What are the goal of MOOSE

[ANDREASA@dhhalden.no]

>    I've been pushing a bit for a name to help unify and solidify the
> group. It is a lot easier to say "I'm working on Project X" than to say
> "I'm working with Joe Random Group to put together the Foobar System."
> When I say "GNU", you know what I am talking about, even though the
> name doesn't specify it's goals. What's in a name? A rose by any other
> name would smell as sweet. But would you want to call it "That Red
> Flower"?  A name is just something to focus upon. That and the fact
> that I really don't like "MOOSE". :-)
Get your point, but as Fare'(?) said, if we shall give it a name that
correspond to its features, describes its inner workings, we should define
what these are first? Still, I love MOOSE.

>    With this philosophy, we would never have to worry about
> overpopulation. :-)
Obviously the Chinese and Indians knows the meaning of life.:-)

>    Facts, as seen through anyone's eyes, are perceptions.
Perceptions, ok then.
>
> =>We are developing for the PC based market, aren't we. We are talking Mac,
> =>PC, Amiga, we are talking 68020, 030 and 80386. The 80386 is commonly
> =>equiped with an isa/eisa bus. Ide hard disk controller, svga card and mouse.
>
>    Yeah, sounds pretty standard. However, if somehow we manage to get
> people to like our system, we will probably want to be able to port
> it to some of the more powerful systems.

Not unlikely, do you take care of the Alpha part...
Let's make the system before we start to port it, is that ok for you all?

> =>What do we know of the common PC users of today?
>
>    Far too much, in my experience. :-)

I'm not to sure about that...

> =>Is this OS only for programmers.
>
>    The OS should always be for the programmers; the user interface
> should be for the users.

I can't say I agree, even I get unsure when I start early versions of
WordPerfect, or Lotus 123, and I am a programmer.
And for that reason, I never use a program that can't compile my scribblings
:-)

>    David vs. Goliath? :-)

Yeap, but the other way in a sense. Most (programers) people that I talk
with, hate windows, so they shouldn't be hard to convince, if it's good
enough...

>    So we make both. The stuff underneath stays the same. As long as we
> know from the start that we want to support both and build in the
> required functionality, we should be fine.

If we make both things we risc ending up with a new Windows, suffering from
the OS.
"Windows NT from those who brought you Windows"
...
"Windows from those who brought you Edlin"

>    My point would be that people don't use an OS, they use applications.
> Even if we write the perfect OS, no one is going to use it if there are
> no applications available for it. If wide acceptance is going to be a
> primary goal, then we are going to need an application programming
> group once we start getting close to release.

Yes, but how should we enforce a standard user interface for the apps, if
we don't put some restrictions on what can be done. (See my part with
WordPerfect) Without a standard ui, it will not get accepted.

>    I hope you mean the interface, and not the code. :-)
Don't be to sure :-) SuperCard for the masses... :-( sorry, just kidding...

Got to do some work.

Have a nice day.

Arff
sig.'s in for 1000 miles service
        --Andreas Arff          andreasa@sofus.dhhalden.no--