Is there any modern day text based operating systems

Is there any modern day text based operating systems

If so what are the best ones

Other urls found in this thread:

forthos.org
minix3.org/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

You could just load up any GNU/Linux distribution and work from the terminal. I don't understand the question.

install gentoo

Freedos

Linux is the main thing actually used as such an OS, and the only thing I personally would recommend.

People even make flurries of virtual machines and containerized linuxes all over the clouds.

Linux, *BSD, etc.

Linux though I can't imagine why you'd want to use just the terminal.

Yes it's called init 1.

You can just do like said and use a TTY
alternatively, there's also the BSDs, other unices like solaris, hurd, and

basically every *nix OS that can be installed without a GUI

FreeDOS

DOS derivatives are still plenty shit, even if they are better than what you worked with back then.

Just go with Linux or, if you must, at least BSD. Pretty much no point doing anything else if you want "modern" and "best".

I'd just like to interject for moment. What you're refering to as init, is in fact, systemd/init, or as I've recently taken to calling it, systemd plus init. init is not a startup daemon unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning systemd system made useful by the systemd boot manager, QR code generator and vital system components comprising a full startup daemon as defined by Lennart Poettering.

XNU/Darwin

It's literally CLI MacOS

UNIX

>XNU/Darwin
Fucking stop, it's just Darwin.

darwin is the name of the kernel and could imply using just MacOS

Darwin is the name of the OS OS X is based on. XNU is Darwin's kernel.

Arch Linux

various Unix systems
and Gnu/linux based.

i normally use console mode unless web browsing or virtualization

gui is optional

Why would you want to do this?

NEXT QUESTION:

Are there any operating systems that are 100% graphical? As in they aren't built on or with a CMD shell, and possibly without any words at all? Would it even be possible?

>DOS derivatives are still plenty shit
Come back here and say that in my face

Mac OS

Every Windows since XP.

he's probably trying to be ascetic

found the fucking apple shills. too bad steve jobs is dead and you can't suck his cock.

No no, those have shell that can be accessed.
You're missing the point. I mean an OS written in in a language with out words. Not a single word appearing anywhere in the OS's daily use, or even in it's code. Everything is graphical. Renaming a file would require drawing a picture for instance. Is it even possible?

>without any words at all?
That's how?

Old Windows, classic MacOS and BeOS/Haiku have GUI implemented in the core.

How is stating facts shilling for Apple? Fuck off, dipshit.

Mac OS doesn't have a CLI. I didn't read your full post and it of course has words, but definitely meets your first requirement.

Only because pacman always fucks up xorg.conf

There's a bare metal Forth OS.

forthos.org

Forth is fucking retarded. Worst language.

t. retard nigger

This board really needs IDs. I suspect you make 1/2 the posts here kike.

Try a minimal Debian install. You won't be disappointed.

I've always wanted to write an OS in Forth for Open Firmware

It's practically an OS already. Even has networking.

Forth is disgusting

I know, I want to build upon it

Actually it's the most redpilled programming language out there, excepting HolyC, Lisp, and Smalltalk.

>A programming language can be redpilled
Fuck off.

Forth has disgusting vomit inducing system. Deal with it.

>get Powerbook G4
>go nuts
Already have all your drivers and stuff ready user.

Also I have an OLPC XO-1.5 which has OpenFirmware.

As soon as you start vim and realise there's no way to get 256 colours in a tty you will be.

FreeDOS, or nearly any GNU/Linux or BSD distro without a GUI. You can also start Mac OS X in single user mode by holding Command + Shift + S on boot. Not sure why you'd want to do this though, as it's a pain in the ass and a GUI makes like better. Time for new hardware?

XNU is the kernel, you stupid cunt.

>Mac OS doesn't have a CLI
You make life so painful for those who have to read the idiotic Aspergers-tier trash you post here. Mac OS X has single user mode which is all text based. It also has a whole bunch of terminal emulators available. See pic related, dumbfuck.

>has disgusting vomit inducing system
You're a fucking CHINEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE or a POOOOOOOOOO your awful usage is showing through.

Sorry chinky poo you have to go back, cancelling all H1Bs. You can work for poo tokens and smog.

Forth is redpilled as fuck, all people who are white know this.

>You make life so painful for those who have to read the idiotic Aspergers-tier trash you post here. Mac OS X has single user mode which is all text based. It also has a whole bunch of terminal emulators available. See pic related, dumbfuck.
It's all the same chinkpoo, in every thread, just making bait replies. It gets (You)'s and generates captcha solutions so he's doing his part.

