Operating System wishlist

List of what I would like from my operating system. Split into two; core operating system features, and desktop features. All entries subject to revision (depends on identifying my state of annoyance).

Core operating system requests

I don’t care if any of these actions or features can be done, I would like to see them…

To work for the lifetime of the hardware

Lifetime, for commercial computers, is usually set at three years. For most home computers it’s more like ten years. There is a difference.

Now, I know this seems like a crazy notion, but why must I change the system? Coders will say, “But you can’t expect the makers to release security patches and maintain software for ten years!”. Point to me, I’m not asking that. I’m asking that the system, in a secure state, will last ten years—that’s different.

Dependency boxing

Reduce version dependency round the system. Recent systems have been boxing dependencies with the apps e.g. Flatpak, Snap. Zero install also caches and sandboxes. Docker sandboxes filesystem trees. You could simply replace patches of the system— I’ve not looked into it, but CENTOS Stream maybe heads that way (detail is sketchy). The operating system NixOS is an auto‐build system for operating systems, seems to use a Zero‐Install type approach to resolve dependencies system‐wide? So, I’m not saying it’s easy, but if you want a valuable innovation, why not?

Offer Upgrades

Windows I recall has offered full upgrades of system several times. Support people usually ignore these upgrades in favour of a full re‐install. Reasons given are that an upgrade takes longer, is often packed with re‐configuration errors, and feels less fresh of a new install. Only reason to try upgrade is to preserve a licence—hence the Windows 10 upgrade grief, which drove people mad for two years. As for Apple upgrades—if you are an Apple user, you’ll know all about that. I suppose we can say, “Yes, Apple offer upgrades”.

Linux operating systems rarely offer upgrades. I’m into the realms of speculation here, but the professionals who make Linux Distributions often reinstall systems in full, so perhaps they don’t understand why this would be a good feature for home users. Also, writing and distributing full‐system upgrades is not a simple as it may appear—you can’t just replace a few folders of code, you need to read the user’s configuration then update, for example, the current applications. I don’t know for sure, but in the fluid world of Linux operating systems, this could be an expensive feature to maintain and guarantee. What I know is that recent versions of Ubuntu are offering upgrades and this is, from me but cautiously, welcomed.

Summary

Windows has often (always?) offered upgrades, but they are clunky and haunted by issues. They can not be regarded as an offer ‘To work for lifetime of the machine’. Licensing and support policy has often specifically rejected an offer like that.

As for Linux operating systems, their culture encourages full‐system replacement. Beyond the Long Term Support offers (‘LTS’), which usually last three years, they make no offer nor attempt at extended support. That said, two recent systems, CENTOS Stream and NixOS, are offering more fluid updates/upgrades. Both sound promising. Also, recent Ubuntu systems have been offering upgrade options. While I find the idea clunky, it probably falls within a request to ‘To work for the lifetime of the hardware’.

To update without restarts

This needs a code effort, but I see no issue. If you want to deal with the issue. Windows has never been good at this. Linux was good at this, but its consumer desktops are now as bad as anything else.

To hibernate/suspend

Not a lot to ask, especially with laptops and batteries. Ah, but it is. Windows can do this every time. Linux Torsvalds, of the Linux operating system, had things to say about the hardware/firmware provision, and it has been an ongoing problem. The developers say it is not their fault, we’re stuck with the problem.

To stay current with broad swathes of technology

I am not asking for support for every printer as soon as it is released. Maybe within a year of their general adoption. Maybe when standards for a technology are implemented. When I say handling, here are some examples—for USB sticks I mean maybe auto‐mounting, and a button to eject. And for Bluetooth, a switch to switch on and off.

Ok, technically that is not simple. Windows has always been there or thereabouts. Due to the politics and approach, Linux distros have struggled for years with emerging technologies. Name the technology; wireless cards, USB, Bluetooth, SSD and so forth. Linux has fought with them all. In 2021, my new computer, with new distro, is freezing on ‘suspend’. I do not hold the technology support failures against the Linux environment. But I can wish.

