The factors that make Linux based systems unfriendly or subpar are entirely cultural ones. Specifically the development culture. While there are technical issues, none are that big of a deal in the long view. The underlying architecture is very workable. Building "another OS" doesn't accomplish anything - and from your posts, I believe you may not understand how a Linux desktop system is structured. Nor have you articulated any specific goals that would motivate this project in the first place.

P.S. Try Linut Mint Cinnamon.

A perfect OS for me is a 'smart', multi multipurpose, multi multitasking, not free, not open source, very customizable, voice/gesture controlled OS with a great UI, always 'learning' and is very user 'friendly' and definitely not related to apple or linux, but a teenie weenie bit of Windows (can't wait to start making my version of J.A.R.V.I.S.).
Windows is perfect but i still want mine.

I must admit, I loled.

I lol'ed to.

I think no one wants to rebuild 16 million lines of code from scratch again.

I just got the impression people were trying to make Linux do what it wasn't designed to do

Tutorial Doctor, kernels are designed to manage memory, paging, thread and process scheduling, file systems, networking, general low level device communication. What do you think WinNT kernel does that is so different from Linux?

If you confuse OS with Kernel, then I don't think you should have so many opinions about it, just start researching a bit...

Tutorial Doctor, kernels are designed to manage memory, paging, thread and process scheduling, file systems, networking, general low level device communication

That is what I figured Linux did myself, and the reason people use it for servers and stuff. But the process used to manage the memory could vary from Linux to something entirely new.

So building an OS off of a Linux kernel could work, (has worked) but if such a thing was intended when the process was created-- I don't know.

As I said, I can't form any valid opinion on Linux, but I was thinking that an OS that was designed to meet the criteria above from the start would be ideal. Can't say if it is realistic yet.

Now, I do hear the phrase "don't reinvent the wheel" a lot, but I think that there just might be more efficient alternatives even to old and established things. The lightbulb was a neat idea, but might there be some more efficient way of giving light? Sure, perhaps creating something relatively new, "Nothing new under the sun" would prove a lot of work, but that is how revolutions start.

Most information is built off of a base of knowledge. But just like a building, if the base or foundation had issues, so will the final building, no matter how long you build on the foundation.

Another example is how a geodesic design is more efficient than a rectilinear design (where the housing market concerned.) In the 1970s such innovation was impractical, but in this modern world of "energy efficiency" such a design was the future. And I do think that such a design should be used today, and some people would still be alive if it had been (the design is very resilient).

I do like to research old ideas to see why their applications failed, and see if there might be some new way to handle the old ideas with the advancements we have today.

The Egyptians had some cool stuff... haha.

Apple hit it bigger because it had user friendliness and speed.

Apple hit it big due to marketing. Early Mac's were a pain in the ass to use and were as slow as hell. Someone convinced my high school to buy a suite of Mac classics (1990) and some days in computer science class we got absolutely nothing done because the server and computers hadn't booted up by the time the class ended.

They still managed to sell a ton of those.

I was thinking about the Iphone. Yeah, I didn't care for the Macintosh myself.

I think no one wants to rebuild 16 million lines of code from scratch again

Minus the 16M part, are you sure?

Now, I do hear the phrase "don't reinvent the wheel" a lot, but I think that there just might be more efficient.

If YOU don't see any reason to. In this case, I see a reason to and there is definitely something more efficient.

Minus the 16M part, are you sure?

All right, no one that actually understands the amount of work needed.

You could also just program a new desktop environment for Linux that you like and buy a faster computer if you still don't like the speed (even though Linux is pretty fast and looks a lot like Unix)...

My pefect operating system was the one on the BBC Micro. Jump strieght into a BASIC interpreter that would also let you do inline asm. No multitasking destractions = Bliss :)