes to the "business", to the point.



Then why not install the Window Manager of your choice and stay with FreeBSD?

With my x-11/wm/fluxbox desktops you either work from the terminal or a text editor to Admin your machine. Programs are accessed with a minimalist right-click menu you edit yourself. I have a taskbar but hide it unless my cursor is at the bottom of the screen.

My desktops are fully capable, for buisness and pleasurable activities, but I prefer function over form. I would say mine are more set up as strictly business when it comes to eye candy and fluff.


----------



## BSDAppentic3 (Apr 22, 2018)

Trihexagonal said:


> Then why not install the Window Manager of your choice and stay with FreeBSD?
> 
> With my x-11/wm/fluxbox desktops you either work from the terminal or a text editor to Admin your machine. Programs are accessed with a minimalist right-click menu you edit yourself. I have a taskbar but hide it unless my cursor is at the bottom of the screen.
> 
> My desktops are fully capable, for buisness and pleasurable activities, but I prefer function over form. I would say mine are more set up as strictly business when it comes to eye candy and fluff.



Thanks for the suggest. Now you must tell me or indicate how to configure it to have something so amazing like this:


----------



## BSDAppentic3 (Apr 22, 2018)

Trihexagonal It looks amazing man. But I have no knowing on how to configure a WM.


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Apr 22, 2018)

BSDAppentic3 said:


> Trihexagonal It looks amazing man. But I have no knowing on how to configure a WM.



That's not my screenshot, but it is x11-wm/fluxbox. There are plenty of mine in the screenshot thread and they all look the basically same sans wallpaper. He's using one of the default Fluxbox styles, bora black, with rounded edges. I use my own 8ball B&W style with square edges otherewise mine would look the same. (His are inconsistent. If you notice the corners on his app title bar are rounded, the menu ahd taskbar have square corners.)

Add it to your /usr/home/username/.xinitrc file as the last line like this. I have other programs start with boot so I'm ready to go:


```
Eterm &
gkrellm &
xfe &
fluxbox exec
```

Use `startx` from your user account at the login terminal.

The menu is located at /usr/home/username/.fluxbox/menu and you need to manually add the programs you've installed with a text editor. If the text editor you're looking for isn't already listed on the menu invoke it through the terminal from your user account, not your root account, and add it. There are already examples there you can work from, just watch that your markup syntax stays in sync so you don't lose a sub-menu.

Styles go in /usr/local/share/fluxbox/styles and I have a few available on my site you can use and modify with a text editor to your taste. The rest is all done through the right-cliclk menu.


There's really nothing hard about it but I'll be glad you answer any questions if you have a problem with it.


----------



## BSDAppentic3 (Apr 23, 2018)

Trihexagonal said:


> That's not my screenshot, but it is x11-wm/fluxbox. There are plenty of mine in the screenshot thread and they all look the basically same sans wallpaper. He's using one of the default Fluxbox styles, bora black, with rounded edges. I use my own 8ball B&W style with square edges otherewise mine would look the same. (His are inconsistent. If you notice the corners on his app title bar are rounded, the menu ahd taskbar have square corners.)
> 
> Add it to your /usr/home/username/.xinitrc file as the last line like this. I have other programs start with boot so I'm ready to go:
> 
> ...



Very complete 
Very instructive 
I like it.
I'll try to install it in my non-root account.
I'll be sending you a message, because I think this is too much off-topic. This thread was intended to speak about OS, not WM. Anyway, thank you for your messages 
I don't want that the mods get angry because of my deviation.


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Apr 23, 2018)

BSDAppentic3 said:


> I'll try to install it in my non-root account.



Well this is very on-topic and why I specified using your user account and not your root account. Multiple people have addressed this issue already so let's put it to rest.

You should only work from your root account to Admin your machine and then only. EOL

You should know why. Feel free to message me.


----------



## ralphbsz (Apr 23, 2018)

Crivens said:


> I know of one compiler that had 7 passes (tokenizer, parser, syntax check, semantic check, attribute generation, code selection, code generation) as separate passes.



I used to use Hi-Tech C on cp/m (about 56 KB of memory available).  Don't remember how many passes the compiler had, but it was many (at least half a dozen), and compiling and linking a medium-size program (300 or 500 lines) using a floppy as storage took about 10 minutes, most of it being on disk IO.

Today, with nearly infinite memory being available, having multiple passes with intermediate files on disk is insane.  Yet, compiles are still mostly IO limited; to keep modern fast CPUs busy, one typically has to have about 8 or 16 parallel compiles going to be CPU chip.



Crivens said:


> One C compiler? Sure. Competive production quality? No.


The Hi-Tech C compiler (which is production quality, and is still sold today for embedded systems) is written and maintained by 1 person; I think he gets help with tech support, distribution, shipping and the business side.

But then, C is a much smaller language than C++.


----------

