two co-existing projects
Mon, 28 Apr 1997 16:02:19 -0700
>Subject: Re: two co-existing projects
>Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 15:22:15 -0700
>From: "Reginald S. Perry" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>"Mike" == Mike McDonald <email@example.com> writes:
>> Well, I guess I'm in the third camp that wants a native PC based
>> system that's tailored to run LISP, not Smalltalk, not ML, not JAVA.
>> If someone wants to write emulators for those things in Lisp,
>> fine. I believe that yet another universal VM is neither a relevant
>> nor useful goal.
>I am in this camp also. I want to stick in a boot floppy that boots
I doubt a LispOS would fit on one floppy. Maybe a floppy and a CD.
>This is also why I would disagree with implementing it on top
>of Linux. Having a lisp OS obviates the need for signals and all of
>the associated Unix crap.
I believe that using Linux as a basis is a starting point, not the
end. You start with linux so that you can make rapid progress in the
beginning, so that you can show the PC LispM to people to get suuport.
Eventually, you replace all of Linux with lisp based components. And
since you're going to have to implement some form of all of that unix
crap, just as well start with someone else's work.
> I dont want that and I would bet that the
>people who harken back to the days of Symbolics dont want that
>either. We want a fast Lisp/OS on stock hardware thats portable. Mach
>did it, BSD did it. We should do it.
I view Linux in the same light as Symbolics fans view the FEP. It's
a necessary piece but not very exciting. (The FEP had such things as
basic disk partitioning commands, hardware initialization, and booting
of the lisp image. A linux based FEP would have things like fdisk and
mklmfs in it.)