Software uninstall

I do not want to compile code. This is not laziness. Grant that Linux administrators want packaging systems because they want guarantees a code base will play correctly with the surrounding system. This is not the reason a home user like me wants a packaging system. First the home user wants the packaging system for an easy install, Second, less well‐covered but for sure in my case, I want a packaging system so that if I try a program, I can dispose of it. Compiling does not guarantee that. Packaging does. Windows generally achieves this—Windows ‘exe’ files can be installed then removed. Linux systems can do it by way of packaging. However, some Linux systems believe in compiling.

To have a reasonable shot at restoring the desktop after shutdown

I am forever having to shut down computers. Or laptops run out of battery. Every app I can get back to previous configuration sames me time. The ability of Firefox to recall it’s running tabs has saved me months of my life. I estimate it takes me forty minutes to restore a computer to a more or less fully‐working environment. What stops this feature is probably app and system authors pointing fingers at each other an saying, ‘Your responsibility”. That and the fact the feature is far more valuable to home users than it would be to professional system users. Windows operating systems have never shown any interest in this. Only one set of operating systems I have ever used have, the early Ubuntu/Gnomes. They are history.

Low power consumption

This is not critical, but it is a preference. With requests like text‐only routes and simple GUIs I feel I have a right to expect low power consumption. This has not always been the case. Windows has not always delivered this. Linux is even more wildly variable, usually to the worse. Basically, Linux graphics are power‐hungry and sometimes not able to take advantage of underlying hardware.

Desktop Requests

Requests that lean towards desktop provision.

To provide a desktop that does nothing automatically unless I request so

Doing things on my behalf is rude. I despite auto‐updates. Legendary that Windows operating systems do not do this. Linux desktops generally act like this, except when their developers get a genie on them.

Power and memory usage indicators

This applet, whatever you want to call it, is invaluable to me. I need to know if my computer is running to the max. I need to know what stresses it. I need to know in realtime when a rogue webpage is endangering my system. Yes, FireFox has crashed or stalled my Linux, time without number. No, Conky is not an answer, because Conky sits behind the operative evironment.

Windows operating systems generally can supply syatem monitors, though they are not standard and there was a period, after XP and since Windows 8, when monitors needed obscure software. Windows is not keen on system monitors except for professional purpose. Linux has the capability built right in, but only the top handful of heavy distros can put a display on the desktop.

Editable icons, menus and shortcuts

Wanting to do this, and why you would want it, is beyond computer professionals. For them, a desktop is a shortcut to what they do, not an environment they commit to.

Windows, no problem. Had Desktop shortcuts from the start. Linux distributions have erratic provision. Just let me edit menus, will you?

Text‐based usage paths

Well, first, installation routines. I am sick of slideshows on installation routines. Which, on an older computer, can crash on install. I do not want to see another software manager that shows me self‐promotional pictures, text and weblinks, all written by coders. Shout here for the TinyCore Linux installer. And mention for the modern CENTOS installer, which is text‐based. I don’t like the layout, and the options are developer‐centric, but it’s a relief.

After that, the operating system. Nothing wrong with text, and many good things, like comparability of reports, focus of information, small size of screen estate, searching and results‐filtering. I agree, in some ways text is not the best for accessibility. But if it works good, you can work from there. What’s wrong with text‐entry GUIs? That’s what a web‐browser is. Was.

Windows is very keen on helping it’s users, so I can expect nothing from there. Linux—I hoped for more, or is that… I hoped for less? After all, one base of Unix is ‘everything is a file’. Perhaps that means also, ‘everything can be found on a filepath’. But Linux distros forever want to look ‘slick’ and ‘modern’ and all those kinds of words.

Clear text

Anti‐aliased fonts and full black–white contrast in themes would seem to be basics. Windows text rendering is high quality. Dedoimedio has complained long about the situation in Linux distributions, here Dedoimedio attempts to improve Fedora, but nearly every Dedoimedio distro review contains adverse criticism.

