two co-existing projects
Alaric B. Williams
Tue, 29 Apr 1997 19:42:44 +0000
On 28 Apr 97 at 15:22, email@example.com wrote:
> I am in this camp also. I want to stick in a boot floppy that boots
> LISP/OS. 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'd like that, too; using a Linux kernel seems too mutch of
a kludge to me... that's purely gutlevel, though. Utah OSKit's
the way to go, IMHO!
> If you really want to avoid doing work at
> that level I would propose taking something like the Mach 4 server and
> implementing the OS as a service on top of that.
This, too, would do.
> We want a fast Lisp/OS on stock hardware thats portable. Mach
> did it, BSD did it. We should do it.
However, there's a lot of low level cruft like driver support, which
causes sheer programmer drudgery, and is much the same between OSs, just
perhaps in a different language! I think there is much to gain from starting
with a standard driver set, and implementing everything from there up in Lisp.
Reimplement the drivers in Lisp, too, if their C-ness causes problems,
but either way, we'll want to be able to link C code in easily, purely
because people ask for that facility.
Alaric B. Williams (firstname.lastname@example.org)
---<## OpenDOS FAQ ##>---
Plain HTML: http://www.delorie.com/opendos/faq/
Fancy HTML: http://www.deltasoft.com/faq0000.html