Organization [djo0]

[Dan Odom]

I am afraid that my first message in over a month must be a critical one.
Oh, well; such are the ways of CompuGeeks :-)

>From the mind of David Garfield came:
> 
[Much of David's quote of Dennis deleted]
> > (Oh...I didn't put the GUI on here because its not a device.)
> 
> Just because it isn't a device doesn't mean it doesn't deserve equal 
> consideration....  In fact, most of the system should be non-device 
> classes.

I am opposed to the idea of developing the interface right now.
Personally, I can't stand a GUI.  Hate them with a passion (any
interface that spends more time entertaining the user than getting
actual work done has problems).  If we hold off on the development
of the UI until the end, each Mooser will be free to develop
his own interface.  Then we can offer several choices to the end
user.

[More deleted]

> I must disagree.  EVERYTHING should support multiple users.  In the 
> case of a serial port, there is no reason why several dozen different 
> programs cannot all be writing strings of data to a log printer on a 
> serial device.  Offhand I can think of only 1 device (piece) that 
> cannot have multiple users is the PC/AT keyboard drivers ResetCPU 
> function, which, if a call gets past security checks, NEVER RETURNS 
> AND TAKES OUT (terminates with extreme prejudice) MOOSE.

I agree with this, but we'll have to put some serious work in to the
various spoolers involved.

[Still more deleted]

> Nothing should require extensions to the kernel.

On the contrary, EVERYTHING should require extensions to the kernel.
A loaded device driver should be treated as a part of the kernel,
even if we use a Unix-style interface.

> 
> P.S.  Dennis, try to avoid tabs...

Please!  And, if we're going to quote like this, everyone should
try to stop typing by the 72nd column or so.

-- 
Dan Odom
danodom@matt.ksu.ksu.edu -- Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS

Support the League for Programming Freedom.  Mail lpf@uunet.uu.net