To show me the filesystem

In an unadorned way where I can navigate, then manipulate files and permissions through the GUI. More, file browsers, which are the GUI solution, have become very sophisticated pieces of code. Consider—they nowadays are not only navigators, but react in real time to file contents, act as ad‐hoc file launchers, contain shortcuts and other navigation features, have configurable displays, etc.

Windows has repeatedly tried to hide the filesystem, on the basis that a mundane user doesn’t need it. Linux has hidden the filesystem (oh yes, you, Unity, and Gnome 3) because they have no principles. However, most of the time Linux developers work on operating systems as developer‐level utility so yes, I can see and manipulate the filesystem. Which I want to do.

Have a text‐based GUI packaging manager

This request is a result of my requests for a package manager and simple text‐based GUIs. No, I do not want to use the commandline for this. There are, as you know, multiple cultures for one commandline. You are really asking me to know ‘apt’, ‘ri’, ‘pip’… and remember the words and switches, and options, and all the rest of it. Forget all that. Please, one package repository, one interface. And no, I positively do not want a ‘modern’ approach with pictures. Please, searchable text for names, brief descriptions as result, push buttons to make it go.

Windows would never consider such a program. For Debian repositories, this program exists and is called ‘synaptic’. ‘synaptic’ is one of my main reasons for staying with a Linux desktop. Whatever is wrong with ‘synaptic’, it has not been fixed by inserted images.

To have a text editor with spellchecking, a text editor with code highlighting, and an advanced commandline

Simple requests, eh? Windows, forget it. Never had those things as stock, though you could argue for Notepad++, and thousands use it. Linux always has text‐editors. Small, neat, spell‐correcting text editors are a developer‐level joy, so are more natural to Linux then a graphical operating system. As for advanced commandline, Linux has one, but Windows again is uncommitted.

Right click to unzip a file

I could make another list of these niggles, but this is the biggest. Windows can do this, and has done this since pre‐history. As for Linux, it has grown more sophisticated, so has a set of expand utilities to handle all sorts of strange scenarios such as Unix ‘tar’ files. So it can not. Just do it, and tell me why not (e.g. ‘it’s a Tar file’). Good example of developer‐centric thinking being an amateur‐user fail.

What I do not need

Yes, I know in several cases when I list these items I go against the grain of what most users would request. However, if the Linux desktops wanted to mark themselves out, perhaps they would prioritise more like this (for me!)?

Search ability

I’m good with commandline searching. That means search everywhere. In particular, I do not want web, remote file (cloud), and filesystem searches muddled.

Help or help files

I can list the help files that have helped me. Once in while, I summon Unix commandline ‘help’ switches to see the most basic form of a commandline. The one ‘help’ provision I was impressed with was for Lotus Smartsuite. And I recall the help in Sony Vegas being well organised and available. If you can’t use the GUI, what good is help text? And if the makers can’t make a GUI, are their help files likely to be any good? Ok, it’s good, and perhaps even responsible, to distribute help info with a product, but aside from ensuring distribution, I’d be perfectly happy with a text file somewhere, or on the web. Incidentally, many Linux projects do not have help anywhere. This is not to their credit. Writing help files makes, by raising issues, a project better—it’s a kind of testing.

Desktop animation (or eye‐candy)

Especially, animations that slow the display are a negative strike.

A word processor

I don’t use them. Once in a blue moon, usually to pass data on to others. Note that, while the existence of LibreOffice can be regarded as a blessing to Linux, it has little use to me. If I could convert my own markup to Microsoft Office files, I would never use LibreOffice. Note that LibreOffice still cannot convert to the most recent Microsoft standards. Dedoimedio reports it works, but only on the most basic of documents. Yes, I know the background. Yes, it’s a difficult job and politics will prevent conversions ever being perfect. But, to repeat, if my proposed conversion tool would do no more then accurately style a text document into any chosen version of Microsoft Word formats, I would be happy with that.