Litestep + alternate...

I have my server now, but it keeps crashing on litestep. Do you know any good alternate shell, or do you have any idea how to skin the system the hardway? I mean without any shell, just skin the original code, and code it in vb and maby even a peace of c++.

Now I also have another question: dit somewhere here ever builded their own x-windows for linux? (the linux users will understand me I hope.... )

If so, witch kernel did you use, and how much time did it take you?

thanks,
3,602 views 6 replies
Reply #1 Top
/me waits patient for jafo to wake up.... (and in the mean while bumping this threat sneaky up.... )
Reply #2 Top
the first part of your post is almost babyaesque
i´m not really sure if alternative shells are the right thing for you. have a look here: http://shells.lokai.net/ this site has some nice reviews on some of them.

you might want to ask part2 on a *NIX board. although some people say this here is a techy board, it is not.

i´m sure Jafo will have some nice anecdotes of the good olden days for you when he wakes up.
Reply #3 Top

Ah...those were the days...

Actually....just remember to look upon an OS as being in two parts....a Kernel and a Shell...[OK, so they weren't too creative with names].

Explorer is the default shell for the Windows Kernel...but there are quite a few others as alternatives...the most potentially 'capable' being LiteSTEP.

In XP in particular the Task Manager negates any real reason for a shell...you can get by without Explorer even loading at all....but the idea of a shell is to provide a functional interface between the Kernal and its user...that is all...

Reply #4 Top
Ok, I see, do you know if there is any way to skin explorer? I mean without any shell or windowblinds or extra apps.

And did any of you build ever a shell them self, (if you did probably on a linux kernel)
Reply #5 Top
What do you mean by building? Without being too technical making software involves:

1) Programming (a shell is merely just another program with a collection of ueser interface facilities). The program is just a series of commands and declarations in a text file. You need just a simple text editor to make such code. Often it is written in a language called C or C++.
2) Compiling. The text made in step #1 is translated in a form that is easier to manage for software in step #3. The files generated by this step can also be distributed without the need of having its source (made in step #1). These files _can_ be in a format that is machine independent. The software used in this step is called a compiler.
3) Building: The files produced in step #3 are translated in the actual program. These files are the ones we can run. In MS Windows these show up as EXE files. The software that produces the executables is called a linker.

The easiest way is not having to compile or build an operating system at. MS is doing that. You just need to install it. But that limits the OS to compatible processors only. Unix often distributes the files in step 2 only. The manufacturer often keeps the files of step #1. So Unix can be ported to other processor without much fuzz (partially true, but I won't go into details). Linux offers you both the files produced in steps #1 and #2. So you can change the code if you want and compile and build it. Or you can just build the compiled code given to you. Some newer distributions will probably integrate the building step in the installation procedure, so you won't notice the building step. I remember reading about that a while back. Building your own software (step #3) has the advantage that the executables can be optimized for your processor.

Of course you will need a good compiler and linker if you want or need to do these steps by yourself.

The kernel (the part of the operating system which contains the basic functions), the shell (the part which contains the user interface) and the drivers (the parts which controls the hardware) are just programs like any other.

So the above gives us the simple answers to questions in post #4:
No, you cannot do that without changing the code in step #1. MS has it. But you can use additional software like WebBlinds. But you don't want that.
Yes, you can build any part of Linux you want, including the shell.
No, I never build a Linux shell.

I'll advice you to use the most friendly Linux distribution you can find or be prepared to invest a lot of time in it.

And the answer to your next question: No. We won't add a KDE theme section.
Reply #6 Top
StylSkinner - Skinning without additional software (a.k.a.: the hard-way, using reg-hacks, etc...) try http://www.virtualplastic.net for some great info. As far as alternate shells, my fav is LiteStep, but SharpE is decent, too http://www.lowdimension.net

As always, when using an alternate shell, I strongly recommend using a shell manager or switcher like ShellON or Carapace.