>system
Syntax*
Not sure why it came out like that

I'm not paid in any way. Now attack my arguments I've put forth or leave this board, you tech illiterate brainlet.

I've got more hardware than I could ever possibly need, I just need to learn Forth and more about operating systems

>256 colours in a tty
Why would you even want this?

>XNU is the kernel, you stupid cunt.
I never claimed otherwise, you braindead mongoloid.
>Mac OS X
Mac OS and OS X are two entirely different operating systems, you fucking buffoon.

Try out the OS I linked. All source is included.

>Hur dur colors are bad

Just admit you're Jewish, you'll feel better.

>Mac OS and OS X
No, they're not. The only difference is the name. You're the braindead mongoloid here.

They are literally entirely different things. This is indisputable.

This board really needs IDs.

So Satan, tell me the gigantic difference between Fag OS 10.11 and 10.12. It's the same shit under a different name.

The differences between OS X 10.11 and macOS 10.12 aren't much at all. The differences between Mac OS 9 (and its preceding versions) and Mac OS X 10.0 (and every subsequent version), on the other hand, are quite substantial.

hurd is a kernel, you illiterate dumbfuck

TempleOS

#justwintoddlerthings

Don't fall for the shit bait anons. The poster above is a CIA nigger.

>Mac OS 9
That wasn't at all what I was talking about. Apple's BSD distribution has been renamed to Mac OS from OS X with the release of 10.12.

>That wasn't at all what I was talking about
It's exactly what I was talking about though.
>Apple's BSD distribution has been renamed to Mac OS from OS X with the release of 10.12
I never said otherwise. Also, 10.12+ is macOS, not Mac OS, which seems to be the source of your confusion.

We had Mac OS 9, then we moved on to 10. We are still on Mac OS 10. It always was and always will be a BSD distribution made by a company with a fruit as their logo. Why are we even having this discussion?

>Why are we even having this discussion
Because you are having an extremely difficult time understanding this very simple thing. I was not talking about OS X, I was talking about Mac OS 9 and friends. You then jumped in, started flailing your arms like the retard you are, and spouted irrelevant facts about an irrelevant OS.

I'd like to say Plan9 but I'm not sure if that's even still being developed by anyone, wasn't there a fork of it made a few years ago?

Gentoo

Strangely relevant

Underrated post.

> being this paranoid about licensing

No wonder half of the free software fanatics are either in jail (Reiser) or killing themselves (Ian).

I know the post was sarcasm, but still, they exist.

Minix

Is it still developed?

Yep.

Version 3 was recently released. It still has no USB support, but it will follow soon.

Minix is a micro kernal, of course, it's fleshed out with FreeBSD bells and whistles.

>Yep.
Why, why? Why he still does it? Why he keeps developing? Why he persists?

Check 9front.

He keeps being given money. That's why it's being developed. It's been going since 1987, I think?

Of course, Linux is a fork of Minix.

It's the most secure kernal that's publicly available, apparently.

CTRL+F -> TempleOS

Nice, my friend!!!!!

>modern
freedos is 16bit, that's not modern.

And nobody works over it save for professor himself.

16-bit doesn't make FreeDOS non-modern, they had a new release recently.

>16-bit doesn't make FreeDOS non-modern
In an area of 64bit, yes, it does.
only allowing access to 16MB of RAM is a fucking joke.

There is a team, apparently.

minix3.org/

It make the average Linux distro look like Windows Vista....

>16-bits
>16MB

fpbp.

Are you some kind of hipster trying to get coolness points with the internet?

>Linux is a fork of Minix.
no it isn't

>triggered.

Whats the use if there is no USB support and no software? What will I do with it, browse Sup Forums on 15 year old laptop? Unless it can be molded into something usable for PoS or some shit.

It uses BSD software.

I'm not bothered about the lack of USB support, I can simply plug a USB drive into another computer and copy the file over the network.

2^16 = 65536, or 64 MB

That's 64KB, way off from the 16MB you originally put

XNU is not Unix, and therefore not BSD.

>being 12

>fork a BSD OS
>name it Totally Not Unix BSD
>it's suddenly not Unix anymore
That's not how things work.

>mach kernel
>Unix
You can only pick one

>mach kernel
>OS X
You also can only pick one.

XNU is just a modified mach kernel.

Mach is a part of XNU but XNU is not wholly Mach. It's therefor blatantly false to say that XNU is Mach.

ubuntu server comes with no gui mate